It's always a treat to see one of your videos pop up on my feed! I'm glad that you did all the hard work so we don't have to, sounds like there were (as expected) some good changes, some bad ones. Still not sure whether I'll go through the trouble of buying the new book. But boy is my curiosity piqued.... Edit: I'd honestly love a whole video dedicated to going through some popular homebrew Ranger classes; I know there are a lot out there, but I haven't gotten around to looking into them in-depth. Some of your ideas sound really fun, I'm sure there are some good homebrews out there that are maybe having similar ideas!
Glad my videos can brighten your day! I was pleasantly surprised by the new book, but still not sure I’d recommend it before we get the complete set with the new DMG and MM. Going over some homebrew class concepts could be fun, I might add it to my list! Thanks for the idea!
2 Small clarifications on wizards; Their ability to cast ritual spells without preparing them was always present! It was just hidden in the Spellcasting feature before, & is listed as a separate feature now. Also, you didn’t mention the MASSIVE nerf to spell mastery! It can only be used on spells with a casting time of 1 action now. The days of high level wizards having Shield & Misty step as cantrips are over. Otherwise, great video! The brevity is a breath of fresh air compared to how long winded other similar D&D videos can get.
I'm just gonna have to hard disagree on Warlock personally. Sure they didn't really expand on the options of the Warlock, but what they did do was make it so you feel like you actually have more of a choice than you did in 2014. For the longest time Blade was basically a useless Pact Boon, and even with Hexblade it was still only okay. Now there's a multitude of reasons to take a melee route with the Warlock. The PHB subclasses have pretty much all been dramatically improved to be less situational and limited in use making them all more viable options, greatly expanding the routes you can take without sacrificing power. Many key Warlock spells and invocations were also altered to make them more appealing, like taking Repelling Blast with any attack cantrip or upcasting spells like Hunger of Hadar, or just the massive upgrade to Witch Bolt. Overall, while they didn't neccessarily add anything too flashy to the Warlock, they made the inner class balance much better than it was before. Now I feel like there's an actual choice between Archfey, GoO, and Fiend. Where as before it was almost always either a Tasha's Warlock or a Hexblade.
Those are some fair points, I fully admit that I didn’t dive into the subclasses for this video, and I also wasn’t considering upgrades to spells like witch bolt. Those do have a big effect on the class as a whole. I do like what they’ve done with a lot of the invocations - I just wish there were more of them! And I think they could’ve kept the pact boons separate from invocations, while not limiting so many to having a pre-rec so you can more freely mix and match. But I see your points and am glad you disagree, hopefully as I see it play out my table I’ll come to agree!
This only just came up in my notifications! Thank you for distilling this information so neatly. Anything else I was thinking has already been brought up by the folks here ahead of me, so...have a comment for the algorithm, I guess? Good content as always!
So after some experimenting. I did a combat test where I asked if I could try the new chromatic orb with old twinned spell, just to see how it would play out.. I managed to do 119 points of damage with 2 sorcery points and a lvl 2 spellslot. GRANTED! That was very good rolls and elemental adept acid, but the odds were pretty in my favor but I think it's a good thing they changed twinned spell cause mage rage has some incredible synergy with spells like the new chromatic orb. It's less exciting, but healthier for the game. Also warlock basicaly every subclass can be a weapon warlock.. That celestial patron archer lock idea I had is looking REAL juicy now. Also, blessing of the old ones is an INCREDIBLE invocation. Hexadin won't feel as contradictory now. I can do that paladin who swore an oath to protect nature with an archfey patron, or a swords bard who is a lawyer for the celestial court and uses a big morningstar shaped like a spiky gavel. It makes blade warlock multis feel more flavor cohesive than just 'welp I guess I should dip hexblade.' I also dig tome at level 1 for a bard because I can grab 3 cantrips that I normally wouldn't get access to like Sorcerous Burst to do a fun elemental adept build. I think, outside of ranger, most of teh changes are pretty good. Wizard IS a bit underwhelming but scholar and memorize spell are both quite nice. Besides, as long as yo're not going to do adventure's league or a "only what's within the rulebook nothing else" table, you can still play necromancer (if your dm doens't ban it) and just match the savant to the current.
That is some CRAZY damage, thank you for doing the science on that! And I’m glad you’re liking most of the new class options and changes! I agree that it seems like they’ve done some good work here… Now let’s hope the Monster Manual can match it!
I would give all of the new classes a passing grade. I the design of the Ranger is a bit clunky but still an improvement over the old Ranger. I wouldn’t mind playing a Ranger at all with these rules.
I think that’s fair, I agree that basically all of them are improvements over what came before. I definitely graded them on a bit of a curve! Thanks for your input!
Thank you for that. Nothing too surprising from what I had gathered from elsewhere, and everyone is going to have their own views (as can be witnessed elsewhere in the comments). I haven't gotten to play much 5E, and these changes wouldn't alter those characters. I look forward to seeing how much of the griping is deserved and how much is it just munchkins no longer able to use their pet builds.
I’m sure it’ll take a while before everything settles and it becomes clear what’s broken and what’s not. But glad my first impressions could at least give you an idea of how things have shaken out!
This video is great. You cover everything in less than 25 minutes, your diction is very good (some people speak too fast and are hard to understand), and you're very animated. Well done! It's a shame that they can't get Rangers right though!
Since sorcerer was the first class I ever played as (and therefore I'm really attached to it and my blorbo assigned to that class) I have to say I really LOVE the changes, but I am REALLY not liking the Innate Sorcery thingy. It feels too much power-mode'y when to me sorcerers were more about being passively magical. If I'd change anything about the new sorcerer it would be two things: 1. Disconnect the new metamagic stuff from innate sorcery and delete it, I just really don't like it and feel like sorcerers should just be focused more on metamagic. 2. Change some metamagic options. Twinned spell has been done dirty and heightened spell, while I think the reduced cost is nice, might be a biiiit too strong with it affecting every save of the spell you use it with, instead of just the inital save. Other than that I'm surprised that they now get more known spells, because I was used to them being a "you have less spells known but have more insteresting stuff to do with them" kind of caster. Oh, and I guess moving the subclass from lvl1 to lvl3, but that's a grievance I have with overall changes done to the classes in PHB'24, not just with sorcerer, though it hits sorcerers the hardest in my humble opinion.
I agree with both points! I don’t hate innate sorcery as a concept but having it tied to the better metamagic options doesn’t sit right with me, and thee were a few that could’ve been tweaked some more. Thanks for sharing, hopefully you’ll still enjoy playing as a sorcerer with the new rules (or just stick to the old ones!).
@@TheBardsCollegeYT Oooh, that also seems like a good solution! But yeah, the way me and my friend group are dealing with those changes is by making a bit of a homebrew synthesis between original and new rules. For instance we basically picked the new Monk over the previous one with no changes just because of how much everyone likes those additions. But also we made compromises between old and new Indomitable for Fighter, since we thought that rerolling the save AND adding your fighter level is just a legendary resistance in disguise, so we limited it to the proficiency bonus instead to make it a little less guaranteed to pass the save.
I love that! Very cool of you and your group to get together and homebrew something you all enjoy (and honestly, that does sound like a less broken version of Indomitable)
If we're just assessing base classes then you won't get an accurate depiction of how the classes actually play. You can't play without a subclass unless you're a paladin that just broke your oath and hasn't transitioned to Oathbreaker yet. Warlock basically only got Magical Cunning to the base class, which yes addresses the most common complaint of warlock ("I don't have enough spell slots!") but overall "base warlock" was nerfed. What DOES result in a net improvement to warlock is that all the (2024) subclasses have been massively buffed. Great Old One warlock is genuinely insane during 2nd tier and even stronger going into 3rd tier play. There was a video done by a *certain* creator that basically just ONLY went over the base classes and tried to paint this image that warlock got mega nerfed, and now a tonne of people think warlock is the worst caster in the game now, purely because this one guy started fear mongering over power being shifted from the base class into subclasses (primarily because warlocks break multiclassing in an unhealthy way). If you ONLY look at base class features then you only have this horribly distorted and misinformed view of how the class plays that only is accurate for... Two levels???
I don’t think you’re wrong - to judge only the base classes is an incomplete picture. And I fully admit that I wasn’t doing that in the video! But I do think it’s still valuable to assess the base classes, since no matter which subclass you choose - whether the most optimal or the worst of the bunch - everyone has access to those same features. I think for a video like this, it makes more sense. Otherwise I’d have to go through and grade each subclass individually, against all the other ones, for a truly fair assessment. And I don’t have nearly enough time! But thank you for providing that insight, I’ll have to check out the GOO warlock and see how it’s changed!
I wish I had something positive to add, but.. yeah. It's going to look pretty, but it's going to be costly. I also think that the majority of people who do buy in initially will drop off using it well before they give up gaming, just like lots of people who have extensive collections of terrain eventually stop going all out for their builds all the time.
Yeah, eventually the time and monetary costs outweigh the benefits. We’ll see if I play around with it when it comes out, but probably not something I want to pay extra for. Who knows
A cool possibility might be if they have pre fab adventures in it that match up with their prewritten adventures. Or they allow the creation and sharing by third parties for free or at their own price, if someone builds the entirety of Curse of strahd and a DM can pay directly to that 3rd party creater to be able to run it. Bring in some community elements, not sure how realistic that is
I think in their latest update video they mentioned community-made maps being available, and I think they would have to be crazy not to create some based on modules! Depending on pricing, that could actually make it a bit more than JUST a shameless cash grab
9:38 THAT WAS NOT FAIR AT ALL. Colby one of the most famous optimizers said it best, why Smite. It will be the same either way. Yes once a turn I get, but the bonus action kills the action economy, and why a spell? Do you want them to Smite or not
It always consumed a spell slot, so having it be a spell doesn’t really change anything. And I’m not sure I understand the argument - how is it the same? Smiting adds extra damage - especially when upcast - so it’ giving you a lot of extra damage per turn. But maybe I’m not understanding the argument of why it’s not great
@TheBardsCollegeYT like I said, if it was just once a turn and burns a spell slot, I would be okay with it. That's how Eldritch Smite is and no one complained about it
I guess I’ll have to see how it plays out at the table before judging! I could absolutely be wrong, especially with how it plays with things like weapon mastery. But on its face I think it was a good idea, even if the execution may not be perfect. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I won't take Ranger's slander. Going to disagree on the Ranger's class F-rated update. The supplement is recognized completely as the standard, followed by these: 1. Weapon Masteries, standard for martials except for Monks. 2. Ritual Casting, every caster can but Ranger's have a variety with 12 Spells. 3. Expertise, to mitigate that "flavor" everyone loves to talk about but never use, with actual mechanics. 4. Swapping a Spell at Long Rest, was at level-up. (Saved the best for last) 5. With Tireless, they can effectively travel forever with a short rest in between. To address Hunter's Mark, it IS a good spell. You can cast it, take out a target, then select a new one without anyone noticing. The Spellcasting has a verbal component, the selecting a new one doesn't at all. Also, just because "everyone gets it" doesn't make it a bad feature at all. Spellcasting at 1st level is huge.
I can respect different opinions, and I definitely agree that the ranger is better in this update! But I think a lot of you what listed are things that a lot of classes get (weapon masteries, first level spellcasting) or updates that, while mechanically better, don’t feel very exciting to play out. But of course, this while video is just my opinion, and I’m glad you really like the new ranger! We’ll see if my thoughts change over time!
@@TheBardsCollegeYT After seeing Treantmonk list out Ranger spells, I think this is actually a big thing to take into account for the ranger. There's a surprising number of spells that are non-concentration and pretty effective for the ranger, and a lot of class analysis really doesn't take that into account Paladin is still a lot better, but it was one of the best classes in 2014, but ranger is a lot closer to Pali in the update.
That’s fair, I’ll admit I didn’t do a deep dive on the spell list! The ranger is definitely better, I just wish their base class weren’t as reliant on Hunter’s Mark and had expanded more on their role as leaders in Exploration. But I’ll be happy if future rangers in my party end up loving the class!
The changes to Ranger are extremely boring and uninspired. Doesn't matter how numerically strong they are when their identity as a class is in even worse shambles than before.
I’m definitely not a mathematician, but I stand by what I said! I think reliance on Hunter’s Mark isn’t very fun, and even if the damage evens out, you lose so much in flavor/outside combat. But these are also just my opinions, I’ll have to wait and see if they change when I start using these in-game!
It's always a treat to see one of your videos pop up on my feed! I'm glad that you did all the hard work so we don't have to, sounds like there were (as expected) some good changes, some bad ones. Still not sure whether I'll go through the trouble of buying the new book. But boy is my curiosity piqued....
Edit: I'd honestly love a whole video dedicated to going through some popular homebrew Ranger classes; I know there are a lot out there, but I haven't gotten around to looking into them in-depth. Some of your ideas sound really fun, I'm sure there are some good homebrews out there that are maybe having similar ideas!
Glad my videos can brighten your day! I was pleasantly surprised by the new book, but still not sure I’d recommend it before we get the complete set with the new DMG and MM. Going over some homebrew class concepts could be fun, I might add it to my list! Thanks for the idea!
2 Small clarifications on wizards; Their ability to cast ritual spells without preparing them was always present! It was just hidden in the Spellcasting feature before, & is listed as a separate feature now.
Also, you didn’t mention the MASSIVE nerf to spell mastery! It can only be used on spells with a casting time of 1 action now. The days of high level wizards having Shield & Misty step as cantrips are over.
Otherwise, great video! The brevity is a breath of fresh air compared to how long winded other similar D&D videos can get.
Great clarifications on things I missed, thanks for pointing those out! I’m glad you enjoyed the video, I try not to say more than I need to!
I always like seeing your videos pop up in my feed. I appreciate the content and energy.
You’ve been watching them about as long as I’ve made them, it really means a lot seeing the support! I’m glad they’re entertaining!
I'm just gonna have to hard disagree on Warlock personally. Sure they didn't really expand on the options of the Warlock, but what they did do was make it so you feel like you actually have more of a choice than you did in 2014. For the longest time Blade was basically a useless Pact Boon, and even with Hexblade it was still only okay. Now there's a multitude of reasons to take a melee route with the Warlock. The PHB subclasses have pretty much all been dramatically improved to be less situational and limited in use making them all more viable options, greatly expanding the routes you can take without sacrificing power. Many key Warlock spells and invocations were also altered to make them more appealing, like taking Repelling Blast with any attack cantrip or upcasting spells like Hunger of Hadar, or just the massive upgrade to Witch Bolt.
Overall, while they didn't neccessarily add anything too flashy to the Warlock, they made the inner class balance much better than it was before. Now I feel like there's an actual choice between Archfey, GoO, and Fiend. Where as before it was almost always either a Tasha's Warlock or a Hexblade.
Those are some fair points, I fully admit that I didn’t dive into the subclasses for this video, and I also wasn’t considering upgrades to spells like witch bolt. Those do have a big effect on the class as a whole. I do like what they’ve done with a lot of the invocations - I just wish there were more of them! And I think they could’ve kept the pact boons separate from invocations, while not limiting so many to having a pre-rec so you can more freely mix and match. But I see your points and am glad you disagree, hopefully as I see it play out my table I’ll come to agree!
This only just came up in my notifications! Thank you for distilling this information so neatly.
Anything else I was thinking has already been brought up by the folks here ahead of me, so...have a comment for the algorithm, I guess? Good content as always!
That’s always appreciated, too! The support really does mean a lot!
So after some experimenting. I did a combat test where I asked if I could try the new chromatic orb with old twinned spell, just to see how it would play out.. I managed to do 119 points of damage with 2 sorcery points and a lvl 2 spellslot. GRANTED! That was very good rolls and elemental adept acid, but the odds were pretty in my favor but I think it's a good thing they changed twinned spell cause mage rage has some incredible synergy with spells like the new chromatic orb. It's less exciting, but healthier for the game.
Also warlock basicaly every subclass can be a weapon warlock.. That celestial patron archer lock idea I had is looking REAL juicy now. Also, blessing of the old ones is an INCREDIBLE invocation. Hexadin won't feel as contradictory now. I can do that paladin who swore an oath to protect nature with an archfey patron, or a swords bard who is a lawyer for the celestial court and uses a big morningstar shaped like a spiky gavel. It makes blade warlock multis feel more flavor cohesive than just 'welp I guess I should dip hexblade.' I also dig tome at level 1 for a bard because I can grab 3 cantrips that I normally wouldn't get access to like Sorcerous Burst to do a fun elemental adept build.
I think, outside of ranger, most of teh changes are pretty good. Wizard IS a bit underwhelming but scholar and memorize spell are both quite nice. Besides, as long as yo're not going to do adventure's league or a "only what's within the rulebook nothing else" table, you can still play necromancer (if your dm doens't ban it) and just match the savant to the current.
That is some CRAZY damage, thank you for doing the science on that! And I’m glad you’re liking most of the new class options and changes! I agree that it seems like they’ve done some good work here… Now let’s hope the Monster Manual can match it!
barbs have always been a top tier class in terms of combat but I always found it boring so I absolutely agree with you on barbarians
Yeah, in terms of dealing pure damage they’re awesome - but that’s it. I think the changes make them way more fun!
First time I have seen one of your videos, good stuff brother. Subbed.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! Always appreciate the support!
I would give all of the new classes a passing grade. I the design of the Ranger is a bit clunky but still an improvement over the old Ranger. I wouldn’t mind playing a Ranger at all with these rules.
I think that’s fair, I agree that basically all of them are improvements over what came before. I definitely graded them on a bit of a curve! Thanks for your input!
Thank you for that. Nothing too surprising from what I had gathered from elsewhere, and everyone is going to have their own views (as can be witnessed elsewhere in the comments). I haven't gotten to play much 5E, and these changes wouldn't alter those characters. I look forward to seeing how much of the griping is deserved and how much is it just munchkins no longer able to use their pet builds.
I’m sure it’ll take a while before everything settles and it becomes clear what’s broken and what’s not. But glad my first impressions could at least give you an idea of how things have shaken out!
This video is great. You cover everything in less than 25 minutes, your diction is very good (some people speak too fast and are hard to understand), and you're very animated. Well done!
It's a shame that they can't get Rangers right though!
Thank you for the kind words, I’m glad you enjoyed it! Hopefully they can get Rangers right next time, they have to eventually, right?
Since sorcerer was the first class I ever played as (and therefore I'm really attached to it and my blorbo assigned to that class) I have to say I really LOVE the changes, but I am REALLY not liking the Innate Sorcery thingy. It feels too much power-mode'y when to me sorcerers were more about being passively magical. If I'd change anything about the new sorcerer it would be two things:
1. Disconnect the new metamagic stuff from innate sorcery and delete it, I just really don't like it and feel like sorcerers should just be focused more on metamagic.
2. Change some metamagic options. Twinned spell has been done dirty and heightened spell, while I think the reduced cost is nice, might be a biiiit too strong with it affecting every save of the spell you use it with, instead of just the inital save.
Other than that I'm surprised that they now get more known spells, because I was used to them being a "you have less spells known but have more insteresting stuff to do with them" kind of caster. Oh, and I guess moving the subclass from lvl1 to lvl3, but that's a grievance I have with overall changes done to the classes in PHB'24, not just with sorcerer, though it hits sorcerers the hardest in my humble opinion.
I agree with both points! I don’t hate innate sorcery as a concept but having it tied to the better metamagic options doesn’t sit right with me, and thee were a few that could’ve been tweaked some more. Thanks for sharing, hopefully you’ll still enjoy playing as a sorcerer with the new rules (or just stick to the old ones!).
@@TheBardsCollegeYT Oooh, that also seems like a good solution! But yeah, the way me and my friend group are dealing with those changes is by making a bit of a homebrew synthesis between original and new rules. For instance we basically picked the new Monk over the previous one with no changes just because of how much everyone likes those additions. But also we made compromises between old and new Indomitable for Fighter, since we thought that rerolling the save AND adding your fighter level is just a legendary resistance in disguise, so we limited it to the proficiency bonus instead to make it a little less guaranteed to pass the save.
I love that! Very cool of you and your group to get together and homebrew something you all enjoy (and honestly, that does sound like a less broken version of Indomitable)
If we're just assessing base classes then you won't get an accurate depiction of how the classes actually play. You can't play without a subclass unless you're a paladin that just broke your oath and hasn't transitioned to Oathbreaker yet. Warlock basically only got Magical Cunning to the base class, which yes addresses the most common complaint of warlock ("I don't have enough spell slots!") but overall "base warlock" was nerfed. What DOES result in a net improvement to warlock is that all the (2024) subclasses have been massively buffed.
Great Old One warlock is genuinely insane during 2nd tier and even stronger going into 3rd tier play. There was a video done by a *certain* creator that basically just ONLY went over the base classes and tried to paint this image that warlock got mega nerfed, and now a tonne of people think warlock is the worst caster in the game now, purely because this one guy started fear mongering over power being shifted from the base class into subclasses (primarily because warlocks break multiclassing in an unhealthy way). If you ONLY look at base class features then you only have this horribly distorted and misinformed view of how the class plays that only is accurate for... Two levels???
I don’t think you’re wrong - to judge only the base classes is an incomplete picture. And I fully admit that I wasn’t doing that in the video! But I do think it’s still valuable to assess the base classes, since no matter which subclass you choose - whether the most optimal or the worst of the bunch - everyone has access to those same features. I think for a video like this, it makes more sense. Otherwise I’d have to go through and grade each subclass individually, against all the other ones, for a truly fair assessment. And I don’t have nearly enough time! But thank you for providing that insight, I’ll have to check out the GOO warlock and see how it’s changed!
Anywhere you feel a change made something more boring and less flavourful, you can be sure it was done to make the feature useable on the VTT 🤷
I don’t see a lie lol it’s a shame because the VTT does look cool - if only they weren’t going to nickel and dime players for everything
I wish I had something positive to add, but.. yeah. It's going to look pretty, but it's going to be costly.
I also think that the majority of people who do buy in initially will drop off using it well before they give up gaming, just like lots of people who have extensive collections of terrain eventually stop going all out for their builds all the time.
Yeah, eventually the time and monetary costs outweigh the benefits. We’ll see if I play around with it when it comes out, but probably not something I want to pay extra for. Who knows
A cool possibility might be if they have pre fab adventures in it that match up with their prewritten adventures. Or they allow the creation and sharing by third parties for free or at their own price, if someone builds the entirety of Curse of strahd and a DM can pay directly to that 3rd party creater to be able to run it. Bring in some community elements, not sure how realistic that is
I think in their latest update video they mentioned community-made maps being available, and I think they would have to be crazy not to create some based on modules! Depending on pricing, that could actually make it a bit more than JUST a shameless cash grab
9:38 THAT WAS NOT FAIR AT ALL. Colby one of the most famous optimizers said it best, why Smite. It will be the same either way. Yes once a turn I get, but the bonus action kills the action economy, and why a spell? Do you want them to Smite or not
It always consumed a spell slot, so having it be a spell doesn’t really change anything. And I’m not sure I understand the argument - how is it the same? Smiting adds extra damage - especially when upcast - so it’ giving you a lot of extra damage per turn. But maybe I’m not understanding the argument of why it’s not great
@TheBardsCollegeYT spell slot yes, but making it a spell means a caster can shut down your ability
@TheBardsCollegeYT not really. In the long run with the right concentration and because of weapon mastery, it's the same
@TheBardsCollegeYT like I said, if it was just once a turn and burns a spell slot, I would be okay with it. That's how Eldritch Smite is and no one complained about it
I guess I’ll have to see how it plays out at the table before judging! I could absolutely be wrong, especially with how it plays with things like weapon mastery. But on its face I think it was a good idea, even if the execution may not be perfect. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I won't take Ranger's slander. Going to disagree on the Ranger's class F-rated update. The supplement is recognized completely as the standard, followed by these:
1. Weapon Masteries, standard for martials except for Monks.
2. Ritual Casting, every caster can but Ranger's have a variety with 12 Spells.
3. Expertise, to mitigate that "flavor" everyone loves to talk about but never use, with actual mechanics.
4. Swapping a Spell at Long Rest, was at level-up. (Saved the best for last)
5. With Tireless, they can effectively travel forever with a short rest in between.
To address Hunter's Mark, it IS a good spell. You can cast it, take out a target, then select a new one without anyone noticing. The Spellcasting has a verbal component, the selecting a new one doesn't at all.
Also, just because "everyone gets it" doesn't make it a bad feature at all. Spellcasting at 1st level is huge.
I can respect different opinions, and I definitely agree that the ranger is better in this update! But I think a lot of you what listed are things that a lot of classes get (weapon masteries, first level spellcasting) or updates that, while mechanically better, don’t feel very exciting to play out. But of course, this while video is just my opinion, and I’m glad you really like the new ranger! We’ll see if my thoughts change over time!
@@TheBardsCollegeYT Just because someone else gets it doesn't lessen its value.
Another fair point! I think we both agree that this version is better than the 2014 one, even if we don’t agree on the overall direction they took
@@TheBardsCollegeYT
After seeing Treantmonk list out Ranger spells, I think this is actually a big thing to take into account for the ranger. There's a surprising number of spells that are non-concentration and pretty effective for the ranger, and a lot of class analysis really doesn't take that into account
Paladin is still a lot better, but it was one of the best classes in 2014, but ranger is a lot closer to Pali in the update.
That’s fair, I’ll admit I didn’t do a deep dive on the spell list! The ranger is definitely better, I just wish their base class weren’t as reliant on Hunter’s Mark and had expanded more on their role as leaders in Exploration. But I’ll be happy if future rangers in my party end up loving the class!
harumph.
I know, I know - I’m not the biggest fan of Wizards’ business policies, but I do think it’s fun to look at and critique the new content!
Wow, you gave the worst class in the new phb, rogue, b+, while giving ranger, which is one of the highest damage dealing martials, an f.
The changes to Ranger are extremely boring and uninspired. Doesn't matter how numerically strong they are when their identity as a class is in even worse shambles than before.
I’m definitely not a mathematician, but I stand by what I said! I think reliance on Hunter’s Mark isn’t very fun, and even if the damage evens out, you lose so much in flavor/outside combat. But these are also just my opinions, I’ll have to wait and see if they change when I start using these in-game!
I agree! A lot of the flavor was lost!
The MMO focus on hardcore/extreme raiding doesn't apply very well to tabletop RPGs--and I say that as an MMO player who uses them as VTTs.
Very true, there’s a lot more to a class than pure damage!