With pact weapon cantrip allowing u to still be SAD I would kinda prefer intelligence since the only class that would benefit would be bladesingers and they're still squishy casters. But at the same time I want wisdom back for my SAD beast master ranger with returning pact trident, have both the beast and trident knocking down everyone.
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф I’d be okay with charisma and intellect. How wise can you be if you make a pact with an other worldly being? I’m sure it doesn’t have your best interest in mind, and only sees you as a tool to best serve its purposes.
Yeah I don’t understand why they don’t make the monk OP, it’s been the most underused class / underpowered class since 2014. There’s never going to be a perfect balance just give the monk it’s time to be good. I know the survey from monks UA is getting terrible reviews.
This! They should really add a lot of the things that make monks good in bg3 to dnd. Especially tavern brawler. Fixing their ac to a static number plus their Wis mod instead of pigeon holing them into a dex build would do a number for them. That or create a feat like what tavern brawler gives in bg3, but doubling dex instead of str.
Of course, Eldritch Knight have so few spell slots, what is the problem to give them this? As a level 6 subclass feature would make inviable to dip multiclass to abuse this
Counterspell should probably clarify what happens to the Material Component needed to cast the spell too (if it's consumed as part of the casting). I presume it's not consumed, just like the slot isn't expended, but would be nice to have it written.
If I understood the last part of this video your spell-slot isn't consumed but any material components that would otherwise be consumed by the spell ARE consumed, but agreed it is something that'll be great to clarify and I'll be sure to add that suggestion once the survey comes online.
I think spells only consume material components if a spell slot is used, so I'm assuming it no longer causes the countered spell to waste those materials. Regardless, I'm glad they nerfed counterspell so it doesn't cheese mage encounters but it's still remains a very useful spell.
Really hoping we get flexible Warlock spellcasting stat, pet class rangers, and a way to make Monk resources more usable. I want them WOTC to realise that just because a feature isn't perfect doesn't mean that it should be dropped. Best rule for design and DMing is fail forward
I would say the one issue with flexible casting stat is how pact weapon cantrip makes it the best 1 level dip for both other half caster classes and makes them SAD. Monk will most likely be in playtest 8. I wish they would only choose xanathars subclasses instead of just porting Tasha ones. With weapon mastery the kensei would of been the perfect subclass to revise but they skipped it to port over mercy...
@@jacenstargazer How would you feel about a fighter subclass that gives you everything from Ranger, but without a pet feature? And would you want to keep the spellcasting? I haven't heard the point of view you have on ranger before and I'd really love to hear more of your thoughts
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj Dang, yeah that does make sense. I mean I still really want it though, and Warlock is already an amazing dip for Paladins and Sorcerers, so I think maybe it would be ok since I can't see any of the other half casters benefiting as much as Paladin does from it And oh man I really hope we do see more Xanathar subclasses. Kensei is so awesome, though I think we might see a name change like Way of Steel or Way of the Blade
@@eliascabbio7598 Honestly I think they were fine using just Arcane. I think what could have made them distinct is treating them like extremely prepared casters, with prepared meta-magic like effects on a selected spell, kinda like the spell craft they were working on. Then if Sorcerer was choose your own list and had more of a spell point system (since being rigid and organized is weird for a sorcerer and sorcery points can be mixed together with them), wizard would absolutely be master of prepared spells and distinct.
@@BestgirlJordanfish totally agree, I really think that Create and Modify spell were awesome mechanics, they would've really made the wizard feel different and unique, especially considering spell preparation. Honestly, I would still create a 4th list for wizards, so wizard's fans won't complain for not feeling special anymore
I agree, unfortunately DnD community pushed back too hard on other topics like OGL, so WotC they decide to make a step back and risk less, and we ended up in a less optimal situation for both. That happens when people are not mature enough to accept compromises.
It's supposed to be 5e with a facelift. The more recent playtests are in line with this. If you don't believe there is enough experimentation then that's the fault of your expectations.
If we are going back to class spell lists, THEN GIVE SORCERERS AND BARDS NEW EXCLUSIVE SPELLS THAT REINFIRCE THEIR FLAVOUR. if a full caster's defining feature is full casting, every full caster should have unique spells that only they can do. Give bards summoning and destructive spells, it wont break The game
@@Chaosmancer7 id be ok with wizards having their broken spells for themselves if IT DOESNT MEAN HAVING UNIQUE SPELLS IS THEIR EXCLUSIVE CLASS TRADEMARK.
@@muriomoira Just cause I looked it up when he said that I thought I'd share, in 5e Bards currently have 3 exclusive spells (full list 156, so 1.9% unique). Sorcerers have 1 (chaos bolt) out of 220 (~0.5% unique) Wizards have 27 out of 337, or ~8% unique
Giving Bards summoning and destructive spells standard would ruin their flavor. Bards have the most flavorful spell list in the game as is: enchantments, illusions, buffs, healing. They are focused on supporting the party and being tricky, not on general all-around spellcasting. That's why they lack those things in the first place, because it's a core part of their identity.
@@Zevox87 the bard is an amalgam of diferent concepts from all around the world. The standard skald and troubador aren't the ONLY interpretation of the class bc the concept of art, stories and passion being Inherently magical is something older than writen history. No, the bard class shouldn't be reduced into a single eurocentric interpretation of it and a bard that conjures armies and monsters from their own legends and immolate people with their sick solos are as valid AND common interpretations of the thrope as your bard that enchants and eludes. You're free to play an enchanting and eluding bard, but I dont want people that like a diferent but as valid interpretation of the thrope to be pidgeon holed into a single permutation of it.
@@nintendolegoboyLet’s say Reckless Attack makes it a ten percent chance for the sake of easy math (which is technically being generous). That’s an average of .65 extra points of damage per attack. At the same level Wizards can transform into dragons and alter the fabric of reality. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a good change. Just not what I would expect.
It is the core Barbarian's own take at enhancing criticals like the Champion Fighter gets. The Champion Fighter crits on an 18-20 starting at level 15, and Barbarians get to Reckless Attack with advantage to crit-fish for 3d12 extra damage at level 17. They each have their own accompanying abilities that give them theior own strengths, but they are both competitive.
Counterspell would be cooler if it was a contested roll based on the casting stats - the magical version of grappling (but not literally, since Grappling *still sucks* just as bad as it alway has, if not worse now than in 2014). Concentration being a Con save makes sense, since it represents having to overcome bodily damage to maintain a spell effect; that’s not what’s happening when Counterspell is at play, that’s 2 casters going at it battling for magical dominance. A Con save would only make sense if Counterspell was something physical; my Wizard is not running up to 60 feet to an enemy creature and physically interrupting their casting by smacking its hands/stuffing their hand in the creatures throat/etc. (at 8 strength, I doubt a Wizard would have the athletic capacity to even move that much, especially as a Reaction). Just doesn’t seem that well thought out.
Right. Con save doesn't make any sense here. It should be something like a contested roll with spellcasting+proficiency+level of spell being countered vs spellcasting+proficiency+level of counterspell. Or they could keep higher level counterspell as autocounters and use the contested roll if the counterspell is of equal or lesser level to the spell being countered.
We make Concentration to be one of the skills, since through training one can increase their power of Concentration. It receives the constitution modifier and any proficiency and/or expertise.
Opposed ability checks in combat are super swingy because ability/skill checks are wildly disparate between two different creatures. You are either amazing because you specced into it, or you really suck at it. I believe Saving Throws are a better mechanic for these interactions.
@@samsimpson3808 It would be two spellcasters using their spellcasting modifier, so that wouldn't be an issue in this case. It would do what WOTC wants here: take into account the power of the two spellcasters.
What's with the obsession of having to be out of a resource completely to gain anything back on Initiative? Just let them have the resource as "regain expended resource of up to X when you roll for Initiative".
they are scared of the bag of rats exploit and maybe can't think of a better wording. Maybe they could do, you gain x points when you roll initiative and they disappear when initiative ends if not spent.
@@mattbriddell9246It appears that they are adding new subclasses as well. College of Dance Bard and the new Path of the World Tree Barbarian are the ones we know of, but there could be others. In addition they're collecting a lot of the best subclasses from other supplements into the new PHB so give more interesting options from the jump. I personally do wish the design team was allowed to take more risks and push the design, but I reckon that WotC kind of put them in a bind with promising backwards compatibility and trying not to rock the boat too much by not calling this a new edition.
I was so excited to see how they changed Wild Magic Sorc because it's one of my favorite subclasses flavor wise but pretty lame mechanically & then here they make it pretty much the exact same... even uses the same old lame surge table. Freaking lazy!
@@5-VoltTo be fair, Wild Magic is just one of those subclasses that are hard to design because of the inherent randomness. I understand why it's appealing to some people but I'd rather just do away with Wild Magic subclasses entirely and make it an optional rule you can add to spellcasting.
See, now it's TOO similar to how it was. People will (rightly) ask why we need a whole new edition, when another errata book a la Tasha's Cauldron should suffice.
its not a whole new edition. its a updating to the core rule books. TTRPGs do this all the time. call of cathulu has never once completely changed there system but they have rereleased there core rule books several times building, exspanding and fixing older issues that an errata would be to small and a players resource book wouldn't be right because there meant to add ontop the core rules. in fact Pizo the guys who made pathfinder just announced there working on a "version 2" or whatever the'll end up calling it of there 2e core book. it cant be an errata because that's only for very minor changes such as rule clarifying and most often spelling errors. very small stuff that if you bought the original 2014 book and you got anther 1 in 2020 they be almost identical. thank of them like hotfixs to a video game. so small most people will notice it happened. it cant be something like tasha's or XGTE because there expansions. they dont CHANGE anything. they add on top to the core rulebook. you cant make a character with just a copy of Tasha's. you'd be missing the entirety of the rest of the rules, spells and base class's. this is like your expansions for a game. it dont change much to the base game but gives you entirely new things to play with and explore. very long story short a core rulebook update is needed but this isnt the next edition despite that offal naming as One D&D no its more closer to 5.5. a heavily updated but backwards combatable thing. you should be able to play the 2024 books WITH tasha's and XGTE at the same time. might be a little overlap since they seem to be barrowing some content from the other 2 but not everything and more importantly nothing of it will conflict.
@@bradleywindham4927 there is no universe in which I would buy this new book for convenience. For one, I have dndbeyond, which is so vastly superior to physical books even with its relative bugginess as of late, and since getting it I've never started a new player on physical books. The problem with your point of 'thats what we were promised from the start' is that a.) it's _not_ what they demonstrated from the start and b.) any new collection of rules called the PHB, Monster Manual, and DMG is functionally a new edition. Acting like it's anything else when you're replacing the previous versions of those books and the rules therein is semantic nitpicking. The first four UAs were super experimental and incredibly exciting and obviously received with some mixed results, but without telling us that they were likely going to cut anything that didn't massively outshine the PHB equivalents from a satisfaction score perspective, no one could know how their feedback _should_ be targeted. I know from a relatively mid-sized sampling that a lot of playtesters, myself included, were harsher on the early packets because of key things I felt needed refinement, not because they were bad or worse in some ways. In point of fact, they kept all the most confusing aspects of the changes that they did put forward - universal subclass selection at level 3 feels so awkward without the standardized class progression. There are huge problems with how 5e works that were not addressed at all that _wouldn't_ require a new edition.
@@babyyeti2540 It's not how it was originally advertised though. They are saying things like PHB 2024 or 5e 2024 now, but originally, they had a new name for it 'One Dnd', and the original play tests changed a LOT from 5e Now it's just gonna be tashas 2.0, which doesn't feel worth the multi year wind up of what will be like 8 or 9 UAs.
@@JottoHearthStoneit was originally advertised as such, every developer said it was a backwards compatible update. Onednd was not the name of justthe “new edition” but the initiative to have the updated 5e, dndbeyond as a hub and the new vtt. It could have been very different but people were not happy with that, so iterration it is
Flexible warlock casting was the best idea they have ever had, i hope they bring it back. Same for Monk weapons, I really want it back. and for the love of god, give martials things they can do outside of combat! I think they should lean into the fantasy element of the martials way more, like they started doing with the Barbarian. I think that is a good way of balancing the game out a lot and appease the martial crowd. 5e is a monster slaying game we "all" kinda just agreed to play as a story game instead in the past 5 years. They should lean into that! (Combat is still fun though)
"5e is a monster slaying game we "all" kinda just agreed to play as a story game instead in the past 5 years. They should lean into that!" My brother in Crom, perhaps play a storygame instead?
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5фIagree, Warlock was Int-based in dndnext and should have stayed that way. Only Bladesinger would be busted, but perhaps we just would not have that subclass in the first place.
@@ARedMongoose Yea... i am, its called 5e. Now i am not going to make the assumption that every single DnD game out there is Story driven, but I would quite confidently say that the majority of games out there focus on plot and story with combat serving the plot. As i said, we "all" kinda just started playing 5e as a story game, that makes 5e a story game... Its like watching The room as a comedy movie, it isn't one by design, but if most people who watch it regards it as a comedy, it then becomes one. Lastly. Are you really expecting a DnD player to play anything but 5e?? Bold of you to assume so, you clearly haven't seen enough AI generated reddit stories about DnD Players.
Hope the final version of Monk is buffed so the new Brawler fighter doesn’t over shadow it. I took a look and it looks really good I’m just concerned with a fighter subclass being better at martial arts than a monk.
we already have a dance monk subclass that does everything monk could hope to do but better, so really who cares at this point. If Brawler is better than Monk, at least h2h combat isn't dead.
Unarmed Fighting Style gives you 1d8+Strength punches. That means a level 1 Fighter has the punching die of a level 11 Monk. By the time the Fighter gets to level 11, they can attack three times using a standard attack action and they still have action surge. :/ Monk has a looong way to go - that or they need to more effectively carve its niche, which I believe is anti-mage.
Not going to lie this is the moat underwhelming UA, Deffo wouldn't convince me to buy the 2024 book if all it is is minor tweaks. I feel like trying to keep this compatible with 5E is hindering actually making any meaningful changes to these classes.
Well, what they’re doing is attempting to sell it as “a new evolution of D&D,” when in reality, it should be called 5th edition with a patch update LOL. The reason they’re not outright saying it’s incompatible with rules is bc that would lower the sales of books leading up to the release. Why would I buy Planescape if I won’t be able to play it with the new character options? But on the other hand, they (they being executives, btw) want to pitch it to the consumer as “a new version!” To drive sales of the new book
All Sorcerer Subclasses NEED to have Additional Spells lists like Aberrant Sorcery and Clockwork Sorcery. If you do not do this then Draconic and Wild Magic will be less popular than than Aberrant and Clockwork. I would be fine with reverting the Sorcerer to having fewer "Known Spells" if you are universally providing some via the Subclass. Doing it this way also opens up providing the subclasses with spells outside of the normal Sorcerer Spell List when it is thematically evocative. Also, Divine Soul should be in the PHB. It is the Sorcerer subclass that allows for the most divergent build-making amongst all of the Sorcerer subclasses. It allows you to fulfill a role that normally cannot be fulfilled by a Sorcerer, while also remaining distinct from the Cleric. It is also thematically evocative in a way that isn't really serviced by any other Class or Subclass.
What is supposed to be anyone’s motivation to play a monk mechanically if the brawler fulfills that niche in a stronger class? I’m not against the brawler, but the monk is on life support man…
The motivation is that brawler is just bad. Most of its features are available to any fighter at level 1 (Unarmed Fighting Style+Tavern Brawler), and the only fancy ones are giving traits and masteries to improved weapons and increasing the damage at 15th level. So it's actually a worst substitute for monk than other subclasses of fighter, which have been like this since Tasha, yet I don't see people not playing monk anymore. Its full focus (unarmed strikes and improvised weapons) has also no way to bypass resistances, something extremely common from medium level and upwards, and a problem solved by monks pretty early. And finally you're ignoring that the "niche" you're suggesting is attacking with unarmed hits, something monks can do more often, harder (especially at higher levels), and that they have entire subclasses and extra features tied to that. Monk is not "ruined" because someone slapped a d8 unarmed strike on a very bad fighter subclass
@@giorgiomauceri410 I haven’t gotten a chance to look at the document myself yet, so thanks for the breakdown. I see all of your points, but I’m speaking more from the perspective of punching an archetype while it’s down. Sure, you can make a compelling case for why the monk is superior to the brawler fighter, but then mechanically what benefit does the brawler provide? Being an inferior version of the debatably weakest class in the game isn’t something the fighter needs in its kit. Also, given everything you’ve said, it’s still debatable that the fighter’s base class attributes put the Brawler above the Monk. Fighters have less of a dependence on several ability scores, their armored armor class is almost always greater, their hit points are far superior, and they have more weapons/weapon masteries at their disposal generally. Now, I’m aware that weapons specifically aren’t necessarily benefitting a brawler who wants to fight in melee, but that just demonstrates how mechanically foul brawling is… regardless of class or subclass. It’s just a cool archetype that I really wanna see them get right
@@giorgiomauceri410it seems pretty obvious from changes seen in previous UAs that resistance to "non magical damage" won't be a thing anymore. The real problem for the Brawler is you will never see any of your subclass abilities work once you pick up a magic weapon. Everything about the subclass relies on improvised weapons or unarmed strikes and those will always be objectively worse than the +1 sword you get at level 4. So it's basically a fighter with no subclass.
@@Gorbology yeah, but what I meant with that post was to make you notice that the Brawler doesn't offer anything new to fighters. Fighters could already do that and better. All the main tools of the brawler have been available for years, yet they didn't substitute the monk. If anything, they are useless at high levels because they offer no way of bypassing resistances. And at low levels the monk is still better at punching, as they can punch more often as a basis and can spend points to punch even more. The monk wasn't impacted at all with the introduction of the unarmed fighting style, or tavern brawler, yet many people think that if you make those 2 a subclass then the monk suffers from it.
@@ryanbarham8464 You shouldn't need incentive to use a resource that does effective things, and you shouldn't need a reason to spend them for no reason. Making it only work at zero means that you just arbitrarily have to use all your remaining points immediately when a battle ends if you want to get any back on the next initiative, which means you sacrifice the ability to save 1 or 2 for utility purposes outside of combats. It's ugly rule-design, when you can't just phrase it to be, "if the DM asks you to roll initiative and you have less than X Points, then you regain Points so that you have X Points available" or just "you regain X Points when the DM has you roll initiative."
@@minimoose7890 I don't get it at all. 100% agree with you - there is absolutely zero danger to "When you roll Initiative, you regain [x] expended Sorcery Points," and the truly wild thing is, because of how people are _so deeply bad_ at reading rules, I guarantee you that's the way most tables are going to wind up playing anyway, with this feature and the Ki/Focus Points feature and the Battle Master feature and literally any feature that does this.
Yea. If the DM is on the same page they can be great fun, but they can be just as easily shut down. Less ambiguity about their functioning would be appreciated.
At this stage there’s so few changes from the current 5e that there’s no need to release a whole new edition. Just do a book like Tasha’s for the new character options. Then do a DMG 2.0
They've already stated that they are just straight up reprinting some of the Tasha's subclasses in the new PHB. That along with barely changing things is extremely lazy..
That's basically what this is... They've said many times "This isn't a new edition! It's a continuation!" which has always sounded like marketing fluff, but if that's what you want it's what you're getting. This book would just mean a new player doesn't need to buy both PHB and this newest book to have the newest options.
@@isaac_marcus you are slightly wrong. While this is a continuation of what we have, they are treating the release as if it is a whole new edition. They are releasing a whole new core trio of books. They don’t need to do that. They just need to release a “Tasha’s” 2.0 for the PHB and a more useful DMG
@iParaShane I think I slightly disagree but that's mostly semantics I think so not important. That's said, assuming that these changes ARE mostly better, I would rather they release it as a PHB 2.0 than a Tashas 2.0. Cause I think that changes the content we'll get basically not at all, but it means it will be easier to get new people into the game cause they'll have fewer books to buy. And one of my favorite things is seeing new people get into my favorite hobby
My TLDR on the 2024 PHB is that you can find a PDF version of it, print off ~10 pages from it, stuff them in your 2014 PHB and be good to go. Y'all set out like you were taking risks, and it was cool. Pulling back on almost everything is SUPER dissappointing
i was so looking forward for the modify spell and create spell, wizards are completely stuck with mostly fire based damage dealing spells and being able to alter them was fantastic and being able to create new spells was greate. they basically retracted all the cool things they had set up
Honestly, the 3 spell lists system was very very cool, and made this edition feel refreshingly new. If the wizard was the problem, just make a custom expanded spell list, and add specific spells to other class too. For the rest, it's all good
I 100% agree, also I think it was a mistake to remove the modify spell and create spell features as while some may have thought it stepped on the toes of the sorcerer it makes sense for Wizards who are supposed to be the masters of magic to have a way to manipulate spells to a small degree.
@@declanmorden Yes I agree, there are lots of very cool and revolutionary ideas and they were completely scrapped, that's too bad. I think we should motivate them to adjust and fix the new mechanics instead of scrap them
Uhhh... JC literally lied about Wild Magic surges in this video. He said "Immediately after you cast a spell of 1st level or higher, you can roll on the surge table. You can just do it! Full stop" but in the playtest pdf you have to roll a d20 & roll a nat 20 to roll on the table... Assuming your DM allows you to every time you cast a spell, like most seem to do, it's the same as it was. Only difference is it happens on a nat 20 instead of a nat 1. Also, the table is the exact same as the 2014 table. This is pure freaking laziness & killed my excitement of them changing the wild magic sorc to actually be better & more fun/chaotic.
Really, it feels like everything that made this One D&D thing unique and more streamlined is being peeled away. The shared spell lists made everything easier for players and DMs. If it is an identity problem have a smaller unique spell list for each spell casting class, then the player gets to decide if they want only stay with shared spells or branch out into the unique stuff. Also, I’ve seen people say that the Intelligence and Wisdom options for Warlock didn’t make sense, but the reasons seem flimsy. Not all beings you make a pact with are chaotic or evil, so yes, a Warlock might think it would be a good idea to make a pact with a powerful celestial or forest spirit for power.
I really liked the counterspell change, but i do think that the main factor to a spellcaster to resist a counterspell should be related to his spellcasting ability score, since most the times it is his highest ability score. Also many beings that are spellcasters doesn't have proficiency in constitution saving throws. Archmages (Basic rules) for example only have 12 of constitution ability score.
I hate the counterspell change. Feels like it was designed with pvp in mind. Con saves are the easiest save to make for high cr creatures so youve basically made the spell worthless against any kind of endgame caster; especially since on the off chance it does work they dont even consume their spell slot, which wotc has been moving away from creature design anyway. For an example take a look at critical role: vox machina's final battle. No spoilers but if this version of counterspell was the one they had access to then they would have lost that fight without question. The bbeg would have stomped them without breaking a sweat.
@@caosisaac Spoken like someone who has never had one of their own big spells countered. Current counterspell rules make it way too easy to just shut down both NPC and PC spell casters. Using a 3rd lvl slot to completely (and rather easily) eliminate a 9th lvl slot and potentially an entire turn is no fun for anyone. There are no tactics to it, you just say no and might have to roll a pretty easy check if you use a lower slot than you're countering. It feels awful to be on the receiving end of a counterspell and feel like there is nothing you can do about it whether you're the DM or a player. Yes, some spell casting monsters have high Con saves but there are plenty of standard human, elven, gnomish, ect caster enemies that have low Con and would be easier to counter. Besides, countering a level 20 dracolich shouldn't be as simple as countering an apprentice caster still using magical training wheels. Targeting the caster's main ability score on the other hand would almost universally make it much more difficult to ever get a counter off. I would need to see this new version in action a few times, but reading over it I think it's a good change that will make caster battles much more interesting on both sides. I also think you misjudge Matt as a DM if you think he would have "stomped them without breaking a sweat."
@@CandleLight129 My problem is the Power word: Kill. Player won't waste lvl 9 spell for it, but the DM can use it freely since tomorrow there will be another evil NPC to be "killed" and after that you need to be glad that you get a resurrection. That's the ultimate solution? You could be prepared, but I can always kill you instantly no matter what. Is that ok? And it has no saving throw. That's ok?
@@CandleLight129 i've dm'd for years and have many spells counterspelled. I just also prescribe to the notion that anything players can do i can do. Or have you never thought to give youre bbeg counterspell and/or minions with counterspell?
@@caosisaac Oh I live by the "anything you can do they can do also" rule, especially when offering my players the option fun house rules. The problem with counterspell isn't that only the players can do it, it's that it's not fun. It in fact often ruins the fun thing that someone was about to do, which is why I rarely use it against my players. When the wizard has a whole plan they're excited to put into motion and finally throws their big 6th level spell at someone just to have it countered and wasted, that sucks. I've had it happen to me as a player and it feels bad, so I don't like to do it very often to my players. This new rule at least makes it more of a tactical choice rather than an almost guaranteed shut-down. As for the Power Word Kill point @Csiki27 put forth, I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I know I used 9th lvl spells in my original example but honestly in my experience few people make it to those higher levels and when they do, there's all kinds of crazy stuff happening on both sides of the screen. I feel like counterspell has a bigger impact on lvl 5-12 where spells are less reality warping in scope. I may be misunderstanding, but any DM that is going to throw Power Word Kill at their players time and again seems to be playing a very antagonistic game. Any DM can kill their players when and however they want, regardless of what counterspell rules they're using. The point is usually to create a fun environment and narrative for and with your players. My main point is that this version sounds like it will allow for more fun situations at the table.
These "get some of your special resources back if you have none at the start of combat" features need to be modified to allow an increase to the same minimum even if they have 1. Example: if a 10th level Sorcerer has 1 Sorcery point at the start of combat, they should still go up to 2 points at the start of combat. It is silly that if they have none they go up to 2 but if they have 1 they stay at 1. This has been a problem for a while and I have to believe it isn't that hard to write these features to make it happen, especially since some of them (Bardic Inspiration) can be dumped on stupid things ("Hey, go pick up that rock so I can give you inspiration before we open the door and surprise the baddies").
So basicly the Brawler is here because it was easier to dress up the fighter as a hand to hand class instead of just improving monk in a meaningful way. I aint gonna lie i feel like they are gonna get rid of the monk instead of putting any reasonable effort towards improving it.
UA 8 is time for them to make some big buffs and changes to the monk, since it's scheduled to be the last version they release before the 2024 handbook. They'll release this next one and we can give feedback, and then that's it. 😱😱😱
45:13 Hearing Monk getting better resource management is exactly what people wanted since the start. More cool features and lessening the painpoints are all good to see.
problem is that they seem to want to do it the same way they are doing with sorcerer, where if you roll initiative and have absolutely zero of the resource left, you get a very small amount back. If they implement it the same for monks as they are doing with sorcerers it will be even worse, as while sorcerers still have spell slots, and metamagic is a side resource, for monks ki/discipline points are their only resource which is kept painfully low because of their short rest class status. so when monks get this ability at level 5. they will only get 1 ki point back if they start combat with no points left. What would help is if they could stop having the restriction that you have to have 0 points left. What they could do is say, you gain X points whenever you roll initiative that go away when initiative ends if not spent or something like that to avoid being abused
@@fullmetalpotato1258 hopefully when they said 'like sorcerers ' it's only similar and not the same, because as you said only getting 1 ki/focus point at initiative ( at level 5) would feel awful. Ideally/ best case it follows the warlock; do a quick meditation and get a number of ki/focus back once a long rest. Or like the fighter battlemaster; get a free ki/focus each round but this would have to be a later level
@@TrueAmbienceWorks maybe. I really think they should start removing ki costs from core features. Flurry of blows should not cost ki, they have to do it every round just to do less damage than most martials. They can barely even use weapon mastery since that can often lower their damage too since weapons dont get the martial arts die. Maybe patient defense could be +2 to AC and dex saves for a round instead of dodging, and step of the wind could be dash or disengage like a rouge does. At least then monks can use Ki on the cool stuff.
The Counterspell change also means high level Bards can no longer automatically counterspell every spell by, for example, casting Glibness. In 2014, Glibness lets you treat a roll of 15 or lower on a Charisma check as a 15. Then, Bard adds their Charisma modifier. Then because it is an ability check that does not already include the proficiency bonus, Jack of all Trades adds half to proficiency bonus. So as an example, the lowest my level 15 Bard can roll on the ability check - assuming she's got Glibness running - is 15 + 4 + 2, or 21. The highest difficulty rating is 10 + 9, or 19 - and so barring some magic, with the old rules, I can just use level 3 counterspell and sit back and file my nails, tossing out a Cure wounds here, a Conjure Volley there... I'd like to see a creature channeling a spell be unable to cast Counterspell - the counterspell loops get silly and it's an easy fix to say while you are channeling a spell, you cannot take a reaction without aborting the cast. Let them keep the slot.
But it's become useless for everyone else now basically. A CR 4 Couatl has a +8 to Con saving throws. A CR 5 Cambion has a +5 to Con saving throws. If your casting stat is at +5, that's a 55% chance for Counterspell to succeed. A CR 6 Water Naga has a +6 to Con saving throws Counterspell is a 3rd level spell slot. I would NOT be betting a 3rd level spell slot on a coin flip that isn't even in my favor because it doesn't consume their spell slot. Once you get to CR 7+ your Counterspell is useless because already creaturs have ridiculous con bonuses in the double digits. In other words, the spell is only useful MAYBE for one or two levels from 6-7.
@floofzykitty5072 At later levels your 3rd level spell slots are getting less valuable, so it is still worth it try to expend a reaction to take away an action from another spellcaster!
@@PerikleZ87 Con save? The strongest save in the game? Seriously? New CS is useless. Even at higher levels, when the lower-level slots are (only in theory) less valuable.
I get going back to class spell lists. Make sense and addresses mine and others concerns about class identity. Yet you could still have Primal, Acrane, and Divine spell lists. They'd just be smaller and hold the most common spells. That way you could say the Wizard has access to the spells on the Arcane list as well as the Wizard spell list.
The fact that people think the class identity for the Wizard is how big their spell list is, in my opinion, is the real problem here. That's a crappy vision of what a class is about
@@nojusticenetwork9309 I agree, spell list size is a poor way to identify for a class. Wizard class identity to me has always been thoughtful preparation vs. sorcerer flexibility in the moment.
I don't know what people are on with the Counterspell changes. I'm going to prove Counterspell has become useless. Two arguments I saw supporting the change: 1. Casters have low Con, so Counterspell will still have a decent chance of working against them A: No, they don't. There's literally nothing in the books that say NPC spellcasters have to have low Con. Relative to other monsters, casters do have statistically low Con SCORES, but the majority of caster NPCs have proficiency in Con saving throws giving them a +5 on top of the +1-3 they already have. Your saving throws physically cannot keep up with the Con scores of higher level monsters even at the levels you get Counterspell. Additionally, you don't consume their Spell Slot so they can keep trying on the off chance your Counterspell succeeds. Just some NPC caster examples of varying CR: A CR 4 Couatl has a +8 to Con saving throws. This is before you even get Counterspell and it's less than a 50% chance for it to succeed. A CR 5 Cambion has a +5 to Con saving throws. If your casting stat is at +5, that's a 55% chance for Counterspell to succeed. A CR 6 Water Naga has a +6 to Con saving throws (50% chance to succeed... This is at level 6 your Counterspell is a coin flip. This is not an effective use of a 3rd level spell slot.) A CR 9 Glabrezu has a +14 to Con saving throws. Useless to Counterspell since 10% chance to succeed. A CR 10 Lammasu has a +15 to Con saving. Have to roll a natural 1 vs a caster with a 20 in their casting stat. A CR 16 Planetar has a +19 to Con saving. The list goes on. If you think this change is healthy for counterspell then you basically want the spell removed for players. It's basically only useful against PCs who actually will have pretty poor Con stats as casters. 2. You can burn the boss Legendary Resistance! A: No, you won't. Keep in mind that if the boss succeeds naturally they don't have to use their Legendary Resistance. If you SOMEHOW get a creature with Legendary Resistance to fail, they will burn ONE of their three Legendary Resistances. Oh, and they can just try casting the spell again on their next turn. Lich's have +13 to Con and Legendary Resistance. It is a complete waste of a 3rd level slot to try Counterspelling a Lich.
Champion still has the Jump spell problem. A running longjump needs 10ft of run-up. Adding 5ft makes it go from 20 to 25ft jump with 20 str. So you need 35ft speed or there's no benefit.
More spells, more invocations, reworked invocations that now might include feats, subclasses that do more in general - agreed that fiend didn’t get as much as arcfey(which is now awesome), but they were kinda the best among original three)
Barbarian will probably gain a new subclass and a revise of either ancestral or zealot subclasses. Warlock will need a revised hexblade if they are keeping pact weapon cantrip the same since they are now redundant. Sorcerer will get a new wild magic table hopefully and pick shadow and divine as the 2 other subclasses. Wizard was probably chosen with a roulette wheel. And fighter will keep the main 3 and get cavalier as the 4th subclass.
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj you can remove hex warrior from hexblade entirely and it's still a powerful subclass. so no, no revising needed. not for that reason anyway. it's still an awful subclass in terms of design and flavour
Counterspell should be brought down to a second level spell slot, its very similar to hold person now. it does only cost a reaction, but its uses are also much more limited and only lasts 1 turn on success. And having no benefit to upcasting it is a feel bad imo specially for warlocks.
just means it'll be in the second book after the PHB (2024). There's 4 wizard and I wanna say 4 or 5 Cleric subclasses from the PHB being left out to give everything else an even 4. Though why they're shoehorning in Clockwork and Aberrant Mind into PHB over Storm and Shadow Magic I don't really get. But I suspect we'll be seeing Death and/or Grave, Necromancy, and Shadow Magic in the second book of the 2024 edition.
@@fandomonium3789 I think it just means it's in a different UA . There were other schools missing such as conjuration, enchantment, necromancy and transmutation.They are are not replacing PHB classes. Only adding to them. *[EDIT:]* Nevermind. I think I found the articles confirming otherwise.
I don't know if they read this, but they need to add "Prerequiste: Level 1+ Warlock" to Pact of the Blad and Pact of the Tome to prevent Warlock Initiates from taking them.
There's a few things he mentioned that aren't actually in there, like the design notes says the Eldritch Knight can replace 2 attacks to cast a level 1 or 2 spell, put the actual feature doesn't have a level restriction. Also, he said the Wild Magic Sorcerer's Bend Luck is now a d6 instead of a d4, but that's not true, nor is it mentioned in the design notes. In the Warlock multiclass section, it also says the prerequisite is "13 in one of the Warlock's primary abilities, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma", although I think that's a holdover from the last UA with it.
Arcane Archer with more than 3 arrows a long rest from level 1-20. Add Thrown Weapon fighting for a fighter style feat. Monks having access to martial weapons so they can get some of the GOOD feats. a slight bump to MA damage dice and getting damage dice for Monk Weapons. Let monks perform their class features for free BUT it costs discipline points to enhance them. Gain feature = 1 point for boost, next boost = 2 points, next boost = 4 Ans so forth depending on feature and possible number of boosts. SO at some point at each tier their monk ability gets a bigger and bigger boost. (But the boost should be worth the investment) FOR EXAMPLE: deflect missiles. already free but for each boost, Monk can use feature one additional time per turn for self or ally 5 feet away.
I love the idea of all Warlocks pacts be an invocation. Get more tham one pact is always a personal wish. They could let you access new spells for each pact to. Ex: Pact of the Blade: Wrathfull Smite, Enhace Ability, Haste, Stoneskin, Holly Weapon (Unholly version option to) Pact of the Tome: Shield, Heat Metal, Claryvoiance, Polymorph, Flame Strike Pact of The Chain: Grease, Flaming Sphere, Hunger of Hadar, Mordenkainen’s Faithful Hound, Conjure Elementals
The new Counterspell is good, but I think there should be a new ruling for spellcasters if they are making Con Save against the casting of Counterspell, that they should use their spell modifier (Charisma, Intelligence or Wisdom) in place of their Constitution modifier. This will in fact balance Counterspell, since the classic spellcaster depictions are glass canons who might not focus their points into Constitution. This will in fact make War Caster a more desirable feat, in case spellcaster VS spellcaster Counterspell war. The end goal is that the PC casting Counterspell will still have a challenge against a BBG who might have a 22 Int score that can add their +6 Int mod in lieu of their Con score for the Constitution Saving Throw needed to overcome the PC’s Counterspell and vis versa.
I need to see how they plan on changing Wizards from what they showed. I think it was a good start but some of the wording needed to be cleaned up to ensure it wasn't problematic and potentially broken but I loved what they added. Maybe lower Spell Mastery to somewhere around 10th level because using a single 1st level spell or two at will just doesn't seem that big of a deal at 10th level and it feels pointless at near max level
Casting shield every turn would make your wizard a better tank than most marshals since they never fixed or removed the 1st level feat that gives medium armor and shield training. To early for spell mastery.
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj sure, that's actually a reasonable counter. Maybe have restrictions like it must cost an action normally. Obviously some tweaks would need to be done
Whether you keep or remove the shared spell lists, there will still be a significant overlap in the spells that spellcasters can use. What truly sets casters apart are the specific spells unique to each of them. The distinctiveness doesn't arise from grouping shared spells and labeling those groups. Shared spell lists serve the purpose of aiding players and DMs in navigating the hundreds of spells available. They don't diminish individuality nor contribute to distinctiveness. If your aim is distinctiveness, be more discerning in selecting which spells should be shared among casters, and perhaps limit the pool of shared spells. Then, create unique spell lists for each class and subclass. Don't remove a tool that simplifies players' experiences.
Shared spell lists made the universe consistent. Why can a bard cast a spell that a wizard can't, how does it work, where does it come from? Unified spell lists made it clear where the magic comes from and what forms it can assume. Classes could have features granting access to unique spell-like abilities like paladin smite or wild shape. As for wizard identity, I'd just cut out a part of arcane spell list and made it wizard-only on the basis of these spells being to complicated to understand without academic study that wizards undertake.
Barbarian, we don't want to expand the Crit range because you get expanded crit range due to advantage... Fighter, hey, on this class with the expanded crit range, have more ways to get advantage! Yeah, and you also get more attacks which give you more chances to crit, but we can't have a way for Barbarians to have an expanded crit range at all...
Why is it they needed to chop down the entire concept of Arcane, Divine, and Primal spell lists to avoid harming Wizard’s class identity? Isn’t the more obvious answer to give Wizards spell list expanding features? “The Wizard’s spell list isn’t the biggest anymore, so instead of making it bigger, we’re going to go back to every other class’s spell list being smaller.” So backwards, like why make a new book if you’re too scared to develop meaningful changes? That’s called a $70 errata. If I want to play by 2014 rules, I’ll use the 2014 handbook.
One obvious spell list expanding feature that I've always wanted personally is for Wizards of a certain school to get access to ALL spells of that school. Especially with the change of healing spells from evocation to abjuration. Didn't really make sense for the Evoker to be able to heal but the Abjurer? Why not?
They just don't know what to do with the Wizard, that's all. It's full of empty levels again. They made obviously OP changes last time (spell modify, creation) and instead of fixing it they just stepped back.
Barbarians: I guess the d12 die on crits is nice, but I really don't think it matters. Could be +100 flat damage. I played a half orc barbarian and just didn't crit much. Often when I did, it was on an already weakened enemy and the dm said I didn't even need to roll damage. I got a useful crit once every month or two - not a lot for a core feature of the barbarian. At my table, we played about 4 hrs per week, so only one combat of about 4 rounds. Reckless attacking + two attacks (0.925^8) 54% chance I wouldn't crit on any given week. Really seems like a nice ribbon feature but doesn't excite me. An extra 6.5 damage occasionally when the casters are sculpting spells, flying, and doing cool stuff really just feels bad.
As a player with barbarian experience, would you say something extreme like a buff to reckless attack being “if you haven’t moved and haven’t taken actions or bonus actions you can make a singular melee reckless attack against one enemy. If that attack hits it’s a critical hit. Attacks against you have advantage until your next turn” in place of brutal critical would be good enough or too broken? Asking as a homerule justification
@@potest_nucis8012I think there's too much focus on the idea of landing criticals. Reckless Attack already is increasing one's chances of getting a critical hit and that's a base Barbarian feature, other classes need specific subclasses to get something similar and they are all conditional. Brutal Critical isn't great, but it's also not the core of what a barbarian is or what they do. I think what you're wanting is just bigger explosive damage to which I say, you don't need to mess with the base class to do. Magic Items and feats are a better route to go. Feats would be my recommendation so that any Barbarian can grab them if they do choose. Design a feat that's slightly situational but effective. You're looking to let a barbarian FEEL powerful without going overboard.
The barbarian should do critical on command or at least have enhanced critical. I would propose a kind of Action Surge that instead of the additional action, allows the barbarian to do critical (if it hits)
So, reading through the changes: with Mystic Arcanum reverting back to 2014, what happened with those invocations that were eliminated in playtest 5 in lieu of it--like Sculptor of Flesh? Are they gonna be added to the Warlock spell list, still invocations, or gone the way of the Dodo?
The absolute irony of saying it’s too powerful to expand Barb’s crit range like the Champion because of Reckless Attack, then turn around and give Champ 1xturn free advantage.
This is the downside of the UA process. Big improvements like making Warlocks a clear half-caster with more flexible spellcasting vs a less-good full caster got voted down by people who liked the 5e version and couldn't handle them being a clear GISH class. The pact magic system SUCKS but enough people complained that they had to give up on fixing it.
@ether4211 no, Pact magic needs work but making warlocks a half caster was not the answer. They took away invocation options by taxing them to get mystic arcanum and slowed spell level progression down. Warlocks were terrible in the last UA, just give the people what they want and have Pact slot numbers increase in line with proficiency bonus (limited to class level obviously).
@@craigauty8874 that's the problem, Warlocks SHOULD be half casters on par with the Artificer with more of a focus on Invocations vs simply trying to replicate a full caster. This way you have an arcane half caster in the PHB to work alongside the Paladin for Divine and Ranger for Primal. However people had a dummyspit at the idea of slower spell progression. I'm glad the new UA increased Invocations again but we missed out on having the chance to push for players to get to 10-14 invocations with total freedom to mix and match higher level 'one per day' spells and/or 'always on abilities'. Instead people gave up the ability of more warlock exclusive invocation stacking for once per long rest spells...which made warlocks less interesting/unique.
I think pactof the chain should be like a summoner of creatures, like they start at an increased familier, and each level get to summon an Eldritch type creature, related to their patron. And add creatures to your stable each level, but only 1 at a time
Yesssssss. I’ve been hoping for a real summoner build. Even just being able to summon one creature that get buffed as you go with your patrons cosmetics or damage type influence. Conjugation mage and Shepherd Druid both just feel kinda boring and don’t fulfill the eldritch summoner feel. I want my warlock to pull out a octoclops and have eldritch blast come out it eye or shadow hound that that adds tactics for my hexblade
The truth is they never intended it to be too different from 5e, this is all a ploy to bypass the SRD by making it just different enough legally and not lose the people who got in since 5e started. Forgetting it was 3rd party content creators who helped 5e become the global phenomenon it is.
They proposed a lot of changes that didn't get good feedback - so they immediately changed it back to 5e. I don't know who else is submitting feedback - but I was looking forward to having a game that was slightly different.
@@captainrelyk I just wish we could at least meet somewhere in the middle. They are way too reactive on the feedback. It's like stuff doesn't get fleshed out very much and it's immediately back to the same thing it was for the last ten years. Trust me - I really liked 5e. I have been playing D&D since the 70's. It was one of the best rulesets we've had. But can we get a few new things in .. I just feel like we're the ones that they are asking for advice.. and the community keeps saying no to every single thing that is different.
@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj this guy^knows exactly what is up!! Its all smoke and mirrors, illusion of choice. They have had this 95% finished when they announced. You guys are just playing along, no offense.
Here is the problem with Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer. 1. The level 18 feature was always bad. It being a full action and required concertation was terrible, but it is still bad even with those changes because charm and frighten are borderline useless at level 18. Almost everything you are fighting at that level is either resistant to, or immune to charm and frighten. We need a completely new level 18 feature. Giving them Shapechange into their Draconic ancestor would be really awesome. 2. Not choosing a draconic ancestor feels like a lot of the heart and soul of the subclass is gone. I feel like much more of the subclass should be based off of that choice. And the choice should be made at level 3. 3. Why, on god's green Earth, would you include Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul and not give Draconic and Wild Magic additional spells known?! The 10+ additional spells known that Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul added so much flavor to those classes and a much needed boost in versatility. It is the #1 thing Sorcerer fans have asked for, and not giving it to Draconic and Wild Magic is just stupid. I have put this on every UA survey that has featured the Sorcerer and, once again, I will be doing the same.
Fellow sorcerer player here, here's my 2 cents: 1. Agreed on not wanting Draconic Presence. I feel like they should just replace it with, "you can true polymorph into a dragon." I'm also disappointed that all of the progress synergizing the draconic ancestry throughout the entire subclass is now gone for the sake of going back to the same old same old. 2. I have a problem with Aberrant mind and Clockwork being included for a different reason. The reason they had extra spells was because sorcerer got less spells than every other full caster (I believe it was 15 spells by lvl 20) That's been changed, as sorcerer now gets 22 spells by lvl 20. So it's not "why doesn't draconic and wild magic have extra spells," it's "why did you copy/paste two subclasses that, unchanged, don't synergize with the positive changes you've made to the class?" They could've just revised a xanathar's subclass and made a new one. Just lazily porting over the two Tasha's subclasses feels like a copout.
@@portsyde3466 I feel like Storm Sorcerer and another of the older Sorcerer subclasses should have been included. Giving them major buffs. I would honestly much rather have Sorcerers get only 15 known spells but get 10 extra spells known based on their subclass. Adds more flavor, utility, and identity to the subclasses. Plus it helps out the base class a lot. But overall, Draconic Bloodline does not feel draconic in the slightest and that is really bad.
No Necromancer for Wizard, eh? I distinctly remember them saying in some of the earlier playtest videos that we would be seeing it eventually. Ah well.
I do to. Granted, it sounded like a personal/non-scripted question from Todd (probably because he really likes Necromancer) and at the time, Jeremy may have been caught off guard or actually thought that Necromancer would make it to the new book. They did say though that any subclasses that weren't ported over from the old PHB can still be used as is. Would've been nice to get an update though.
Let's compare brutal critical to divine strike. Brutal critical adds 6 and a 1/2 damage. Every time you create divine strike adds 9 damage every time and also 4.5 every time you dont. When you think of brutal critical in the way of what if hunter's mark only worked on crits It becomes very readily apparent that it's actually a very bad feature even if you have advantage. Yet you get it 3 times as 3 high level exclusive class features But if it also had a crit range improvement. Even with advantage, The increased chance of creating the increased damage of critting and the increased chance of doing that increase to damage would all Add up to a quantity of damage that is similar to divine strike. Is that not reasonable for a 13th level feature? Surely I can get the brutal at level nine the savage (increased range) At level 13 and then you can think of another barbarian feature. Because the biggest complaint about barbarians is that there's not enough incentive to continue in the class past level 5 Unless you plan to go all the way to 20.
I liked most of what I heard here, but I am really missing some discussion on high level martials, there was a little bit about reigning the wizard in just a bit, but all the goodies for martials seemed to come below level 10.
I’m liking this - it’s tighter and more streamlined, more thematic customization, more flexible within your subclass yet easier to work through etc. I’m going to ask my DM if I can use this in our next campaign starting in a few weeks.
Can we go back to letting Warlocks choose Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, I'm fine with Pact Magic but that option was fun and customizable to not be locked into Charisma.
Oh look two subclasses that do just as much or even more damage on punches than Monks do. I understand monks get access to a BA attack way earlier, but the brawler fighter has the benefit of not having to spread stats across three ability scores and gets heavy armor. WotC just hates Monks I guess.
The World Tree concept is explored more in Glory of the Giants, as a legacy from the First World that was used to connect to the Outer Planes. In that giant lore, after that world got destroyed, the seeds of the tree were scattered. Annam, the All-Father of giants, cultivated the seeds to connect the worlds of the Material Plane, which he crafted from the Elemental Chaos. An organization of giants called The Worldroot Circle believe that there are certain locations in each world that are the "Root of the World", and that they operate as a nexus that links the worlds to each other and to the planes. This organization opposes the Cults of Elemental Evil and any unbalance in the elements might threaten the roots and health of the world. This leads and a later campaign idea in the book lead me to believe that the World Tree is also holding the worlds from dissolving back into Elemental Chaos. It seems like they are repurposing the old concept of the World Tree cosmology into their First World, before it was splintered into many shards. Perhaps the theories of that cosmology model came from sages stumbling upon ancient First World lore. The ideas of the World Tree and the Great Wheel don't contradict one another, the roots of the World Tree can be thought of as another road of travel between the planes and worlds, but the cosmology is still being positioned by alignment in the Great Wheel. In a way the World Tree is a more primal method for connecting the worlds as opposed to the Arcane and Divine of the Great Wheel and Astral Sea. It might have been used by Annam to craft the terrain of the worlds, but it could be used by other humanoid druidic circles as well, and I think this Barbarian Path explores that.
In the DMG, it probides multiple examples for multiverse cosmology, including both the wheel and the world tree. This was probably put here to facilitate the use of either.
YES! I've been playing monk for years and tbh it is weaker, but in a way that even with peak roleplaying skills (yeah yeah, I'll be narcicistic, sorry guys) it stll lacks in ways to stay reliable in comparision to the other clases at high levels of play
TBH, I liked the idea of the spell list by theme with a small list of class exclusives. What I didn't like was the arrangement and how bard seemed to be more expansive than wizards but only by the means of magical secrets, I think bards being able to pick was a really good idea. So I'm actually a little saddened to see them go, but I prefer the classes having identity over the arrangement of spells. That being said, love the flavor of WT Barbarian, but Brawler really makes me ask "why play a monk?" Monks really need to gain weapon mastery options from unarmed strikes. Also this rules revision is really going to have me hard pressed to spend a bunch of money to get these classes and subclasses, feels like the changes are errata at best. I can't see spending $50 on this book and feeling good about it.
I think there still should be a tie to the spell level that is being countered. Such as the target having advantage on the saving trhow if the used spell's level is greater than the counter spell. It seems off to be able to relatively easily counter a 9th lvl spell with any 3rd lvl spell slot.
"One of the huge issue with counterspell was that It was no harder to counter a arch lich than a sixth level wizard". Somebody is a huge Vecna fan and took it very personally that Scanlan was able to f**k him. Deal with it, that was a genius move!
I think weapon mastery’s are great, but I feel battle maneuvers should be base line for all fighters. For base fighters I feel you could get 2 maneuvers and they refresh on a long rest and you get a few more maneuvers as you level higher in the class. Battle master could get more maneuvers and refresh on a short rest.
On 23:23, I think y’all missed the mark on what people were telling you about weapon masteries. That system is good, but it’s WORDY and complicated. Worst still, the most useful part of that old play test, weapon adept where you could give weapons additional masteries, is gone. I think you should bring that back and give it to ALL martials early on. It would make their play styles fun to be able to use multiple skills without needing to swap weapons, and doing cool combos with weapon masteries.
Is it just me or did they give sorcerers the best level 20 capstone feature in a previous playtest and then gave them a not-as-good borderline meh one in the latest playtest material? Also does the new level 5 "Sorcereous Restoration" make sense to anyone. It says you regain sorcery points equal to your level divided by 5. So, if I'm a level 5 sorcerer and use the level 5 feature, I get a grand total of one sorcery point then when I hit level 20 and use this feature I get a "magical" 4 sorcery point. Like am I the only one who thinks that is a bit unimpressive.
I think maybe the solution they used for the Fighter's Superiority Die would be a great solution for the Monk's Ki Point issue as well. Let Monks have 1 "free" Ki point every round or something. "Mastery of Flowing Ki" starting at level X, the first time you would spend a Ki point on your turn, reduce the cost by 1
I read the UA Playtest 7 and love the vast majority of it! Hoping that people will vote down features that refresh Rage, Ki, & Spell Slots only when those pools are empty! Love the idea of refreshes, but this will just encourage strategically dumping pools, which is an unnatural play experience. Also, please ask that unarmed attack specialists (Monk, Brawler) gain access to the Sap, Slow, & Vex Weapon Masteries!
Looking forward to reading the detailed pdf, these changes all sound very fun and interesting (though I am a little sad about modify and create spell being gone, they were definitely a little powerful but I loved the idea of them)
I would prefer if Magical Cunning came online at lv5 but gave you 2 spell slots back and stayed that way. I also would have preferred it to be called 'Eldritch Cunning'
Crossing my Fingers for some things like improved Weapon Mastery, a version of Eldritch Knight that doesn't suck, and maybe the ability for Monks to actually use weapon masteries with their fists among other things. I also *want* nerfs to spellcasters but well, I know the company is called "Wizards" of the Coast and not "Fighters" of the coast so we'll see...
I don't think anything for the monk will be in playtest 7. For the eldritch knight, maybe they will roll it together with arcane archer and give them spells similar to paladin smites.
@@EPICSAWIKI the problem is that casters keep getting buffed and buffed with every new edition and new book that comes out. I think it's overdue that we try to reign them in a bit. Whether that comes in the form of nerfing some overpowered spells or changes to the classes or even to how magic works in the first place.
The lack of the universal spell lists is the final straw to get me to not buy anything from the revised 5e. I'm just going to copy parts I like for my revisions to 5e for my group. There are so many problems I've seen with OneDnD and how many good changes got dropped and how many bad ideas stayed Universal spell lists should have been a buff to so many casters and allowed a perfect Bard. All they had to do was add something interesting to Wizard, but since their first attempt was too overpowered they decided to scrap it all. It would have allowed easier ways of adding more spellcasting classes to the game as well. Exhaustion changes would have allowed a very simple and intuitive way to track that mechanic, but it got removed Druids having a template could have allowed so much creativity for druids and solved so many issues if they stuck with it and just added more abilities to add to the creatures. Instead we have to stick with the limited pool of beasts that shrinks in viability as you go up in level They made Grappling take a save and have nothing to do with athletics, making one of the few useful combat skills even less useful. And since its strength based, monks can't even use it well since they cannot use dex for grappling (which was not in 5e either, but at least in 5e they could take the skill) When people were complaining that the monk had not enough Ki and that too many abilities that used ki, they just changed the name to Discipline points, changed nothing else about it, and made more monk abilities require points. Where monks could have really benefited from weapon mastery on unarmed strikes as a representation of their martial arts, they said no, you can only use it on the simple weapons which dont scale in damage anymore. And the lack of martial weapons means monk can't even take warrior feats... one of the warrior classes, can't take warrior feats... This revision of 5e hasnt brought much new to the table. Most of the stuff is just a few reworks and rewording of class features or spells. We've got maybe a few new spells (though i know more spells come later), weapon mastery (still a fairly lackluster system in terms of bridging the martial/caster divide), and a few new subclasses. Listen I love 5e, in spite of its issues. and I had so much hope for OneDnD, but I think that the 2024 deadline has hampered WotC's ability to design and fix the system. So I'm just not going to buy it, even after the OGL scandal, I was thinking I might purchase the books if OneDnD actually changes 5e enough, but no. I'll go back to just homebrewing for the group I run. I'm still gonna take the surveys because I want this game to change for the better, even if I know it wont really change anything. Anyways, if you've read this whole thing, thanks, and have a wonderful day.
I actually loved the spell lists, or rather, especially for warlock, it made sense goven it's an otherworldly entity to give you powers, that you're not really restricted vs what a sorcerer or warlock can choose from.
So sad that we do not get standard classes progression back, no one are even listening the feedback from us It's so stupid to see a lot of classes level table with many levels without nothing
All I hear about One D&D is that you're moving feats and spells around. A new player is either going to be intimidated by this, or glaze over it completely. And old player is going to see their character as a mech to pilot in a video game. Meanwhile, I feel like DMs are getting no support, and the core problems with 5E (combat bloat, unkillable characters, a super jank magic system) are being ignored. You're honestly pushing me away from D&D.
The DM stuff is coming once they finish playtesting the Players Handbook. They've been up front/transparent that they are working on the DMG once the PHB changes are locked in.
I miss the Wizard's spell customization abilities from the previous playtest. Granted, they were as OP as OP could get, but I think the idea could have still worked if they were moved into being late-game class features, maybe even as the 20th-level capstone (especially since they were on the Wizard, who by that point in the game is already famously OP as it is, so it's not like most players or DMs wouldn't be prepared for shenanigans coming out of them).
Yeah I don't understand why they got rid of it, it was extremely cool. And Wizard's make spells, it's what they do. So players should be able to do it too at some point.
You guys should just give Warlocks a feature that provides 1st level spell slots equal to their proficiency bonus. This pushes the uniqueness of pact magic, gives the warlock more spells, doesn’t allow them to just nuke constantly, and doesn’t step on the Wizards toes with a rest that regens spell slots
I feel like this would be fine. Definitely better than Magical Cunning, which barely feels like anything good since it does effectively the same thing as the 'free patron spell casting' until you reach Level 9. Doesn't really solve the problem of Warlock being dead weight after they run out of slots (albeit, less so than Monk). I still like this version of warlock, but at least keep the free patron spell with Magical Cunning; it currently doesn't feel like enough.
Unless you are talking about a sorcerer, a 1st level caster is just as easy to counterspell as a 20th level caster unless they can boost their saving throws, would warcaster give them advantage against counterspell saves? Or does this require a paladin and bard to always be there to give their caster counterspell insurance? For the most part I think this just makes counter spell less effective against monsters and more effective against players. A casters con save will not really change much through out the game, going from maybe a +1-2 to +2-3, maybe, but monster con saves range from +0 to +13, the disparity is clear. If you dont want counterspell to be a player option maybe just say it?
It's sad to see that necro wizard was nixed. As a reminder, there are 12 classes and 48 subclasses coming in the 2024 PHB, meaning that each class will have 4 subclasses. On the one hand, necro wizard getting axed stings a little as that was a fun subclass that needed more refinement. On the other hand, a glimmer of hope remains that the lack of necro wizard means we could possibly get a necromancer class in the future (not in the 2024 PHB of course), which would be so much better since necromancers deserve their own class.
we wont be getting new spellcaster classes. The universal spell lists was the only chance for that. Because otherwise, when you add a new caster class, any future books that add new spells that can be taken by that class have to add blurbs saying you can find the class in x book like they currently have to do with artificer. It would bloat text over time. If it was three universal lists, then adding a new caster just means you say which spell list they get and add their class unique spells in said book.
About The Idea of a especific terrain feature for The Ranger, and things related, i would like to sugest for The playtest 8: (I really would like to know your opinion, guys) -Expertise: Separate from deft explorer, granting the benefit in two skills as occurs with rogue and bard. Later the Ranger receives expertise in two other skills, totaling 4 as with other classes focused on Skill. -Reason: It would guarantee full efficiency as an expert, not falling behind classes supposed to be specialists in another area of activity. -Deft Explorer: Completely redesigned. The Ranger receives this benefit on a number of lands he has come into contact with, like, up to the amount of half the level (rounded up) + wisdom bonus. In them, the character and allies who can see him up to 30 feet do not suffer from difficult terrain arising from natural areas, and the ranger can use stealth, study and surch actions related to the terrain and its creatures as a bonus action. -Reason: When an action can be performed as a BA, this means it can be performed twice as many times per round, effectively doubling your chances of success and/or cutting the time to perform a task in half (perfect for representing someone familiar with with an environment). -Favored Enemy: The ranger adds hunters mark to his list of spells known. If you already have it, choose another spell. Additionally, as part of the bonus action used to cast or designate a new Hunters Mark target, the Ranger performs a Study action with the appropriate Skill to identify details about the creature. You will receive an advantage if the creature is related to known terrain (Deft Explorer). For every 5 above the Skill CD to identify the creature, hunters mark will be cast 1 level higher. -Reason: extra information about a prey's weaknesses and habits is flavorful, and the upcast represents that the Ranger has intuited more efficient ways of not losing his tracks and even causing more damage. PS: It would be great if hunters mark became concentration free after a certain casting level, as happens with bestow curse. -Deft Explorer Improvement: the Ranger adds his Wisdom Bonus in Study Actions related to known terrains and their creatures. When on familiar terrain, it adds a wisdom bonus to its initiative and cannot suffer the surprised condition. -Reason: Walter is simply not surprised by anything in Texas, just like Aragorn in Middle Earth. -Natures Veil: The ranger adds Invisibility to his list of spells known. When on known terrain, you can cast Invisibility on yourself as a bonus action and when the spell ends because of an attack or spellcasting, it will still last until the end of your next turn. -Reason: increases versatility since invisibility is something quite versatile, as it creates a mechanism related to the environment to add flavor. At this point the Ranger would have, on average, 7 to 10 known terrains. Added to the number of spell slots, use as intended will be quite frequent.
Innate sorcery is just giving the sorcerer a clutch it wouldn't need if it was designed right. Merge spell slots and sorcery points into one pool of magical power and start with access to more metamagic options (and make the progression more smooth!). Then the sorcerer will finally be free to function the way it was meant to!
Fighters should not just be relegated to the simple class. You can make maneuvers simple for those who don't want to handle more complexity, but limiting the best, most interesting feature of an entire class to a single subclass is just silly.
I feel like the easiest thing to do for warlocks to make casting a non-scaling low-level spell (like Shield or Misty Step) would be a 5th level feature that lets you cast non-damaging spells of a level up to your pact magic spell level -2 (so 1st level spells at level 5 when you get 3rd level spell slots) as a cantrip a number of times per long rest equal to your proficiency bonus. The only thing I don't like about playing a warlock is not having those throwaway spell slots to use for utility spells so you lose out on the ability to use that big nuke or control spell. Also, make Hunger of Hadar damage scale with slot level ("Here's one of the few warlock-only spells! It doesn't scale with higher spell slot levels.").
Literally, fighters in other systems are fighters becoming they’re the best at fighting. In the older editions of D&D alone, fighters got the best chance to hit and up to 3 attacks per round, double that if hasted But 5e seemed to think that a fighter being able to get 1 extra attack and otherwise attack just like everyone else, while giving every other class a method to get action surge with only a small dip into fighter, was enough to make the fighter distinct That’s the problem with this game, they got such a hardon for options that no one class is truly unique in what they can do.
It's half a solution. It fixes Fighters but it doesn't do anything for any of the other martial classes. But I agree that Maneuvers could afford to show up more places and more often.
Just give warlocks an eldrich invocation series that gives them lower level spell slots. Arcane proficiency, gain 2 1st level spell slots, refresh on a long rest. Arcane adept, gain 2 2nd level spell slots, etc. Give the option to use those low level utility spells. People just don't want to burn 1 of their 2 4th level spell slots because they need to misty step.
I hope they backtrack on their decision to take away the warlock's flexible casting stat. That was a widely praised feature, and we want it back.
At LEAST Charisma or Intelligence. A lot of Warlocks are wannabe wizards who took a shortcut.
With pact weapon cantrip allowing u to still be SAD I would kinda prefer intelligence since the only class that would benefit would be bladesingers and they're still squishy casters. But at the same time I want wisdom back for my SAD beast master ranger with returning pact trident, have both the beast and trident knocking down everyone.
It should be INT or CHA. WIS is indeed too strong, and also off-brand for Warlocks@@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф I’d be okay with charisma and intellect. How wise can you be if you make a pact with an other worldly being? I’m sure it doesn’t have your best interest in mind, and only sees you as a tool to best serve its purposes.
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj"squishy casters" with a 18/23 AC at level 2 from light armor and bladesong with access to the shield spell
We need they to take more risks this time with the monk.
Monk almost certainly won't appear here, since it was just in the last packet. It'll be Fighter, Barbarian, Warlock, Wizard, Sorcerer
Same
Yeah I don’t understand why they don’t make the monk OP, it’s been the most underused class / underpowered class since 2014. There’s never going to be a perfect balance just give the monk it’s time to be good. I know the survey from monks UA is getting terrible reviews.
This! They should really add a lot of the things that make monks good in bg3 to dnd. Especially tavern brawler. Fixing their ac to a static number plus their Wis mod instead of pigeon holing them into a dex build would do a number for them. That or create a feat like what tavern brawler gives in bg3, but doubling dex instead of str.
They need to rip off the idea of stances from PF2E monks. The stances feel really, really good.
I'm cool with action surge not being allowed for magic...unless you're an eldritch knight. Don't make eldritch knight even weaker.
Seems like an easy exception to make.
Eldritch Knight can now cast spells during the attack action so it shouldn't affect them (or not too much)
Of course, Eldritch Knight have so few spell slots, what is the problem to give them this? As a level 6 subclass feature would make inviable to dip multiclass to abuse this
Ek is so much stronger now
@@Shade00a00 yeah, it specifically says you sacrifice attacks when you take the attack action. So you can use action surge with the Eldritch knight.
Counterspell should probably clarify what happens to the Material Component needed to cast the spell too (if it's consumed as part of the casting). I presume it's not consumed, just like the slot isn't expended, but would be nice to have it written.
If I understood the last part of this video your spell-slot isn't consumed but any material components that would otherwise be consumed by the spell ARE consumed, but agreed it is something that'll be great to clarify and I'll be sure to add that suggestion once the survey comes online.
I think spells only consume material components if a spell slot is used, so I'm assuming it no longer causes the countered spell to waste those materials. Regardless, I'm glad they nerfed counterspell so it doesn't cheese mage encounters but it's still remains a very useful spell.
Also what happens with things like monsters that have a certain number of uses instead of slots, or magic items with charges
Really hoping we get flexible Warlock spellcasting stat, pet class rangers, and a way to make Monk resources more usable. I want them WOTC to realise that just because a feature isn't perfect doesn't mean that it should be dropped. Best rule for design and DMing is fail forward
I would say the one issue with flexible casting stat is how pact weapon cantrip makes it the best 1 level dip for both other half caster classes and makes them SAD. Monk will most likely be in playtest 8. I wish they would only choose xanathars subclasses instead of just porting Tasha ones. With weapon mastery the kensei would of been the perfect subclass to revise but they skipped it to port over mercy...
As a Ranger player, I really do NOT want it to be pet class as a base.
I think pet class ranger would be the best way to distinguish the ranger from everyone else
@@jacenstargazer How would you feel about a fighter subclass that gives you everything from Ranger, but without a pet feature? And would you want to keep the spellcasting? I haven't heard the point of view you have on ranger before and I'd really love to hear more of your thoughts
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj Dang, yeah that does make sense. I mean I still really want it though, and Warlock is already an amazing dip for Paladins and Sorcerers, so I think maybe it would be ok since I can't see any of the other half casters benefiting as much as Paladin does from it
And oh man I really hope we do see more Xanathar subclasses. Kensei is so awesome, though I think we might see a name change like Way of Steel or Way of the Blade
Ugh, there is so little experimentation that stuck around. Gonna miss using those defined and organized spell lists.
Totally agree, if the wizard was the problem, then create a 4th list for them
@@eliascabbio7598 Honestly I think they were fine using just Arcane. I think what could have made them distinct is treating them like extremely prepared casters, with prepared meta-magic like effects on a selected spell, kinda like the spell craft they were working on. Then if Sorcerer was choose your own list and had more of a spell point system (since being rigid and organized is weird for a sorcerer and sorcery points can be mixed together with them), wizard would absolutely be master of prepared spells and distinct.
@@BestgirlJordanfish totally agree, I really think that Create and Modify spell were awesome mechanics, they would've really made the wizard feel different and unique, especially considering spell preparation.
Honestly, I would still create a 4th list for wizards, so wizard's fans won't complain for not feeling special anymore
I agree, unfortunately DnD community pushed back too hard on other topics like OGL, so WotC they decide to make a step back and risk less, and we ended up in a less optimal situation for both.
That happens when people are not mature enough to accept compromises.
It's supposed to be 5e with a facelift. The more recent playtests are in line with this.
If you don't believe there is enough experimentation then that's the fault of your expectations.
If we are going back to class spell lists, THEN GIVE SORCERERS AND BARDS NEW EXCLUSIVE SPELLS THAT REINFIRCE THEIR FLAVOUR. if a full caster's defining feature is full casting, every full caster should have unique spells that only they can do. Give bards summoning and destructive spells, it wont break The game
Yeah, making every other class worse just so the wizard players can have the biggest and best spell list isn't exactly giving me the warm fuzzies
@@Chaosmancer7 id be ok with wizards having their broken spells for themselves if IT DOESNT MEAN HAVING UNIQUE SPELLS IS THEIR EXCLUSIVE CLASS TRADEMARK.
@@muriomoira Just cause I looked it up when he said that I thought I'd share, in 5e Bards currently have 3 exclusive spells (full list 156, so 1.9% unique). Sorcerers have 1 (chaos bolt) out of 220 (~0.5% unique)
Wizards have 27 out of 337, or ~8% unique
Giving Bards summoning and destructive spells standard would ruin their flavor. Bards have the most flavorful spell list in the game as is: enchantments, illusions, buffs, healing. They are focused on supporting the party and being tricky, not on general all-around spellcasting. That's why they lack those things in the first place, because it's a core part of their identity.
@@Zevox87 the bard is an amalgam of diferent concepts from all around the world. The standard skald and troubador aren't the ONLY interpretation of the class bc the concept of art, stories and passion being Inherently magical is something older than writen history. No, the bard class shouldn't be reduced into a single eurocentric interpretation of it and a bard that conjures armies and monsters from their own legends and immolate people with their sick solos are as valid AND common interpretations of the thrope as your bard that enchants and eludes.
You're free to play an enchanting and eluding bard, but I dont want people that like a diferent but as valid interpretation of the thrope to be pidgeon holed into a single permutation of it.
I will never understand why anyone believes that a 5% chance to do 1d12 extra damage is a good level 17 ability
Bruh did you listen to the video? It's not a 5% chance because you're using Reckless Attack...
it's 9.75% but thats still weak, without the ability to reduce crit, when you run the math it just doesn't add much extra damage @@nintendolegoboy
@@nintendolegoboyLet’s say Reckless Attack makes it a ten percent chance for the sake of easy math (which is technically being generous). That’s an average of .65 extra points of damage per attack. At the same level Wizards can transform into dragons and alter the fabric of reality. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a good change. Just not what I would expect.
It is the core Barbarian's own take at enhancing criticals like the Champion Fighter gets. The Champion Fighter crits on an 18-20 starting at level 15, and Barbarians get to Reckless Attack with advantage to crit-fish for 3d12 extra damage at level 17. They each have their own accompanying abilities that give them theior own strengths, but they are both competitive.
Nobody does. Only WoTC does because they don't play their own game.
Counterspell would be cooler if it was a contested roll based on the casting stats - the magical version of grappling (but not literally, since Grappling *still sucks* just as bad as it alway has, if not worse now than in 2014).
Concentration being a Con save makes sense, since it represents having to overcome bodily damage to maintain a spell effect; that’s not what’s happening when Counterspell is at play, that’s 2 casters going at it battling for magical dominance. A Con save would only make sense if Counterspell was something physical; my Wizard is not running up to 60 feet to an enemy creature and physically interrupting their casting by smacking its hands/stuffing their hand in the creatures throat/etc. (at 8 strength, I doubt a Wizard would have the athletic capacity to even move that much, especially as a Reaction). Just doesn’t seem that well thought out.
Right. Con save doesn't make any sense here.
It should be something like a contested roll with spellcasting+proficiency+level of spell being countered vs spellcasting+proficiency+level of counterspell. Or they could keep higher level counterspell as autocounters and use the contested roll if the counterspell is of equal or lesser level to the spell being countered.
We make Concentration to be one of the skills, since through training one can increase their power of Concentration. It receives the constitution modifier and any proficiency and/or expertise.
Opposed ability checks in combat are super swingy because ability/skill checks are wildly disparate between two different creatures. You are either amazing because you specced into it, or you really suck at it. I believe Saving Throws are a better mechanic for these interactions.
@@samsimpson3808 It would be two spellcasters using their spellcasting modifier, so that wouldn't be an issue in this case. It would do what WOTC wants here: take into account the power of the two spellcasters.
That would make the spell useless on non full casters
What's with the obsession of having to be out of a resource completely to gain anything back on Initiative?
Just let them have the resource as "regain expended resource of up to X when you roll for Initiative".
100% agree, it just feels so frustrating that they keep doing this, when it isn't great design
they are scared of the bag of rats exploit and maybe can't think of a better wording.
Maybe they could do, you gain x points when you roll initiative and they disappear when initiative ends if not spent.
We are back to 2014 mechanics for 90% of classes. This could've been an errata.
Just double-checking- there is going to be NEW content in this so-called new release, right?
@@mattbriddell9246It appears that they are adding new subclasses as well. College of Dance Bard and the new Path of the World Tree Barbarian are the ones we know of, but there could be others. In addition they're collecting a lot of the best subclasses from other supplements into the new PHB so give more interesting options from the jump. I personally do wish the design team was allowed to take more risks and push the design, but I reckon that WotC kind of put them in a bind with promising backwards compatibility and trying not to rock the boat too much by not calling this a new edition.
Yeah there’s nothing here that I really hate, but there’s also nothing here that I’m really excited about either
I was so excited to see how they changed Wild Magic Sorc because it's one of my favorite subclasses flavor wise but pretty lame mechanically & then here they make it pretty much the exact same... even uses the same old lame surge table. Freaking lazy!
@@5-VoltTo be fair, Wild Magic is just one of those subclasses that are hard to design because of the inherent randomness. I understand why it's appealing to some people but I'd rather just do away with Wild Magic subclasses entirely and make it an optional rule you can add to spellcasting.
See, now it's TOO similar to how it was. People will (rightly) ask why we need a whole new edition, when another errata book a la Tasha's Cauldron should suffice.
its not a whole new edition. its a updating to the core rule books. TTRPGs do this all the time. call of cathulu has never once completely changed there system but they have rereleased there core rule books several times building, exspanding and fixing older issues that an errata would be to small and a players resource book wouldn't be right because there meant to add ontop the core rules. in fact Pizo the guys who made pathfinder just announced there working on a "version 2" or whatever the'll end up calling it of there 2e core book.
it cant be an errata because that's only for very minor changes such as rule clarifying and most often spelling errors. very small stuff that if you bought the original 2014 book and you got anther 1 in 2020 they be almost identical. thank of them like hotfixs to a video game. so small most people will notice it happened.
it cant be something like tasha's or XGTE because there expansions. they dont CHANGE anything. they add on top to the core rulebook. you cant make a character with just a copy of Tasha's. you'd be missing the entirety of the rest of the rules, spells and base class's. this is like your expansions for a game. it dont change much to the base game but gives you entirely new things to play with and explore.
very long story short a core rulebook update is needed but this isnt the next edition despite that offal naming as One D&D no its more closer to 5.5. a heavily updated but backwards combatable thing. you should be able to play the 2024 books WITH tasha's and XGTE at the same time. might be a little overlap since they seem to be barrowing some content from the other 2 but not everything and more importantly nothing of it will conflict.
@@bradleywindham4927 there is no universe in which I would buy this new book for convenience. For one, I have dndbeyond, which is so vastly superior to physical books even with its relative bugginess as of late, and since getting it I've never started a new player on physical books.
The problem with your point of 'thats what we were promised from the start' is that a.) it's _not_ what they demonstrated from the start and b.) any new collection of rules called the PHB, Monster Manual, and DMG is functionally a new edition. Acting like it's anything else when you're replacing the previous versions of those books and the rules therein is semantic nitpicking.
The first four UAs were super experimental and incredibly exciting and obviously received with some mixed results, but without telling us that they were likely going to cut anything that didn't massively outshine the PHB equivalents from a satisfaction score perspective, no one could know how their feedback _should_ be targeted. I know from a relatively mid-sized sampling that a lot of playtesters, myself included, were harsher on the early packets because of key things I felt needed refinement, not because they were bad or worse in some ways.
In point of fact, they kept all the most confusing aspects of the changes that they did put forward - universal subclass selection at level 3 feels so awkward without the standardized class progression.
There are huge problems with how 5e works that were not addressed at all that _wouldn't_ require a new edition.
This isn’t for a whole new addition. They have made that very clear. It’s essentially a 5e facelift
@@babyyeti2540 It's not how it was originally advertised though. They are saying things like PHB 2024 or 5e 2024 now, but originally, they had a new name for it 'One Dnd', and the original play tests changed a LOT from 5e
Now it's just gonna be tashas 2.0, which doesn't feel worth the multi year wind up of what will be like 8 or 9 UAs.
@@JottoHearthStoneit was originally advertised as such, every developer said it was a backwards compatible update. Onednd was not the name of justthe “new edition” but the initiative to have the updated 5e, dndbeyond as a hub and the new vtt. It could have been very different but people were not happy with that, so iterration it is
Flexible warlock casting was the best idea they have ever had, i hope they bring it back.
Same for Monk weapons, I really want it back.
and for the love of god, give martials things they can do outside of combat!
I think they should lean into the fantasy element of the martials way more, like they started doing with the Barbarian. I think that is a good way of balancing the game out a lot and appease the martial crowd.
5e is a monster slaying game we "all" kinda just agreed to play as a story game instead in the past 5 years. They should lean into that! (Combat is still fun though)
"5e is a monster slaying game we "all" kinda just agreed to play as a story game instead in the past 5 years. They should lean into that!"
My brother in Crom, perhaps play a storygame instead?
I AM MAD THEY TOOK OUT MEDIUM ARMOR PROFICENCY FOR WARLOCKS
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5фIagree, Warlock was Int-based in dndnext and should have stayed that way. Only Bladesinger would be busted, but perhaps we just would not have that subclass in the first place.
@@ARedMongoose Yea... i am, its called 5e.
Now i am not going to make the assumption that every single DnD game out there is Story driven, but I would quite confidently say that the majority of games out there focus on plot and story with combat serving the plot.
As i said, we "all" kinda just started playing 5e as a story game, that makes 5e a story game...
Its like watching The room as a comedy movie, it isn't one by design, but if most people who watch it regards it as a comedy, it then becomes one.
Lastly. Are you really expecting a DnD player to play anything but 5e?? Bold of you to assume so, you clearly haven't seen enough AI generated reddit stories about DnD Players.
Hope the final version of Monk is buffed so the new Brawler fighter doesn’t over shadow it. I took a look and it looks really good I’m just concerned with a fighter subclass being better at martial arts than a monk.
I dont think this subclass is unable to overshadow any other class. Sadly
we already have a dance monk subclass that does everything monk could hope to do but better, so really who cares at this point. If Brawler is better than Monk, at least h2h combat isn't dead.
Unarmed Fighting Style gives you 1d8+Strength punches. That means a level 1 Fighter has the punching die of a level 11 Monk. By the time the Fighter gets to level 11, they can attack three times using a standard attack action and they still have action surge. :/ Monk has a looong way to go - that or they need to more effectively carve its niche, which I believe is anti-mage.
@@RashidMBey Also have an insane number of other attacks, increased mobility, and other sorts of utility
Not going to lie this is the moat underwhelming UA, Deffo wouldn't convince me to buy the 2024 book if all it is is minor tweaks. I feel like trying to keep this compatible with 5E is hindering actually making any meaningful changes to these classes.
Sounds like you're better off just getting Tasha's
Well, what they’re doing is attempting to sell it as “a new evolution of D&D,” when in reality, it should be called 5th edition with a patch update LOL. The reason they’re not outright saying it’s incompatible with rules is bc that would lower the sales of books leading up to the release. Why would I buy Planescape if I won’t be able to play it with the new character options? But on the other hand, they (they being executives, btw) want to pitch it to the consumer as “a new version!” To drive sales of the new book
All Sorcerer Subclasses NEED to have Additional Spells lists like Aberrant Sorcery and Clockwork Sorcery. If you do not do this then Draconic and Wild Magic will be less popular than than Aberrant and Clockwork. I would be fine with reverting the Sorcerer to having fewer "Known Spells" if you are universally providing some via the Subclass. Doing it this way also opens up providing the subclasses with spells outside of the normal Sorcerer Spell List when it is thematically evocative.
Also, Divine Soul should be in the PHB. It is the Sorcerer subclass that allows for the most divergent build-making amongst all of the Sorcerer subclasses. It allows you to fulfill a role that normally cannot be fulfilled by a Sorcerer, while also remaining distinct from the Cleric. It is also thematically evocative in a way that isn't really serviced by any other Class or Subclass.
What is supposed to be anyone’s motivation to play a monk mechanically if the brawler fulfills that niche in a stronger class?
I’m not against the brawler, but the monk is on life support man…
The motivation is that brawler is just bad. Most of its features are available to any fighter at level 1 (Unarmed Fighting Style+Tavern Brawler), and the only fancy ones are giving traits and masteries to improved weapons and increasing the damage at 15th level. So it's actually a worst substitute for monk than other subclasses of fighter, which have been like this since Tasha, yet I don't see people not playing monk anymore.
Its full focus (unarmed strikes and improvised weapons) has also no way to bypass resistances, something extremely common from medium level and upwards, and a problem solved by monks pretty early. And finally you're ignoring that the "niche" you're suggesting is attacking with unarmed hits, something monks can do more often, harder (especially at higher levels), and that they have entire subclasses and extra features tied to that. Monk is not "ruined" because someone slapped a d8 unarmed strike on a very bad fighter subclass
"being on life support" implies they are trying to help it. More accurately it's the proverbial dead horse that WotC keeps beating.
@@giorgiomauceri410 I haven’t gotten a chance to look at the document myself yet, so thanks for the breakdown. I see all of your points, but I’m speaking more from the perspective of punching an archetype while it’s down. Sure, you can make a compelling case for why the monk is superior to the brawler fighter, but then mechanically what benefit does the brawler provide? Being an inferior version of the debatably weakest class in the game isn’t something the fighter needs in its kit.
Also, given everything you’ve said, it’s still debatable that the fighter’s base class attributes put the Brawler above the Monk. Fighters have less of a dependence on several ability scores, their armored armor class is almost always greater, their hit points are far superior, and they have more weapons/weapon masteries at their disposal generally.
Now, I’m aware that weapons specifically aren’t necessarily benefitting a brawler who wants to fight in melee, but that just demonstrates how mechanically foul brawling is… regardless of class or subclass.
It’s just a cool archetype that I really wanna see them get right
@@giorgiomauceri410it seems pretty obvious from changes seen in previous UAs that resistance to "non magical damage" won't be a thing anymore.
The real problem for the Brawler is you will never see any of your subclass abilities work once you pick up a magic weapon. Everything about the subclass relies on improvised weapons or unarmed strikes and those will always be objectively worse than the +1 sword you get at level 4. So it's basically a fighter with no subclass.
@@Gorbology yeah, but what I meant with that post was to make you notice that the Brawler doesn't offer anything new to fighters. Fighters could already do that and better. All the main tools of the brawler have been available for years, yet they didn't substitute the monk. If anything, they are useless at high levels because they offer no way of bypassing resistances. And at low levels the monk is still better at punching, as they can punch more often as a basis and can spend points to punch even more. The monk wasn't impacted at all with the introduction of the unarmed fighting style, or tavern brawler, yet many people think that if you make those 2 a subclass then the monk suffers from it.
If you're at 1 sorcery pt left, you get none back; but if you're at 0, you get several back... really, design team? How does that make sense???
Maybe it incentivises you to use your sorcery points more liberally if you're running low?
@@ryanbarham8464 You shouldn't need incentive to use a resource that does effective things, and you shouldn't need a reason to spend them for no reason. Making it only work at zero means that you just arbitrarily have to use all your remaining points immediately when a battle ends if you want to get any back on the next initiative, which means you sacrifice the ability to save 1 or 2 for utility purposes outside of combats. It's ugly rule-design, when you can't just phrase it to be, "if the DM asks you to roll initiative and you have less than X Points, then you regain Points so that you have X Points available" or just "you regain X Points when the DM has you roll initiative."
Agreed. They fixed this for the bard, but not the sorcerer? It's very confusing.
@@minimoose7890 I don't get it at all. 100% agree with you - there is absolutely zero danger to "When you roll Initiative, you regain [x] expended Sorcery Points," and the truly wild thing is, because of how people are _so deeply bad_ at reading rules, I guarantee you that's the way most tables are going to wind up playing anyway, with this feature and the Ki/Focus Points feature and the Battle Master feature and literally any feature that does this.
You can simply spend your remaining sorcery point or two to get some spell slots back
I also think that Illusion spells need more built in mechanics in terms of how they should get used.
But at the same time, part of what makes illusion magic so fun is that the only limit is often your imagination and creativity.
Yea.
If the DM is on the same page they can be great fun, but they can be just as easily shut down.
Less ambiguity about their functioning would be appreciated.
At this stage there’s so few changes from the current 5e that there’s no need to release a whole new edition. Just do a book like Tasha’s for the new character options. Then do a DMG 2.0
They've already stated that they are just straight up reprinting some of the Tasha's subclasses in the new PHB. That along with barely changing things is extremely lazy..
That's basically what this is... They've said many times "This isn't a new edition! It's a continuation!" which has always sounded like marketing fluff, but if that's what you want it's what you're getting. This book would just mean a new player doesn't need to buy both PHB and this newest book to have the newest options.
@@isaac_marcus you are slightly wrong. While this is a continuation of what we have, they are treating the release as if it is a whole new edition. They are releasing a whole new core trio of books. They don’t need to do that. They just need to release a “Tasha’s” 2.0 for the PHB and a more useful DMG
@iParaShane I think I slightly disagree but that's mostly semantics I think so not important. That's said, assuming that these changes ARE mostly better, I would rather they release it as a PHB 2.0 than a Tashas 2.0. Cause I think that changes the content we'll get basically not at all, but it means it will be easier to get new people into the game cause they'll have fewer books to buy. And one of my favorite things is seeing new people get into my favorite hobby
@@isaac_marcus I just don’t think it’s changed enough to call it a new PHB. It really doesn’t deserve that monicker.
My TLDR on the 2024 PHB is that you can find a PDF version of it, print off ~10 pages from it, stuff them in your 2014 PHB and be good to go. Y'all set out like you were taking risks, and it was cool. Pulling back on almost everything is SUPER dissappointing
I agree, this should be a somewhat new version, every time they take critiques, they step back. That's so sad
i was so looking forward for the modify spell and create spell, wizards are completely stuck with mostly fire based damage dealing spells and being able to alter them was fantastic and being able to create new spells was greate.
they basically retracted all the cool things they had set up
I absolutely agree. And the spell mastery change blows for Bladesingers using shield at will
The Brawler is one more thing to make the Monk look like it's the worst (as it is).
Brawler and Way of the Drunken Master = Jackie Chan
Now with the brawler what’s the point of having the monk class untouched?
The Brawler seems like they took Unarmed Fighter + Tavern Brawler feat + Grappler feat and said let’s just make this it’s own subclass.
Honestly, the 3 spell lists system was very very cool, and made this edition feel refreshingly new.
If the wizard was the problem, just make a custom expanded spell list, and add specific spells to other class too.
For the rest, it's all good
Yes, have subclass wizard spell lists
That seems easy enough.
I 100% agree, also I think it was a mistake to remove the modify spell and create spell features as while some may have thought it stepped on the toes of the sorcerer it makes sense for Wizards who are supposed to be the masters of magic to have a way to manipulate spells to a small degree.
@@declanmorden Yes I agree, there are lots of very cool and revolutionary ideas and they were completely scrapped, that's too bad.
I think we should motivate them to adjust and fix the new mechanics instead of scrap them
@@eliascabbio7598 Yeah 100%
Uhhh... JC literally lied about Wild Magic surges in this video. He said "Immediately after you cast a spell of 1st level or higher, you can roll on the surge table. You can just do it! Full stop" but in the playtest pdf you have to roll a d20 & roll a nat 20 to roll on the table... Assuming your DM allows you to every time you cast a spell, like most seem to do, it's the same as it was. Only difference is it happens on a nat 20 instead of a nat 1. Also, the table is the exact same as the 2014 table. This is pure freaking laziness & killed my excitement of them changing the wild magic sorc to actually be better & more fun/chaotic.
So happy they are going to put effort into making short rest benefit everyone more.
Really, it feels like everything that made this One D&D thing unique and more streamlined is being peeled away. The shared spell lists made everything easier for players and DMs. If it is an identity problem have a smaller unique spell list for each spell casting class, then the player gets to decide if they want only stay with shared spells or branch out into the unique stuff. Also, I’ve seen people say that the Intelligence and Wisdom options for Warlock didn’t make sense, but the reasons seem flimsy. Not all beings you make a pact with are chaotic or evil, so yes, a Warlock might think it would be a good idea to make a pact with a powerful celestial or forest spirit for power.
They are just going on feedback from the people ??
I really liked the counterspell change, but i do think that the main factor to a spellcaster to resist a counterspell should be related to his spellcasting ability score, since most the times it is his highest ability score. Also many beings that are spellcasters doesn't have proficiency in constitution saving throws. Archmages (Basic rules) for example only have 12 of constitution ability score.
I hate the counterspell change. Feels like it was designed with pvp in mind. Con saves are the easiest save to make for high cr creatures so youve basically made the spell worthless against any kind of endgame caster; especially since on the off chance it does work they dont even consume their spell slot, which wotc has been moving away from creature design anyway.
For an example take a look at critical role: vox machina's final battle. No spoilers but if this version of counterspell was the one they had access to then they would have lost that fight without question. The bbeg would have stomped them without breaking a sweat.
@@caosisaac Spoken like someone who has never had one of their own big spells countered. Current counterspell rules make it way too easy to just shut down both NPC and PC spell casters. Using a 3rd lvl slot to completely (and rather easily) eliminate a 9th lvl slot and potentially an entire turn is no fun for anyone. There are no tactics to it, you just say no and might have to roll a pretty easy check if you use a lower slot than you're countering. It feels awful to be on the receiving end of a counterspell and feel like there is nothing you can do about it whether you're the DM or a player.
Yes, some spell casting monsters have high Con saves but there are plenty of standard human, elven, gnomish, ect caster enemies that have low Con and would be easier to counter. Besides, countering a level 20 dracolich shouldn't be as simple as countering an apprentice caster still using magical training wheels. Targeting the caster's main ability score on the other hand would almost universally make it much more difficult to ever get a counter off.
I would need to see this new version in action a few times, but reading over it I think it's a good change that will make caster battles much more interesting on both sides. I also think you misjudge Matt as a DM if you think he would have "stomped them without breaking a sweat."
@@CandleLight129 My problem is the Power word: Kill. Player won't waste lvl 9 spell for it, but the DM can use it freely since tomorrow there will be another evil NPC to be "killed" and after that you need to be glad that you get a resurrection. That's the ultimate solution?
You could be prepared, but I can always kill you instantly no matter what. Is that ok?
And it has no saving throw. That's ok?
@@CandleLight129 i've dm'd for years and have many spells counterspelled. I just also prescribe to the notion that anything players can do i can do. Or have you never thought to give youre bbeg counterspell and/or minions with counterspell?
@@caosisaac Oh I live by the "anything you can do they can do also" rule, especially when offering my players the option fun house rules. The problem with counterspell isn't that only the players can do it, it's that it's not fun. It in fact often ruins the fun thing that someone was about to do, which is why I rarely use it against my players. When the wizard has a whole plan they're excited to put into motion and finally throws their big 6th level spell at someone just to have it countered and wasted, that sucks. I've had it happen to me as a player and it feels bad, so I don't like to do it very often to my players. This new rule at least makes it more of a tactical choice rather than an almost guaranteed shut-down.
As for the Power Word Kill point @Csiki27 put forth, I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I know I used 9th lvl spells in my original example but honestly in my experience few people make it to those higher levels and when they do, there's all kinds of crazy stuff happening on both sides of the screen. I feel like counterspell has a bigger impact on lvl 5-12 where spells are less reality warping in scope.
I may be misunderstanding, but any DM that is going to throw Power Word Kill at their players time and again seems to be playing a very antagonistic game. Any DM can kill their players when and however they want, regardless of what counterspell rules they're using. The point is usually to create a fun environment and narrative for and with your players.
My main point is that this version sounds like it will allow for more fun situations at the table.
These "get some of your special resources back if you have none at the start of combat" features need to be modified to allow an increase to the same minimum even if they have 1.
Example: if a 10th level Sorcerer has 1 Sorcery point at the start of combat, they should still go up to 2 points at the start of combat. It is silly that if they have none they go up to 2 but if they have 1 they stay at 1.
This has been a problem for a while and I have to believe it isn't that hard to write these features to make it happen, especially since some of them (Bardic Inspiration) can be dumped on stupid things ("Hey, go pick up that rock so I can give you inspiration before we open the door and surprise the baddies").
100% agree. I said this in the last survey for Cleric and Druid, which I thought are in a pretty good place now aside form that one gripe.
Agreed! I’ve been saying this for years!
41:18 the audacity of this man... the passive aggressive "uhhh the whole community is wrong, and martial class actually do more damage".
So basicly the Brawler is here because it was easier to dress up the fighter as a hand to hand class instead of just improving monk in a meaningful way. I aint gonna lie i feel like they are gonna get rid of the monk instead of putting any reasonable effort towards improving it.
UA 8 is time for them to make some big buffs and changes to the monk, since it's scheduled to be the last version they release before the 2024 handbook. They'll release this next one and we can give feedback, and then that's it. 😱😱😱
45:13 Hearing Monk getting better resource management is exactly what people wanted since the start. More cool features and lessening the painpoints are all good to see.
add hopefully competitive dpr . not fun to be out damaged by everyone
problem is that they seem to want to do it the same way they are doing with sorcerer, where if you roll initiative and have absolutely zero of the resource left, you get a very small amount back. If they implement it the same for monks as they are doing with sorcerers it will be even worse, as while sorcerers still have spell slots, and metamagic is a side resource, for monks ki/discipline points are their only resource which is kept painfully low because of their short rest class status.
so when monks get this ability at level 5. they will only get 1 ki point back if they start combat with no points left.
What would help is if they could stop having the restriction that you have to have 0 points left. What they could do is say, you gain X points whenever you roll initiative that go away when initiative ends if not spent or something like that to avoid being abused
@@fullmetalpotato1258 hopefully when they said 'like sorcerers ' it's only similar and not the same, because as you said only getting 1 ki/focus point at initiative ( at level 5) would feel awful.
Ideally/ best case it follows the warlock; do a quick meditation and get a number of ki/focus back once a long rest.
Or like the fighter battlemaster; get a free ki/focus each round but this would have to be a later level
@@TrueAmbienceWorks maybe. I really think they should start removing ki costs from core features. Flurry of blows should not cost ki, they have to do it every round just to do less damage than most martials. They can barely even use weapon mastery since that can often lower their damage too since weapons dont get the martial arts die. Maybe patient defense could be +2 to AC and dex saves for a round instead of dodging, and step of the wind could be dash or disengage like a rouge does. At least then monks can use Ki on the cool stuff.
The Counterspell change also means high level Bards can no longer automatically counterspell every spell by, for example, casting Glibness. In 2014, Glibness lets you treat a roll of 15 or lower on a Charisma check as a 15. Then, Bard adds their Charisma modifier. Then because it is an ability check that does not already include the proficiency bonus, Jack of all Trades adds half to proficiency bonus. So as an example, the lowest my level 15 Bard can roll on the ability check - assuming she's got Glibness running - is 15 + 4 + 2, or 21.
The highest difficulty rating is 10 + 9, or 19 - and so barring some magic, with the old rules, I can just use level 3 counterspell and sit back and file my nails, tossing out a Cure wounds here, a Conjure Volley there...
I'd like to see a creature channeling a spell be unable to cast Counterspell - the counterspell loops get silly and it's an easy fix to say while you are channeling a spell, you cannot take a reaction without aborting the cast. Let them keep the slot.
But it's become useless for everyone else now basically.
A CR 4 Couatl has a +8 to Con saving throws.
A CR 5 Cambion has a +5 to Con saving throws. If your casting stat is at +5, that's a 55% chance for Counterspell to succeed.
A CR 6 Water Naga has a +6 to Con saving throws
Counterspell is a 3rd level spell slot. I would NOT be betting a 3rd level spell slot on a coin flip that isn't even in my favor because it doesn't consume their spell slot. Once you get to CR 7+ your Counterspell is useless because already creaturs have ridiculous con bonuses in the double digits. In other words, the spell is only useful MAYBE for one or two levels from 6-7.
@floofzykitty5072 At later levels your 3rd level spell slots are getting less valuable, so it is still worth it try to expend a reaction to take away an action from another spellcaster!
@@PerikleZ87 Con save? The strongest save in the game? Seriously?
New CS is useless. Even at higher levels, when the lower-level slots are (only in theory) less valuable.
I’m more concerned within the finalized monk than anything else.
Glad to see the eldritch knight looking viable.
I get going back to class spell lists. Make sense and addresses mine and others concerns about class identity. Yet you could still have Primal, Acrane, and Divine spell lists. They'd just be smaller and hold the most common spells. That way you could say the Wizard has access to the spells on the Arcane list as well as the Wizard spell list.
The fact that people think the class identity for the Wizard is how big their spell list is, in my opinion, is the real problem here. That's a crappy vision of what a class is about
@@nojusticenetwork9309
I agree, spell list size is a poor way to identify for a class. Wizard class identity to me has always been thoughtful preparation vs. sorcerer flexibility in the moment.
I don't know what people are on with the Counterspell changes. I'm going to prove Counterspell has become useless. Two arguments I saw supporting the change:
1. Casters have low Con, so Counterspell will still have a decent chance of working against them
A: No, they don't. There's literally nothing in the books that say NPC spellcasters have to have low Con. Relative to other monsters, casters do have statistically low Con SCORES, but the majority of caster NPCs have proficiency in Con saving throws giving them a +5 on top of the +1-3 they already have. Your saving throws physically cannot keep up with the Con scores of higher level monsters even at the levels you get Counterspell. Additionally, you don't consume their Spell Slot so they can keep trying on the off chance your Counterspell succeeds.
Just some NPC caster examples of varying CR:
A CR 4 Couatl has a +8 to Con saving throws. This is before you even get Counterspell and it's less than a 50% chance for it to succeed.
A CR 5 Cambion has a +5 to Con saving throws. If your casting stat is at +5, that's a 55% chance for Counterspell to succeed.
A CR 6 Water Naga has a +6 to Con saving throws (50% chance to succeed... This is at level 6 your Counterspell is a coin flip. This is not an effective use of a 3rd level spell slot.)
A CR 9 Glabrezu has a +14 to Con saving throws. Useless to Counterspell since 10% chance to succeed.
A CR 10 Lammasu has a +15 to Con saving. Have to roll a natural 1 vs a caster with a 20 in their casting stat.
A CR 16 Planetar has a +19 to Con saving.
The list goes on. If you think this change is healthy for counterspell then you basically want the spell removed for players. It's basically only useful against PCs who actually will have pretty poor Con stats as casters.
2. You can burn the boss Legendary Resistance!
A: No, you won't. Keep in mind that if the boss succeeds naturally they don't have to use their Legendary Resistance. If you SOMEHOW get a creature with Legendary Resistance to fail, they will burn ONE of their three Legendary Resistances. Oh, and they can just try casting the spell again on their next turn. Lich's have +13 to Con and Legendary Resistance. It is a complete waste of a 3rd level slot to try Counterspelling a Lich.
Champion still has the Jump spell problem. A running longjump needs 10ft of run-up. Adding 5ft makes it go from 20 to 25ft jump with 20 str. So you need 35ft speed or there's no benefit.
Surprisingly the Warlock isn't looking too bad rn. The subclasses are looking fun and more flexible(Fiend could use a bit more love).
More spells, more invocations, reworked invocations that now might include feats, subclasses that do more in general - agreed that fiend didn’t get as much as arcfey(which is now awesome), but they were kinda the best among original three)
This is time for the rest of the subclasses Barbarian, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard.
Wild mage, Transmuter and Arch-Fey subclass this time
Barbarian will probably gain a new subclass and a revise of either ancestral or zealot subclasses. Warlock will need a revised hexblade if they are keeping pact weapon cantrip the same since they are now redundant. Sorcerer will get a new wild magic table hopefully and pick shadow and divine as the 2 other subclasses. Wizard was probably chosen with a roulette wheel. And fighter will keep the main 3 and get cavalier as the 4th subclass.
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xjYou forgot totem warrior. I bet they will make you chose a totem as a bonus action each turn you are raging
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj you can remove hex warrior from hexblade entirely and it's still a powerful subclass. so no, no revising needed. not for that reason anyway. it's still an awful subclass in terms of design and flavour
Counterspell should be brought down to a second level spell slot, its very similar to hold person now. it does only cost a reaction, but its uses are also much more limited and only lasts 1 turn on success. And having no benefit to upcasting it is a feel bad imo specially for warlocks.
Sad that Necromancy wasn’t one of the Wizard subclasses.
just means it'll be in the second book after the PHB (2024). There's 4 wizard and I wanna say 4 or 5 Cleric subclasses from the PHB being left out to give everything else an even 4. Though why they're shoehorning in Clockwork and Aberrant Mind into PHB over Storm and Shadow Magic I don't really get. But I suspect we'll be seeing Death and/or Grave, Necromancy, and Shadow Magic in the second book of the 2024 edition.
@@fandomonium3789 I think it just means it's in a different UA . There were other schools missing such as conjuration, enchantment, necromancy and transmutation.They are are not replacing PHB classes. Only adding to them.
*[EDIT:]* Nevermind. I think I found the articles confirming otherwise.
The Necromancer was very lackluster as it was, losing it isnt a huge loss. Unless they intend to really buff it.
If there was one PHB Wizard sub-class I'd cut, it'd be that one. It should in the DMG with the other villain sub-classes.
I don't know if they read this, but they need to add "Prerequiste: Level 1+ Warlock" to Pact of the Blad and Pact of the Tome to prevent Warlock Initiates from taking them.
Good catch.
There's a few things he mentioned that aren't actually in there, like the design notes says the Eldritch Knight can replace 2 attacks to cast a level 1 or 2 spell, put the actual feature doesn't have a level restriction. Also, he said the Wild Magic Sorcerer's Bend Luck is now a d6 instead of a d4, but that's not true, nor is it mentioned in the design notes. In the Warlock multiclass section, it also says the prerequisite is "13 in one of the Warlock's primary abilities, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma", although I think that's a holdover from the last UA with it.
Arcane Archer with more than 3 arrows a long rest from level 1-20. Add Thrown Weapon fighting for a fighter style feat. Monks having access to martial weapons so they can get some of the GOOD feats. a slight bump to MA damage dice and getting damage dice for Monk Weapons. Let monks perform their class features for free BUT it costs discipline points to enhance them. Gain feature = 1 point for boost, next boost = 2 points, next boost = 4 Ans so forth depending on feature and possible number of boosts. SO at some point at each tier their monk ability gets a bigger and bigger boost. (But the boost should be worth the investment) FOR EXAMPLE: deflect missiles. already free but for each boost, Monk can use feature one additional time per turn for self or ally 5 feet away.
Sadly I don't think they will pick arcane archer as the 4th subclass for fighter, it will most likely be cavalier.
I love the idea of all Warlocks pacts be an invocation. Get more tham one pact is always a personal wish.
They could let you access new spells for each pact to.
Ex:
Pact of the Blade: Wrathfull Smite, Enhace Ability, Haste, Stoneskin, Holly Weapon (Unholly version option to)
Pact of the Tome: Shield, Heat Metal, Claryvoiance, Polymorph, Flame Strike
Pact of The Chain: Grease, Flaming Sphere, Hunger of Hadar, Mordenkainen’s Faithful Hound, Conjure Elementals
The new Counterspell is good, but I think there should be a new ruling for spellcasters if they are making Con Save against the casting of Counterspell, that they should use their spell modifier (Charisma, Intelligence or Wisdom) in place of their Constitution modifier. This will in fact balance Counterspell, since the classic spellcaster depictions are glass canons who might not focus their points into Constitution. This will in fact make War Caster a more desirable feat, in case spellcaster VS spellcaster Counterspell war. The end goal is that the PC casting Counterspell will still have a challenge against a BBG who might have a 22 Int score that can add their +6 Int mod in lieu of their Con score for the Constitution Saving Throw needed to overcome the PC’s Counterspell and vis versa.
Fix the Monk please.
Wait for playtest 8...... and they will still mess up
I need to see how they plan on changing Wizards from what they showed. I think it was a good start but some of the wording needed to be cleaned up to ensure it wasn't problematic and potentially broken but I loved what they added. Maybe lower Spell Mastery to somewhere around 10th level because using a single 1st level spell or two at will just doesn't seem that big of a deal at 10th level and it feels pointless at near max level
Casting shield every turn would make your wizard a better tank than most marshals since they never fixed or removed the 1st level feat that gives medium armor and shield training. To early for spell mastery.
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj sure, that's actually a reasonable counter. Maybe have restrictions like it must cost an action normally. Obviously some tweaks would need to be done
Whether you keep or remove the shared spell lists, there will still be a significant overlap in the spells that spellcasters can use. What truly sets casters apart are the specific spells unique to each of them. The distinctiveness doesn't arise from grouping shared spells and labeling those groups.
Shared spell lists serve the purpose of aiding players and DMs in navigating the hundreds of spells available. They don't diminish individuality nor contribute to distinctiveness. If your aim is distinctiveness, be more discerning in selecting which spells should be shared among casters, and perhaps limit the pool of shared spells. Then, create unique spell lists for each class and subclass. Don't remove a tool that simplifies players' experiences.
Shared spell lists made the universe consistent. Why can a bard cast a spell that a wizard can't, how does it work, where does it come from? Unified spell lists made it clear where the magic comes from and what forms it can assume. Classes could have features granting access to unique spell-like abilities like paladin smite or wild shape. As for wizard identity, I'd just cut out a part of arcane spell list and made it wizard-only on the basis of these spells being to complicated to understand without academic study that wizards undertake.
Barbarian, we don't want to expand the Crit range because you get expanded crit range due to advantage... Fighter, hey, on this class with the expanded crit range, have more ways to get advantage! Yeah, and you also get more attacks which give you more chances to crit, but we can't have a way for Barbarians to have an expanded crit range at all...
Barbarians Have rage, cmon
Create and Modify spell just needed tweeking, not an entire dumping of the feature. Please bring it back.
Why is it they needed to chop down the entire concept of Arcane, Divine, and Primal spell lists to avoid harming Wizard’s class identity? Isn’t the more obvious answer to give Wizards spell list expanding features? “The Wizard’s spell list isn’t the biggest anymore, so instead of making it bigger, we’re going to go back to every other class’s spell list being smaller.” So backwards, like why make a new book if you’re too scared to develop meaningful changes? That’s called a $70 errata. If I want to play by 2014 rules, I’ll use the 2014 handbook.
One obvious spell list expanding feature that I've always wanted personally is for Wizards of a certain school to get access to ALL spells of that school. Especially with the change of healing spells from evocation to abjuration. Didn't really make sense for the Evoker to be able to heal but the Abjurer? Why not?
They just don't know what to do with the Wizard, that's all. It's full of empty levels again. They made obviously OP changes last time (spell modify, creation) and instead of fixing it they just stepped back.
Barbarians:
I guess the d12 die on crits is nice, but I really don't think it matters. Could be +100 flat damage. I played a half orc barbarian and just didn't crit much. Often when I did, it was on an already weakened enemy and the dm said I didn't even need to roll damage. I got a useful crit once every month or two - not a lot for a core feature of the barbarian. At my table, we played about 4 hrs per week, so only one combat of about 4 rounds. Reckless attacking + two attacks (0.925^8) 54% chance I wouldn't crit on any given week. Really seems like a nice ribbon feature but doesn't excite me. An extra 6.5 damage occasionally when the casters are sculpting spells, flying, and doing cool stuff really just feels bad.
As a player with barbarian experience, would you say something extreme like a buff to reckless attack being “if you haven’t moved and haven’t taken actions or bonus actions you can make a singular melee reckless attack against one enemy. If that attack hits it’s a critical hit. Attacks against you have advantage until your next turn” in place of brutal critical would be good enough or too broken?
Asking as a homerule justification
@@potest_nucis8012I think there's too much focus on the idea of landing criticals. Reckless Attack already is increasing one's chances of getting a critical hit and that's a base Barbarian feature, other classes need specific subclasses to get something similar and they are all conditional. Brutal Critical isn't great, but it's also not the core of what a barbarian is or what they do.
I think what you're wanting is just bigger explosive damage to which I say, you don't need to mess with the base class to do. Magic Items and feats are a better route to go. Feats would be my recommendation so that any Barbarian can grab them if they do choose. Design a feat that's slightly situational but effective. You're looking to let a barbarian FEEL powerful without going overboard.
The barbarian should do critical on command or at least have enhanced critical. I would propose a kind of Action Surge that instead of the additional action, allows the barbarian to do critical (if it hits)
@@NFBR-87 yeah that’s what I feel with these critical base class features
So, reading through the changes: with Mystic Arcanum reverting back to 2014, what happened with those invocations that were eliminated in playtest 5 in lieu of it--like Sculptor of Flesh? Are they gonna be added to the Warlock spell list, still invocations, or gone the way of the Dodo?
I assume all of those spells will be on the warlock spell list. Still would have preferred universal lists.
Hopefully barbarian doesn't only get brutal critical at higher levels. Really feels bad when your class features never happen
The absolute irony of saying it’s too powerful to expand Barb’s crit range like the Champion because of Reckless Attack, then turn around and give Champ 1xturn free advantage.
Anyone else want more non-magical barbarian and fighter subclasses? Feels like most martial subclasses have magic anyways in some form.
This Barbarian subclass sounds lame.
I mean, the new fighter subclass hits people with chairs.
i really dislike how close to 5e they have to stay, it took away a lot of risks and opportunity to make real changes
This is the downside of the UA process. Big improvements like making Warlocks a clear half-caster with more flexible spellcasting vs a less-good full caster got voted down by people who liked the 5e version and couldn't handle them being a clear GISH class. The pact magic system SUCKS but enough people complained that they had to give up on fixing it.
Big changes are fine if they don't suck. The problem is most of the big changes they wanted to do sucked.
@ether4211 no, Pact magic needs work but making warlocks a half caster was not the answer. They took away invocation options by taxing them to get mystic arcanum and slowed spell level progression down. Warlocks were terrible in the last UA, just give the people what they want and have Pact slot numbers increase in line with proficiency bonus (limited to class level obviously).
@@craigauty8874 that's the problem, Warlocks SHOULD be half casters on par with the Artificer with more of a focus on Invocations vs simply trying to replicate a full caster. This way you have an arcane half caster in the PHB to work alongside the Paladin for Divine and Ranger for Primal. However people had a dummyspit at the idea of slower spell progression. I'm glad the new UA increased Invocations again but we missed out on having the chance to push for players to get to 10-14 invocations with total freedom to mix and match higher level 'one per day' spells and/or 'always on abilities'. Instead people gave up the ability of more warlock exclusive invocation stacking for once per long rest spells...which made warlocks less interesting/unique.
Backwards compatibility with 5e while still improving the game play was the goal.
I think pactof the chain should be like a summoner of creatures, like they start at an increased familier, and each level get to summon an Eldritch type creature, related to their patron. And add creatures to your stable each level, but only 1 at a time
Yesssssss. I’ve been hoping for a real summoner build. Even just being able to summon one creature that get buffed as you go with your patrons cosmetics or damage type influence. Conjugation mage and Shepherd Druid both just feel kinda boring and don’t fulfill the eldritch summoner feel. I want my warlock to pull out a octoclops and have eldritch blast come out it eye or shadow hound that that adds tactics for my hexblade
So many people keep trying to force it back to 5e, I am disappointed with the feedback results that disagree with any changes
The truth is they never intended it to be too different from 5e, this is all a ploy to bypass the SRD by making it just different enough legally and not lose the people who got in since 5e started. Forgetting it was 3rd party content creators who helped 5e become the global phenomenon it is.
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj what do you mean by bypasssing the SRD?
They proposed a lot of changes that didn't get good feedback - so they immediately changed it back to 5e.
I don't know who else is submitting feedback - but I was looking forward to having a game that was slightly different.
@@captainrelyk I just wish we could at least meet somewhere in the middle.
They are way too reactive on the feedback. It's like stuff doesn't get fleshed out very much and it's immediately back to the same thing it was for the last ten years.
Trust me - I really liked 5e. I have been playing D&D since the 70's. It was one of the best rulesets we've had. But can we get a few new things in .. I just feel like we're the ones that they are asking for advice.. and the community keeps saying no to every single thing that is different.
@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj this guy^knows exactly what is up!! Its all smoke and mirrors, illusion of choice. They have had this 95% finished when they announced. You guys are just playing along, no offense.
How will Hexblade be compensated if the "hex warrior" was copied to all warlocks that have the pact of blade?
Here is the problem with Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer.
1. The level 18 feature was always bad. It being a full action and required concertation was terrible, but it is still bad even with those changes because charm and frighten are borderline useless at level 18. Almost everything you are fighting at that level is either resistant to, or immune to charm and frighten. We need a completely new level 18 feature. Giving them Shapechange into their Draconic ancestor would be really awesome.
2. Not choosing a draconic ancestor feels like a lot of the heart and soul of the subclass is gone. I feel like much more of the subclass should be based off of that choice. And the choice should be made at level 3.
3. Why, on god's green Earth, would you include Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul and not give Draconic and Wild Magic additional spells known?! The 10+ additional spells known that Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul added so much flavor to those classes and a much needed boost in versatility. It is the #1 thing Sorcerer fans have asked for, and not giving it to Draconic and Wild Magic is just stupid.
I have put this on every UA survey that has featured the Sorcerer and, once again, I will be doing the same.
Fellow sorcerer player here, here's my 2 cents:
1. Agreed on not wanting Draconic Presence. I feel like they should just replace it with, "you can true polymorph into a dragon." I'm also disappointed that all of the progress synergizing the draconic ancestry throughout the entire subclass is now gone for the sake of going back to the same old same old.
2. I have a problem with Aberrant mind and Clockwork being included for a different reason. The reason they had extra spells was because sorcerer got less spells than every other full caster (I believe it was 15 spells by lvl 20) That's been changed, as sorcerer now gets 22 spells by lvl 20. So it's not "why doesn't draconic and wild magic have extra spells," it's "why did you copy/paste two subclasses that, unchanged, don't synergize with the positive changes you've made to the class?" They could've just revised a xanathar's subclass and made a new one. Just lazily porting over the two Tasha's subclasses feels like a copout.
@@portsyde3466 I feel like Storm Sorcerer and another of the older Sorcerer subclasses should have been included. Giving them major buffs. I would honestly much rather have Sorcerers get only 15 known spells but get 10 extra spells known based on their subclass. Adds more flavor, utility, and identity to the subclasses. Plus it helps out the base class a lot.
But overall, Draconic Bloodline does not feel draconic in the slightest and that is really bad.
No Necromancer for Wizard, eh? I distinctly remember them saying in some of the earlier playtest videos that we would be seeing it eventually. Ah well.
I do to. Granted, it sounded like a personal/non-scripted question from Todd (probably because he really likes Necromancer) and at the time, Jeremy may have been caught off guard or actually thought that Necromancer would make it to the new book. They did say though that any subclasses that weren't ported over from the old PHB can still be used as is. Would've been nice to get an update though.
Let's compare brutal critical to divine strike. Brutal critical adds 6 and a 1/2 damage. Every time you create divine strike adds 9 damage every time and also 4.5 every time you dont.
When you think of brutal critical in the way of what if hunter's mark only worked on crits It becomes very readily apparent that it's actually a very bad feature even if you have advantage. Yet you get it 3 times as 3 high level exclusive class features
But if it also had a crit range improvement. Even with advantage, The increased chance of creating the increased damage of critting and the increased chance of doing that increase to damage would all Add up to a quantity of damage that is similar to divine strike.
Is that not reasonable for a 13th level feature? Surely I can get the brutal at level nine the savage (increased range) At level 13 and then you can think of another barbarian feature. Because the biggest complaint about barbarians is that there's not enough incentive to continue in the class past level 5 Unless you plan to go all the way to 20.
I liked most of what I heard here, but I am really missing some discussion on high level martials, there was a little bit about reigning the wizard in just a bit, but all the goodies for martials seemed to come below level 10.
I’m liking this - it’s tighter and more streamlined, more thematic customization, more flexible within your subclass yet easier to work through etc.
I’m going to ask my DM if I can use this in our next campaign starting in a few weeks.
Can we go back to letting Warlocks choose Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma, I'm fine with Pact Magic but that option was fun and customizable to not be locked into Charisma.
Oh look two subclasses that do just as much or even more damage on punches than Monks do. I understand monks get access to a BA attack way earlier, but the brawler fighter has the benefit of not having to spread stats across three ability scores and gets heavy armor. WotC just hates Monks I guess.
Seems a little weird because I thought the cosmology went back to the Wheel instead of the Tree. That’s a pretty big change.
Seems to me like it's a different world tree than from before, the way he described it - this version seems more like a multiverse thing?
Yeahhhh I heard that and got thrown off. It’s back tho?
Yeah that actually pissess me off because I think the world tree cosmology is stupid.
The World Tree concept is explored more in Glory of the Giants, as a legacy from the First World that was used to connect to the Outer Planes. In that giant lore, after that world got destroyed, the seeds of the tree were scattered. Annam, the All-Father of giants, cultivated the seeds to connect the worlds of the Material Plane, which he crafted from the Elemental Chaos.
An organization of giants called The Worldroot Circle believe that there are certain locations in each world that are the "Root of the World", and that they operate as a nexus that links the worlds to each other and to the planes. This organization opposes the Cults of Elemental Evil and any unbalance in the elements might threaten the roots and health of the world. This leads and a later campaign idea in the book lead me to believe that the World Tree is also holding the worlds from dissolving back into Elemental Chaos.
It seems like they are repurposing the old concept of the World Tree cosmology into their First World, before it was splintered into many shards. Perhaps the theories of that cosmology model came from sages stumbling upon ancient First World lore. The ideas of the World Tree and the Great Wheel don't contradict one another, the roots of the World Tree can be thought of as another road of travel between the planes and worlds, but the cosmology is still being positioned by alignment in the Great Wheel.
In a way the World Tree is a more primal method for connecting the worlds as opposed to the Arcane and Divine of the Great Wheel and Astral Sea. It might have been used by Annam to craft the terrain of the worlds, but it could be used by other humanoid druidic circles as well, and I think this Barbarian Path explores that.
In the DMG, it probides multiple examples for multiverse cosmology, including both the wheel and the world tree. This was probably put here to facilitate the use of either.
As a wizard main. I now cry every night knowing we aren’t ACTUALLY better sorcerer anymore.
I want to see a better Monk and Warlock!
So does everyone else
YES!
I've been playing monk for years and tbh it is weaker, but in a way that even with peak roleplaying skills (yeah yeah, I'll be narcicistic, sorry guys) it stll lacks in ways to stay reliable in comparision to the other clases at high levels of play
They seem to be replacing the monk with different subclasses. Brawler is a repugnant example.
@@NFBR-87 They did say in the video that Monk will be in the next UA as they are working on the feedback they got from it
@@NFBR-87good
TBH, I liked the idea of the spell list by theme with a small list of class exclusives. What I didn't like was the arrangement and how bard seemed to be more expansive than wizards but only by the means of magical secrets, I think bards being able to pick was a really good idea. So I'm actually a little saddened to see them go, but I prefer the classes having identity over the arrangement of spells. That being said, love the flavor of WT Barbarian, but Brawler really makes me ask "why play a monk?" Monks really need to gain weapon mastery options from unarmed strikes.
Also this rules revision is really going to have me hard pressed to spend a bunch of money to get these classes and subclasses, feels like the changes are errata at best. I can't see spending $50 on this book and feeling good about it.
LOVING THE WARLOCK, you guys did great!
I think there still should be a tie to the spell level that is being countered. Such as the target having advantage on the saving trhow if the used spell's level is greater than the counter spell. It seems off to be able to relatively easily counter a 9th lvl spell with any 3rd lvl spell slot.
"One of the huge issue with counterspell was that It was no harder to counter a arch lich than a sixth level wizard".
Somebody is a huge Vecna fan and took it very personally that Scanlan was able to f**k him. Deal with it, that was a genius move!
I think weapon mastery’s are great, but I feel battle maneuvers should be base line for all fighters. For base fighters I feel you could get 2 maneuvers and they refresh on a long rest and you get a few more maneuvers as you level higher in the class. Battle master could get more maneuvers and refresh on a short rest.
On 23:23, I think y’all missed the mark on what people were telling you about weapon masteries. That system is good, but it’s WORDY and complicated. Worst still, the most useful part of that old play test, weapon adept where you could give weapons additional masteries, is gone. I think you should bring that back and give it to ALL martials early on. It would make their play styles fun to be able to use multiple skills without needing to swap weapons, and doing cool combos with weapon masteries.
Is it just me or did they give sorcerers the best level 20 capstone feature in a previous playtest and then gave them a not-as-good borderline meh one in the latest playtest material? Also does the new level 5 "Sorcereous Restoration" make sense to anyone. It says you regain sorcery points equal to your level divided by 5. So, if I'm a level 5 sorcerer and use the level 5 feature, I get a grand total of one sorcery point then when I hit level 20 and use this feature I get a "magical" 4 sorcery point. Like am I the only one who thinks that is a bit unimpressive.
I think maybe the solution they used for the Fighter's Superiority Die would be a great solution for the Monk's Ki Point issue as well. Let Monks have 1 "free" Ki point every round or something. "Mastery of Flowing Ki" starting at level X, the first time you would spend a Ki point on your turn, reduce the cost by 1
they said they are doign that basically next packet
I read the UA Playtest 7 and love the vast majority of it! Hoping that people will vote down features that refresh Rage, Ki, & Spell Slots only when those pools are empty! Love the idea of refreshes, but this will just encourage strategically dumping pools, which is an unnatural play experience. Also, please ask that unarmed attack specialists (Monk, Brawler) gain access to the Sap, Slow, & Vex Weapon Masteries!
Looking forward to reading the detailed pdf, these changes all sound very fun and interesting (though I am a little sad about modify and create spell being gone, they were definitely a little powerful but I loved the idea of them)
I’m kinda hoping that they add them on as Optional Features and give them the same sort of warnings that Firearms have today.
I would prefer if Magical Cunning came online at lv5 but gave you 2 spell slots back and stayed that way.
I also would have preferred it to be called 'Eldritch Cunning'
Gotta say it: Fighter Brawler > Entire monk class?
Sad truth...
Can you please add the Finesse property to the sickle? And the handaxe to give the rogue additional weapon possibilities?
Crossing my Fingers for some things like improved Weapon Mastery, a version of Eldritch Knight that doesn't suck, and maybe the ability for Monks to actually use weapon masteries with their fists among other things.
I also *want* nerfs to spellcasters but well, I know the company is called "Wizards" of the Coast and not "Fighters" of the coast so we'll see...
I don’t want nerfs, I want everything else to come up to the same level as the casters lol.
I don't think anything for the monk will be in playtest 7. For the eldritch knight, maybe they will roll it together with arcane archer and give them spells similar to paladin smites.
Spellcasters don't need nerfs. Spells do.
@@RubyculeI agree, but a nerf to spells is kind of by proxy a nerf to spellcasters.
@@EPICSAWIKI the problem is that casters keep getting buffed and buffed with every new edition and new book that comes out. I think it's overdue that we try to reign them in a bit. Whether that comes in the form of nerfing some overpowered spells or changes to the classes or even to how magic works in the first place.
The lack of the universal spell lists is the final straw to get me to not buy anything from the revised 5e. I'm just going to copy parts I like for my revisions to 5e for my group.
There are so many problems I've seen with OneDnD and how many good changes got dropped and how many bad ideas stayed
Universal spell lists should have been a buff to so many casters and allowed a perfect Bard. All they had to do was add something interesting to Wizard, but since their first attempt was too overpowered they decided to scrap it all. It would have allowed easier ways of adding more spellcasting classes to the game as well.
Exhaustion changes would have allowed a very simple and intuitive way to track that mechanic, but it got removed
Druids having a template could have allowed so much creativity for druids and solved so many issues if they stuck with it and just added more abilities to add to the creatures. Instead we have to stick with the limited pool of beasts that shrinks in viability as you go up in level
They made Grappling take a save and have nothing to do with athletics, making one of the few useful combat skills even less useful. And since its strength based, monks can't even use it well since they cannot use dex for grappling (which was not in 5e either, but at least in 5e they could take the skill)
When people were complaining that the monk had not enough Ki and that too many abilities that used ki, they just changed the name to Discipline points, changed nothing else about it, and made more monk abilities require points.
Where monks could have really benefited from weapon mastery on unarmed strikes as a representation of their martial arts, they said no, you can only use it on the simple weapons which dont scale in damage anymore. And the lack of martial weapons means monk can't even take warrior feats... one of the warrior classes, can't take warrior feats...
This revision of 5e hasnt brought much new to the table. Most of the stuff is just a few reworks and rewording of class features or spells. We've got maybe a few new spells (though i know more spells come later), weapon mastery (still a fairly lackluster system in terms of bridging the martial/caster divide), and a few new subclasses.
Listen I love 5e, in spite of its issues. and I had so much hope for OneDnD, but I think that the 2024 deadline has hampered WotC's ability to design and fix the system. So I'm just not going to buy it, even after the OGL scandal, I was thinking I might purchase the books if OneDnD actually changes 5e enough, but no. I'll go back to just homebrewing for the group I run. I'm still gonna take the surveys because I want this game to change for the better, even if I know it wont really change anything.
Anyways, if you've read this whole thing, thanks, and have a wonderful day.
I actually loved the spell lists, or rather, especially for warlock, it made sense goven it's an otherworldly entity to give you powers, that you're not really restricted vs what a sorcerer or warlock can choose from.
So sad that we do not get standard classes progression back, no one are even listening the feedback from us
It's so stupid to see a lot of classes level table with many levels without nothing
All I hear about One D&D is that you're moving feats and spells around.
A new player is either going to be intimidated by this, or glaze over it completely.
And old player is going to see their character as a mech to pilot in a video game.
Meanwhile, I feel like DMs are getting no support, and the core problems with 5E (combat bloat, unkillable characters, a super jank magic system) are being ignored.
You're honestly pushing me away from D&D.
The DM stuff is coming once they finish playtesting the Players Handbook. They've been up front/transparent that they are working on the DMG once the PHB changes are locked in.
@@ether4211 glad they're prioritizing arbitrarily shuffling around abilities over addressing the core system and how the game is run 🙃
I miss the Wizard's spell customization abilities from the previous playtest. Granted, they were as OP as OP could get, but I think the idea could have still worked if they were moved into being late-game class features, maybe even as the 20th-level capstone (especially since they were on the Wizard, who by that point in the game is already famously OP as it is, so it's not like most players or DMs wouldn't be prepared for shenanigans coming out of them).
Yeah I don't understand why they got rid of it, it was extremely cool. And Wizard's make spells, it's what they do. So players should be able to do it too at some point.
You guys should just give Warlocks a feature that provides 1st level spell slots equal to their proficiency bonus. This pushes the uniqueness of pact magic, gives the warlock more spells, doesn’t allow them to just nuke constantly, and doesn’t step on the Wizards toes with a rest that regens spell slots
I feel like this would be fine. Definitely better than Magical Cunning, which barely feels like anything good since it does effectively the same thing as the 'free patron spell casting' until you reach Level 9. Doesn't really solve the problem of Warlock being dead weight after they run out of slots (albeit, less so than Monk).
I still like this version of warlock, but at least keep the free patron spell with Magical Cunning; it currently doesn't feel like enough.
Unless you are talking about a sorcerer, a 1st level caster is just as easy to counterspell as a 20th level caster unless they can boost their saving throws, would warcaster give them advantage against counterspell saves? Or does this require a paladin and bard to always be there to give their caster counterspell insurance? For the most part I think this just makes counter spell less effective against monsters and more effective against players.
A casters con save will not really change much through out the game, going from maybe a +1-2 to +2-3, maybe, but monster con saves range from +0 to +13, the disparity is clear.
If you dont want counterspell to be a player option maybe just say it?
It's sad to see that necro wizard was nixed. As a reminder, there are 12 classes and 48 subclasses coming in the 2024 PHB, meaning that each class will have 4 subclasses. On the one hand, necro wizard getting axed stings a little as that was a fun subclass that needed more refinement. On the other hand, a glimmer of hope remains that the lack of necro wizard means we could possibly get a necromancer class in the future (not in the 2024 PHB of course), which would be so much better since necromancers deserve their own class.
we wont be getting new spellcaster classes. The universal spell lists was the only chance for that. Because otherwise, when you add a new caster class, any future books that add new spells that can be taken by that class have to add blurbs saying you can find the class in x book like they currently have to do with artificer. It would bloat text over time.
If it was three universal lists, then adding a new caster just means you say which spell list they get and add their class unique spells in said book.
About The Idea of a especific terrain feature for The Ranger, and things related, i would like to sugest for The playtest 8:
(I really would like to know your opinion, guys)
-Expertise: Separate from deft explorer, granting the benefit in two skills as occurs with rogue and bard. Later the Ranger receives expertise in two other skills, totaling 4 as with other classes focused on Skill.
-Reason: It would guarantee full efficiency as an expert, not falling behind classes supposed to be specialists in another area of activity.
-Deft Explorer: Completely redesigned. The Ranger receives this benefit on a number of lands he has come into contact with, like, up to the amount of half the level (rounded up) + wisdom bonus. In them, the character and allies who can see him up to 30 feet do not suffer from difficult terrain arising from natural areas, and the ranger can use stealth, study and surch actions related to the terrain and its creatures as a bonus action.
-Reason: When an action can be performed as a BA, this means it can be performed twice as many times per round, effectively doubling your chances of success and/or cutting the time to perform a task in half (perfect for representing someone familiar with with an environment).
-Favored Enemy: The ranger adds hunters mark to his list of spells known. If you already have it, choose another spell. Additionally, as part of the bonus action used to cast or designate a new Hunters Mark target, the Ranger performs a Study action with the appropriate Skill to identify details about the creature. You will receive an advantage if the creature is related to known terrain (Deft Explorer). For every 5 above the Skill CD to identify the creature, hunters mark will be cast 1 level higher.
-Reason: extra information about a prey's weaknesses and habits is flavorful, and the upcast represents that the Ranger has intuited more efficient ways of not losing his tracks and even causing more damage.
PS: It would be great if hunters mark became concentration free after a certain casting level, as happens with bestow curse.
-Deft Explorer Improvement: the Ranger adds his Wisdom Bonus in Study Actions related to known terrains and their creatures. When on familiar terrain, it adds a wisdom bonus to its initiative and cannot suffer the surprised condition.
-Reason: Walter is simply not surprised by anything in Texas, just like Aragorn in Middle Earth.
-Natures Veil: The ranger adds Invisibility to his list of spells known. When on known terrain, you can cast Invisibility on yourself as a bonus action and when the spell ends because of an attack or spellcasting, it will still last until the end of your next turn.
-Reason: increases versatility since invisibility is something quite versatile, as it creates a mechanism related to the environment to add flavor. At this point the Ranger would have, on average, 7 to 10 known terrains. Added to the number of spell slots, use as intended will be quite frequent.
Innate sorcery is just giving the sorcerer a clutch it wouldn't need if it was designed right.
Merge spell slots and sorcery points into one pool of magical power and start with access to more metamagic options (and make the progression more smooth!). Then the sorcerer will finally be free to function the way it was meant to!
Fighters should not just be relegated to the simple class. You can make maneuvers simple for those who don't want to handle more complexity, but limiting the best, most interesting feature of an entire class to a single subclass is just silly.
I feel like the easiest thing to do for warlocks to make casting a non-scaling low-level spell (like Shield or Misty Step) would be a 5th level feature that lets you cast non-damaging spells of a level up to your pact magic spell level -2 (so 1st level spells at level 5 when you get 3rd level spell slots) as a cantrip a number of times per long rest equal to your proficiency bonus. The only thing I don't like about playing a warlock is not having those throwaway spell slots to use for utility spells so you lose out on the ability to use that big nuke or control spell.
Also, make Hunger of Hadar damage scale with slot level ("Here's one of the few warlock-only spells! It doesn't scale with higher spell slot levels.").
JUST GIVE FIGHTERS MANEUVERS! Or at least make the options more interesting and varied than just making them do a saving throw.
Literally, fighters in other systems are fighters becoming they’re the best at fighting. In the older editions of D&D alone, fighters got the best chance to hit and up to 3 attacks per round, double that if hasted
But 5e seemed to think that a fighter being able to get 1 extra attack and otherwise attack just like everyone else, while giving every other class a method to get action surge with only a small dip into fighter, was enough to make the fighter distinct
That’s the problem with this game, they got such a hardon for options that no one class is truly unique in what they can do.
I like how Baulders Gate 3 does it giving unique attacks depending on the weapon.
It's half a solution. It fixes Fighters but it doesn't do anything for any of the other martial classes. But I agree that Maneuvers could afford to show up more places and more often.
Just give warlocks an eldrich invocation series that gives them lower level spell slots. Arcane proficiency, gain 2 1st level spell slots, refresh on a long rest. Arcane adept, gain 2 2nd level spell slots, etc. Give the option to use those low level utility spells. People just don't want to burn 1 of their 2 4th level spell slots because they need to misty step.