Real shit, the issues with high level play really isn’t a lack of high level monsters. There are PLENTY of high CR monsters especially with books like Fizban's and Bigby's. The issues with high level play is system problems. No real guidance for the GM on types of adventures, no help in dealing with high level PCs abilities, no clearly shown path for shifting from lower level to higher level play style. That kinda stuff high level Adventures could teach through doing.
Yep 5e has very little support for high level play. Little to no adventures above level 14 with no advice. You can find videos but these aren't official advice.
I really hope they give us better ways to determine the power level of magic items. Item "rarity" tells us nothing and the artificers replicate magic item feature is hard proof they know that these items are all over the place. Something like a suggested player level or just an overall power ranking or really anything to make magic items less of a "DM may I?" And more of a reasonable request
Maybe a system that gives magic items a level or rank that can be used to more accurately categorise their power. I have always viewed rarity as a descriptor for how easy it would be to find that item, not how strong it is.
@@cylver3593 I agree but that still doesn't help DM's decide what reasonable to give their players when. I built my first character knowing we could start with 1 uncommon item so started with an 8 strength and got gauntlets of orge power and my character was keeping up with characters who were literally built wrong with way higher health and more items than they should have had because that was everyone's first 5e campaign that I came late into
@@HughRGlen Even adding something akin to a ranking system for magic items would be better than only having rarity. I know some people don't care, but I'm of the opinion that adding more ways to oragnise and adjust the game is usually more beneficial than harmful. Those who don't care, or don't want to use that idea, can ignore it.
24:36 Don't forget about the Bard. the last we saw it was still going off the three different spell lists. We didn't see a revised version and its apparently good to go.
It could still go off of the three spell lists. I assume there are still going to be lists to distinguish between Arcane, Divine, and Primal spells. And each spellcasting class will have access to their subsection of those spell lists (Wizard will have Wizard spell list, Sorcerer will have Sorcerer spell list, etc.). But, the Bard may end up being unique in that it does not have a class list of spells, but chooses from the larger Arcane, Divine, or Primal lists.
@@catalyst9953 i would love if the bard was able to do something like that. im also a firm believer that the bard should work like the wizard on how they learn/prepare spells but thats a conversation for another day lol i think this change and the change that allowed the warlock to choose their spellcasting ability are the two changes i am most disappointed to see gone.
Sorry, I think in the last UA talking about wizards they said that bards will go back to the "classic" spellcasting mechanics. Basically fusing the two UA classes into one. EDIT: of course bards were always a "mix" in terms of spells, so they'll definitelly include some arcane and divine spells inside their list.
Yeah with out the elementals from moon druid wildshape falls off hard, which just seems kind of unintuitive since it’s kind of the main schtick of the druid
This idea that they really want the 2024 monk to "play alongside" the 2014 monk kind of kills my hopes for them giving the new monk any great increase in power.
@@ferencfeher2647 I just read that UA and I was pleasantly surprised. While they got very little increase in damage output, they got huge boosts in longevity and durability.
@@jonp8015 I agree the damage increase wasnt huge. +1 damage per attack (compared to 2014) and an extra attack using flurry at high levels. Plus they can use bonus action attack regardless of what their main action is used for. The big DPS increase was Quivering Palm. Thats pretty awesome for when you just want to burn Ki.
Here's the problem. They HAVE to make the 2024 classes better than 2014's, because if they don't then lots of people won't buy the new version. But the problem with buffing classes is that they already feel overpowered in the 2014 edition.
Monk and Ranger do NOT feel overpowered. But that also raises the same problem. Too many buffs make the others seem less than, not enough buffs and what was the point of even doing it?
I watch the DnD channel because Ted doesn't always go in order in how it is presented. I prefer knowing what is going on before going to a channel which will review it. Thankfully, Ted is as open and unbiased as a person can get from my perspective even if he sometimes speaks out of turn on certain things.
Ugh I guess no changes to the celestial warlock they didn't even give me the ability to give feedback on when I took the survey. Honestly Bard, ranger, warlock needed another pass or two.
What I'm wondering is can you mix 2014 and 2024 classes when multiclassing? Ex. could you take the 2024 fighter, go eldrich knight and then add a 2014 caster to it?
I'm also surprised about the brawler, but kind of not too. The brute fighter didn't survive its UA introduction either, which was very much a prototype of the brawler we recently got. I can definitely see them porting something that we already have in 2024. Something new would be nice, but they're running out of time for a new fighter subclass to be put in a UA. Regarding the 80 new monsters, I hope that they're new. I don't want another "vampire knight" or "gnoll berserker" to be put in there. Give us the sheep-in-wolf's-clothing, razor boar, and stellar dragon from older editions that never made it into 5e. It's unfortuate that the ranger isn't getting any more tweaks. It still need it. Not surprised about barbarian. It's still very boring and not something you'd play for all 20 levels. Treantmonk and Indestrucoboy have made some great videos breaking the classes down from a designer's perspective.
I feel it needs to be pointed out that a class not being in public playtest doesn't mean it's not being worked on. I'm not pulling that out of my ass, they explicitly said ranger wasn't finished they just had enough feedback to work on it themselves.
About The Idea of a especific terrain feature for The Ranger, and things related, some ideas came to my mind: (I really would like to know your opinion, guys) -Expertise: It would better come separated from deft explorer, granting the benefit in two skills, and Later the in two other skills, totaling 4 as with other Skill focused classes . -Reason: Expertise is in D&D a certificate of a skill-oriented class. You are not truly an expert without it and guarantee that the Ranger will not falling behind classes supposed to be specialists in another area of activity (Rogue or Bard). -Deft Explorer: Completely redesigned. With the Ranger receiving this benefit on a number of terrains it has come into contact with, like, up to the amount of half its level (rounded up) + wisdom bonus. In them, the character, and allies who can see him up to 30 feet, do not suffering from difficult terrain arising from natural areas, and the Ranger using stealth, study and surch actions related to the terrain and its creatures as a bonus action. -Reason: help The party menbers to walk in The terrain without problem is basic, simple and eficient. Above this, When an action can be made 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). Turning this actions in bonus actions instead of give advantage also ensures that other sources of advantage are not wasted as would happen in the original version. The high amount of known terrain (half the level, rounded up, + wisdom bonus) makes it efficient in most scenarios, but the DM still can put The party in unknown terrains as part of a challenge. -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 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 in the situation. If the number of uses is low, it is possible ajust this feature to add one or more (wis bonus) extra uses PS: It would be great if hunters mark became concentration free after a certain casting level, as happens with (for example) 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 😏🤣. It make really good in know The information about the enviroment and perceive threats in it, a core parte of the class identity. PS: im not an english native, so If something is not so clear, confusing ir even sounds somewhat rude, um really Sorry 😅. Feel free to correct me or ask questions ☺️.
One of the main critiques I've seen of the barbarian is the weakness of the high level features, with there being little reason to go past tenth level other than the capstone.
A thing to keep in mind is not everyone wants to share their books and not everyone has money to buy the new ones. If you can use your old books it mitigates problems. There’s also matters of homebrew that may be used that the player may like that’s designed for the old versions.
Yeah I was excited when I heard that it would be over 1000 pages, but I remembered that’s not much more. Really makes me think on how much of that increase is due to the new and increased number of art.
I will say, as someone who has worked in smaller scale printing, assuming they have a very direct line with their printer, it could be as short as a two-three month turn around from final product to printing, to shipping, and the printer may have an editable version of the document that can be iterated on for multiple runs early in the process. As such, if the goal is PHB in September and everything out by December, I'd expect they have until around May next year to finalise things which is basically another 6 months for PHB material. That said, I'd still hope they have teams working on all three books simultaneously as if people are jumping between projects that could seriously hamper the quality with these deadlines.
To take the Brawlers place I'd like to see a fighter subclass something akin to the 4e Warlord. The Dungeon Dudes have something close with their Commander subclass.
The brawler being cut because the monk sucks is really frustrating. I think an unarmed figher subclass is super cool... The brawler outshining the monk is not a problem with the brawler, its a problem with the monk. I really do wonder how the Ranger can be in a good place now. The last version was entirely built around not having class spell lists.
I mean, unarmed fighting style already existed. That was the main part of the brawler anyway. If you want a cool unarmed fighter, just play a Battlemaster with unarmed fighting style
@@skippy9273 Dont have the document open, but didnt the brawler have the ability to apply masteries to improvised weapons? I thought that was interesting.. I remember requesting the ability for them to use weapon masteries with their fists as well.
@@MaMastoast yeah they did. I think the feature was underbaked though and was by no means better than using a real weapon and fighters can actually use those
@@skippy9273 To me its not really about being the strongest subclass, but rather mechnanically enabling certain fantasies... I think an unarmed fighter is a very appealing fantasy... Not saying the subclass was perfect, some of the features may have been half-baked, but I loved the concept and I think its a shame it gets scrapped because people are so unhappy with the state of the monk,
@@MaMastoast what im saying is that unless you found the improvised weapon part of the class really appealing, the unarmed fighting style does more than enough to achieve that. One of the brawlers main features is getting the unarmed fighting style for free
We need to play test the bard. The most recent is not playable since they reverted spell lists. As someone who typically plays bard, it’s really frustrating and disheartening that they have such a glaring gap.
They might do the pathfinder thing where bards can choose a spell list at creation. or maybe give them arcane/occult spell list and expand on magical secrets to give the bard that extreme flexibility that makes them stand out compared to other casters.
@@matheusfernandes2102 If they revert the class spell list as it is, then they should stop citing the UA Bard's high satisfaction rate as the reason why it doesn't need more playtesting.
So what were the announcements? They mention the Artificer but it will not be in the book. Hmmm. Base Class Monk is getting another pass? Yes, but they said in an earlier video that they were happy with 4 Elements, Shadow and Mercy. So only the Open Hand will be getting a big revision depending on what they do with the Base Class. Base Class Barbarian and some of the aspects of the sub-classes still needs checking. Druid changes? I am not sure why. Land was good, Stars was good, Moon may have been fixed but I'm not sure. I forget the last one (Water?). Brawler Fighter is getting dropped and they will have a new 4th sub-class. Does that mean the Dancer Bard, who was a better Monk than Monk is going to stay? No more Changes to Ranger? They didn't say anything about it but that probably doesn't mean anything. The only time frame they gave was "2024", and "LATER in the year..." I have no idea when these books will show up. Also are there any other books coming out next year? Anthology Adventures? World Books? a Campaign? A level 8-12 MID-GAME Kit instead of a Starter Kit? No, no announcements.
My group basically doesn't know anything unless I tell them. So next year when we start a new campaign I'll just say, hey use these class rules, and they will. No issues. I'm just glad the adventures will be forward compatible.
My guess is they're just going to reprint Rune Knight, since the subclasses showing up in the 2024 books are confirmed to be mirrored themes (Life and War Cleric, Fiend and Celestial Warlock, Diviner and Illusionist Wizard, etc), and Rune Knight is both really popular and has a similar sort of wild and brutal vibe that Brawler was going for as the contrast to Battle Master.
Having "mixed" parties is no problem with regard to theme. I think it depends on how much minutiae the DM must keep track of in addition to everything else.
The barbarian is being revised due to the world tree barb receiving some bad marks. The druid still needs to be revisited due to the kinda weird state it was left in. The monk still needs a full rebuild. Where is the Bard though, last play test it was using all 3 spell lists, which don't even exist anymore, they need to come out with something functional.
They say in the video because both the world tree needed some tweaking but also some Barbarian features. So there will be some (likely minor) tweaks to the base class as well if they aren’t lying
I need a revamp arcane archer badly! Also I hear so much about the players guide and monster manual but very little for the DM's guide. DMs need love too.
Now after finishing the video, yes, I completely agree that if they're bringing old subclasses to the book that they shouldn't just be taken from Tasha's or Volo's, they should at least have some updates to them. And yeah, that's disappointing that Brawler didn't make it in
Warlock needs another pass They set out to make every class appear twice and warlocks first apperance was an entirely different class and its second appearance only asked about one feature
1. Backwards compatibility is an illusion. Everytime a new generation of game consoles come out, everyone screams for backwards compatible and then the new system comes out and no one plays the old games anymore because they have a new toy. This will be the same. I would rather them improve the game, rather than shoehorn old stuff, which will drag it down and not he used in 2 years. 2. More art means less content. I would rather have a page with a new subclass than a full spread art page. Art does nothing and has no value. This is supposed to be a rule book, I am not buying it for the art. 3. They need to remove attunement. Attunement prevents DMs from rewarding players and limits character building during play. 4. Remove concentration spells for most utility spells. Casters rarely cast utility spells because it's highly likely they will lose concentration, and they want to reserve concentration for powerful damage spells.
I REALLY hope that the Arcane Trickster's Spell Thief ability can get buffed to be multiple use. Nothing crazy, just like 3 times per long rest or let it recharge on a short rest maybe? And change it to an Int save across the board regardless of the caster. That was really my only critic about the Arcane Trickster in the UA. I worry that ability, targeting a caster's primary save, will be harder to get off and may not see as much reliable use as say a Paladin's avatar form or something. I wouldn't be so critical if it wasn't the thing that drew me to Arcane Trickster.
Have done the same thing with species... Half-Elf didn't get an update for MotM.. or Dwarves didn't either. But if you play a Dwarf in my game you get 30ft of movement. And you can do the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1, you're not restricted to what the book says. I like that they're going with a modular set up.
What I have learned from the publishing business is that printing on this scale usually takes about 6 months, shipments from 2-3 months so if they finish the work by the beginning of January they might have stuff ready somewhere of September but there is greater catch in play and that is bookstores. They want to be informed 7 months prior what you are gonna sell in their stores so they’ll know to reserve space for them. Hasbro has some leverage of course but still they cannot prolong the publication too long
@@wesleyrussell8386I'll be honest if they're doing that. It's going to be another big fiasco like the OGL situation. One of the big points of tension was them dropping their main supplier and basically ruining their relationship with game shops and book stores
“Some of the new best art in all of fantasy.” Yea well that’s easy to say when AI is pulling from the best artists of all time and making most of the art for you
Only 7 or so minutes into the video, but I'm already answering yes to using the 2014 subclass with the 2024 core class as some of the subclasses are taken straight out of Volo's Guide to Everything and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (mostly the latter), so WotC at this point designed it that way of playing either core class and choosing either version of the subclass (though definitely wants you to be using the updated versions more)
I think with the amount of homebrew and concessions most DMs allow at the table to tweak the game into the most playable form it can be in, I see a lot of people playing whichever version they prefer in terms of the 2014 (or later printing) or the 2024 versions. Provided it's not a random group you've never played with, most people I know speak very openly and clearly from DM > Player and Player > DM about their goals, ideas and expectations. This is just another way to tailor the game to your needs with options, imo.
The bigger issue to me is how this would work in DND Beyond... are the current versions of the class just going to be marked as legacy versions, like they do with monsters already?
I quit D&D after 24 years January 2023. Spelljammer and the crossovers with MTG were basically a bummer and strongly disappointed me. I moved to Starfinder and love the races, chases and to build Mechs, Starships, vehicles and using of skills like Engineering, survival, medicine, Computers, Culture/ Life Science/Physical Science... Also... i love art but im more interested in freely printable Maps with the modules... The overpricing of books is also a bummer
Personally. As in the paladins case, if it was overall better but a feature would be slowed down, I'd allow the player to use the previous version. So if I will have a player with the new paladin but wanting the old smite rules, I'll allow it.
Im chuckling because 'bastion' is every other word; nothing against it, but I hope that's not their focus for the DMG. I will attest that I met and chatted with Perkins at SDCC and genuinely cares about the fandom feedback. Also, Its clearly teased that technically the 50th anniversary is much later in the year
IMO they still haven't understood where the world of ttrpg is... With the ending of stranger things and critical role going towards daggerheart, wotc going for a digital tabletop system and the only marketing is what, baldur's gate for the past years? They should 100% do big changes to the game to try and bring people back and focused on D&D, because with the new games being released, even black flag and pathfinder 2e reviewed, everyone is trying to bite into their playerbase. Those conservative changes and the whole "you can still play with old classes" is just "middle of the road" decision making.
I will agree, at the start of the video if it wasn't for the presenter, I would have thought you were playing it at normal speed. I am currently running a campaign which will most likely still be running when these new books drop. As such, I will allow the players to remain with their current 2014 class/subclass if they wish, or, if they want to, convert their character over to the new version of the same class/subclass if they prefer. I already have one player who is running a fighter/bard who is asking me to use the UI version of fighter (which I am not against, I just don't want to do it just yet when the official stuff is coming down the pipe and I would rather handle it all at once with everyone). After that, I will allow my players to use which ever year rulebook they prefer as I don't want to hinder how they want to play.
I would not have an issue with 2014 and 2024 subclasses at the same table. even if it is just because of strength. the stronger they are the more I can throw at them.
I'm already DMing a group that is both 2014 and the (play test) 2024 rules. One of the paladin players didnt want to use the 2024 rules, and another wanted to wait to see what was in the published version of the 2024 rules. I have a bloodhunter, who I've helped boost a little bit (I've given him the weapon mastery stuff), and then I've got two other players that absolutely love the changes to the Rogue (Thief) and Sorcerer in 2024.
I just wouldn't allow mixing and matching, so no 2024 subclass with 2014 class for example, with the exception being using a subclass that didn't get updated.
I wouldn't allow same subclass from 2014 and 2024. It would probably create situations like 'why you get that and I don't' for both players. I'd probably allow a mix of 2014 and 2024 characters.
It's probably fine to use some subclasses from older books if the 2024 books don't have a corresponding one (like some Cleric domains, for example). For classes that are getting updates in 2024, like Archfey Warlock or Champion Fighter, it's probably moot since the new version is usually better. Endorsing the mixing of core classes is a *massive* mistake. You'll run into a situation where you, for example, have someone playing a 2024 version of Fighter for all of the new features, and then have a Wizard player want to take a 2 level dip into 2014 Fighter because they don't give a damn about Weapon Mastery and just want the version of Action Surge that allows them to cast multiple leveled spells per turn.
Played 1st Edition for approx 25 years. Next edition I played was 5E. It works fine for me & my group and I don't see us flirting with the 2024 edition as there is already more than a lifetime's worth of 5E material to draw on. I think this is marketed at another generation.
I would like to see a bit more psionics in the PHB even if we have a few psionic subclasses in the older books. Often times psionics is a challenge for DnD to handle well and balance. Part of me would like a brand new base class for psionics. There is also a great dream of mine is them going back further like to previous editions as they did when 5th first came out. I still miss Magic of Incarnum from late 3.5 era but doubt it would come due to the number of magic item limit on characters. Now, if they are returning to the monsters having "treasure", maybe they will increase the magic item usage for characters.
Gary Gygax wanted Psionics removed from D&D and had he been involved with 2E AD&D it would have been gone from D&D and psionics would have been moved over to something like Star Frontiers (Gaqry said he wanted it taken out of D&D and used for one of their sci fi games instead.).
@@welovettrpgs I know of others who would argue the same idea like my oldest brother. Some would say the 3.5 version was basically spell casting but better in every way.
@@jasonsumma1530 From several interviews with Gary he said he included Psionics as sort of a favor to some friends he ussed to game with in the 70s. He did however say he came to regret it.
I cannot praise Tales of the Valiant by Kobold Press enough. If you want a redone 5e DnD with updated classes, new Dungeon Master Tools, and updated monster statblocks that aim to make them more engaging and tactical rather than less (looking at you DnD. I still hate that enemy spellcasters no longer have spell lists) please take a look at their playtest material. It is actively compatible with all of their currently existing books and they have 10 short adventures made, with their system as the focus, by various talented publishers including the folks that made Grim Hollow. I backed TotV when it was first announced under Project Black Flag and I haven’t been excited about One DnD since. Everything I need is being provided by Kobold Press at a fraction of the cost
I'd like to see a revamped banneret fighter, lots of buffs for allies, giving up attacks to give allies free reactions, something like that. A real commander-type. Ooh, I know it would make ranger even worse but maybe it would get a squire or animal companion or something
Personally, if a player was like "I want to play the 2014 champion fighter because I'm more familiar with it." I would be like how about try the new one, but if they insisted, I would allow it, but I would also include homebrew items to show up that would include 2024 features as sort of a dip your toe in experience. If the player wanted to play it to fulfill a specific fantasy, I would tell them to go ahead and play the old version.
Could you do a video where you go over all the monsters in the book for chains of asmodeus? Because I counted and I didn’t see over 50 monsters in monsters + npcs+ arch devil section may have miscounted I guess
I have attended Gen Con quite a few times because I live in Indiana. One thing I have noticed over the years is that Dungeons and Dragons seems to get pushed away from the spotlight. The organized play isn't even given space in the Indiana Convention Center. Paizo has a nice, huge room right in the ICC as you walk over from Circle Center Mall, while D&D is pushed out to the JW Marriott hotel across the street. My feeling is that the owner of Gen Con, Peter Adkison, isn't too crazy about D&D. He now uses Gen Con to promote independent publishers like himself. It would not surprise me if the sudden change of venue for your panel was a result of Peter reminding Wizards who is boss at Gen Con. Call it a bit of gamesmanship.
To be fair dnd doesn't really need the help being the main thing and there are a number of issues with how the company side of things have been run the last few years when it comes to anyone not dnd and such .
ב"ה In my campaign that will likely keep going in 2024 when the new books will come out, I will probably allow for players to update their characters to 2024 versions.
By giving battlemaster manuveurs to all martials you give meaningful options for martials, you bridge gap between martials and casters by creating symmetry between martials and casters! Casters get cantrips at will and resources to spend by casting spells; Martials on the other hand get weapon masteries at will and resources (superiority dices) to spend by using battlemaster maneuvers On top of weapon masteries, give all martials battlemaster maneuvers!!! You can design martials with a possibility to choose or not to access battlemaster maneuvers, very much like the new holy order feat for clerics for whoch you choose heavy armor or thaumaturgy… meaning that you can still design martials which are easy to play and if players want other types of martials which can opt to have more tactical options
Didn’t they say in another one of these that they will be printing the first version of the Ranger from the playtest? So basically the 2nd version was just there for contrast and they’re abandoning stuff people didn’t like.
would be cool if they did class PHB, the books can cost less and they will sell more books and make it easier to get new player to join the game. Example: if I want to play paladin, I can buy a PHB that only has what you need to play the paladin. the book can be smaller and cost around $10 to $15 per Class book and they can still offer the full PHB for those that want the full PHB.
I don't know how I feel about this. With the Pathfinder remaster, their terms of service make the Archives of Nethys 100% legal. So you can just suppliment your old books with that if you want. Their refresh was wholly caused by WotC as well hence it being so fast. This though is very different. While stuff does exist, none of the Achives equivilents actually appear to be allowed under the WotC rules. That means that to play the updated version you do have to buy the new ones. So is this actually just a way of boosting earnings while kind of pretending to update the game? I will largely be paying for the same thing. This is similar to the reprint of Tyranny of Dragons, and Monsters of the Multiverse. If you didn't own the books it isn't really an issue, but if you bought the originals it sucks.
I’m the dm for my group and I want my players to have fun. If they find a dramatic scene fun, we will do that. If they want a 2024 base class and 2014 subclass, I’m all for it. I do draw a line with rule breaking, I’ll allow for bending sometimes. Also impossible things. Someone may find it fun to ride a whale across the desert, but that, without a super specific circumstance, is impossible.
1.5 speed sounds like 1.5 speed. It's not unintelligible, I get why some people don't mind it, and tbh it doesn't hugely impact whether or not I watch these videos - but it doesn't sound normal either.
Real shit, the issues with high level play really isn’t a lack of high level monsters. There are PLENTY of high CR monsters especially with books like Fizban's and Bigby's. The issues with high level play is system problems. No real guidance for the GM on types of adventures, no help in dealing with high level PCs abilities, no clearly shown path for shifting from lower level to higher level play style. That kinda stuff high level Adventures could teach through doing.
Yep 5e has very little support for high level play. Little to no adventures above level 14 with no advice. You can find videos but these aren't official advice.
I really hope they give us better ways to determine the power level of magic items. Item "rarity" tells us nothing and the artificers replicate magic item feature is hard proof they know that these items are all over the place. Something like a suggested player level or just an overall power ranking or really anything to make magic items less of a "DM may I?" And more of a reasonable request
Maybe a system that gives magic items a level or rank that can be used to more accurately categorise their power. I have always viewed rarity as a descriptor for how easy it would be to find that item, not how strong it is.
@@cylver3593 I agree but that still doesn't help DM's decide what reasonable to give their players when. I built my first character knowing we could start with 1 uncommon item so started with an 8 strength and got gauntlets of orge power and my character was keeping up with characters who were literally built wrong with way higher health and more items than they should have had because that was everyone's first 5e campaign that I came late into
4E did that with magic items have a level required to use it and a lot of people complained 4E was too MMO-y for such reasons.
The devs have never been pro-balance and even scoffed at it openly so I'm not hopeful for this but you're right it would be amazing.
@@HughRGlen Even adding something akin to a ranking system for magic items would be better than only having rarity. I know some people don't care, but I'm of the opinion that adding more ways to oragnise and adjust the game is usually more beneficial than harmful. Those who don't care, or don't want to use that idea, can ignore it.
24:36 Don't forget about the Bard. the last we saw it was still going off the three different spell lists. We didn't see a revised version and its apparently good to go.
It could still go off of the three spell lists. I assume there are still going to be lists to distinguish between Arcane, Divine, and Primal spells. And each spellcasting class will have access to their subsection of those spell lists (Wizard will have Wizard spell list, Sorcerer will have Sorcerer spell list, etc.). But, the Bard may end up being unique in that it does not have a class list of spells, but chooses from the larger Arcane, Divine, or Primal lists.
@@catalyst9953 i would love if the bard was able to do something like that. im also a firm believer that the bard should work like the wizard on how they learn/prepare spells but thats a conversation for another day lol
i think this change and the change that allowed the warlock to choose their spellcasting ability are the two changes i am most disappointed to see gone.
Sorry, I think in the last UA talking about wizards they said that bards will go back to the "classic" spellcasting mechanics.
Basically fusing the two UA classes into one.
EDIT: of course bards were always a "mix" in terms of spells, so they'll definitelly include some arcane and divine spells inside their list.
I hope we get to see a better spread of beasts for druids, get the stats a bit more evened out and give more options at higher level etc
Yeah with out the elementals from moon druid wildshape falls off hard, which just seems kind of unintuitive since it’s kind of the main schtick of the druid
This idea that they really want the 2024 monk to "play alongside" the 2014 monk kind of kills my hopes for them giving the new monk any great increase in power.
Have hope, the latest UA makes them look pretty good.
@@ferencfeher2647 I just read that UA and I was pleasantly surprised. While they got very little increase in damage output, they got huge boosts in longevity and durability.
@@jonp8015 I agree the damage increase wasnt huge. +1 damage per attack (compared to 2014) and an extra attack using flurry at high levels. Plus they can use bonus action attack regardless of what their main action is used for.
The big DPS increase was Quivering Palm. Thats pretty awesome for when you just want to burn Ki.
@@ferencfeher2647 I wouldn't really consider Quivering Palm in a comparison of 2014 monk to 2024 monk.
@@jonp8015 fair point, it was just in the UA with monk so it came to mind as a dps increase
Here's the problem. They HAVE to make the 2024 classes better than 2014's, because if they don't then lots of people won't buy the new version. But the problem with buffing classes is that they already feel overpowered in the 2014 edition.
Bingo
Monk and Ranger do NOT feel overpowered. But that also raises the same problem. Too many buffs make the others seem less than, not enough buffs and what was the point of even doing it?
@@wildrabbit2237 I just meant overall player power is vastly underestimated.
@@SkywalkerOne1977 That I agree with. Though that can be solved by buffing the monster's versatility, which they drastically need to do
I don't know why I watch the videos from D&D when I know I'm going to watch your recap later :)
That's exactly why I don't watch them on the WotC channel.
I watch the DnD channel because Ted doesn't always go in order in how it is presented. I prefer knowing what is going on before going to a channel which will review it. Thankfully, Ted is as open and unbiased as a person can get from my perspective even if he sometimes speaks out of turn on certain things.
I don't know if it's balanced, but I would love the flavor of dwarves being a small race with the powerful build trait
I think the 14-24 coplay is for Adventurer's League and r/lfg stuff. Not everyone controls what rules they have access to!
Ugh I guess no changes to the celestial warlock they didn't even give me the ability to give feedback on when I took the survey. Honestly Bard, ranger, warlock needed another pass or two.
What I'm wondering is can you mix 2014 and 2024 classes when multiclassing? Ex. could you take the 2024 fighter, go eldrich knight and then add a 2014 caster to it?
I'm also surprised about the brawler, but kind of not too. The brute fighter didn't survive its UA introduction either, which was very much a prototype of the brawler we recently got.
I can definitely see them porting something that we already have in 2024. Something new would be nice, but they're running out of time for a new fighter subclass to be put in a UA.
Regarding the 80 new monsters, I hope that they're new. I don't want another "vampire knight" or "gnoll berserker" to be put in there. Give us the sheep-in-wolf's-clothing, razor boar, and stellar dragon from older editions that never made it into 5e.
It's unfortuate that the ranger isn't getting any more tweaks. It still need it. Not surprised about barbarian. It's still very boring and not something you'd play for all 20 levels. Treantmonk and Indestrucoboy have made some great videos breaking the classes down from a designer's perspective.
I feel it needs to be pointed out that a class not being in public playtest doesn't mean it's not being worked on.
I'm not pulling that out of my ass, they explicitly said ranger wasn't finished they just had enough feedback to work on it themselves.
I will not believe it until the books are released, I do not think they are going to be as reverse compatible as they claim.
I really hope the "monster treasure" bit they mentioned does mean every monster has a suggested loot table. That would be so convenient.
About The Idea of a especific terrain feature for The Ranger, and things related, some ideas came to my mind:
(I really would like to know your opinion, guys)
-Expertise: It would better come separated from deft explorer, granting the benefit in two skills, and Later the in two other skills, totaling 4 as with other Skill focused classes .
-Reason: Expertise is in D&D a certificate of a skill-oriented class. You are not truly an expert without it and guarantee that the Ranger will not falling behind classes supposed to be specialists in another area of activity (Rogue or Bard).
-Deft Explorer: Completely redesigned. With the Ranger receiving this benefit on a number of terrains it has come into contact with, like, up to the amount of half its level (rounded up) + wisdom bonus. In them, the character, and allies who can see him up to 30 feet, do not suffering from difficult terrain arising from natural areas, and the Ranger using stealth, study and surch actions related to the terrain and its creatures as a bonus action.
-Reason: help The party menbers to walk in The terrain without problem is basic, simple and eficient. Above this, When an action can be made 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). Turning this actions in bonus actions instead of give advantage also ensures that other sources of advantage are not wasted as would happen in the original version. The high amount of known terrain (half the level, rounded up, + wisdom bonus) makes it efficient in most scenarios, but the DM still can put The party in unknown terrains as part of a challenge.
-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 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 in the situation. If the number of uses is low, it is possible ajust this feature to add one or more (wis bonus) extra uses
PS: It would be great if hunters mark became concentration free after a certain casting level, as happens with (for example) 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 😏🤣. It make really good in know The information about the enviroment and perceive threats in it, a core parte of the class identity.
PS: im not an english native, so If something is not so clear, confusing ir even sounds somewhat rude, um really Sorry 😅. Feel free to correct me or ask questions ☺️.
One of the main critiques I've seen of the barbarian is the weakness of the high level features, with there being little reason to go past tenth level other than the capstone.
A thing to keep in mind is not everyone wants to share their books and not everyone has money to buy the new ones. If you can use your old books it mitigates problems. There’s also matters of homebrew that may be used that the player may like that’s designed for the old versions.
15:07 the core rulebooks for 5e are already combined 988 pages, I don't think you can get much closer to "close to a 1000" without going over
Yeah I was excited when I heard that it would be over 1000 pages, but I remembered that’s not much more. Really makes me think on how much of that increase is due to the new and increased number of art.
I will say, as someone who has worked in smaller scale printing, assuming they have a very direct line with their printer, it could be as short as a two-three month turn around from final product to printing, to shipping, and the printer may have an editable version of the document that can be iterated on for multiple runs early in the process. As such, if the goal is PHB in September and everything out by December, I'd expect they have until around May next year to finalise things which is basically another 6 months for PHB material. That said, I'd still hope they have teams working on all three books simultaneously as if people are jumping between projects that could seriously hamper the quality with these deadlines.
To take the Brawlers place I'd like to see a fighter subclass something akin to the 4e Warlord.
The Dungeon Dudes have something close with their Commander subclass.
The brawler being cut because the monk sucks is really frustrating. I think an unarmed figher subclass is super cool... The brawler outshining the monk is not a problem with the brawler, its a problem with the monk.
I really do wonder how the Ranger can be in a good place now. The last version was entirely built around not having class spell lists.
I mean, unarmed fighting style already existed. That was the main part of the brawler anyway. If you want a cool unarmed fighter, just play a Battlemaster with unarmed fighting style
@@skippy9273 Dont have the document open, but didnt the brawler have the ability to apply masteries to improvised weapons? I thought that was interesting.. I remember requesting the ability for them to use weapon masteries with their fists as well.
@@MaMastoast yeah they did. I think the feature was underbaked though and was by no means better than using a real weapon and fighters can actually use those
@@skippy9273 To me its not really about being the strongest subclass, but rather mechnanically enabling certain fantasies... I think an unarmed fighter is a very appealing fantasy...
Not saying the subclass was perfect, some of the features may have been half-baked, but I loved the concept and I think its a shame it gets scrapped because people are so unhappy with the state of the monk,
@@MaMastoast what im saying is that unless you found the improvised weapon part of the class really appealing, the unarmed fighting style does more than enough to achieve that. One of the brawlers main features is getting the unarmed fighting style for free
In AD&D creatures had a treasure type, I would like to see that.
I love the idea of redoing the Banneret!
We need to play test the bard. The most recent is not playable since they reverted spell lists. As someone who typically plays bard, it’s really frustrating and disheartening that they have such a glaring gap.
They'll probably just revert to their class spell list as it is
They might do the pathfinder thing where bards can choose a spell list at creation. or maybe give them arcane/occult spell list and expand on magical secrets to give the bard that extreme flexibility that makes them stand out compared to other casters.
@@matheusfernandes2102 If they revert the class spell list as it is, then they should stop citing the UA Bard's high satisfaction rate as the reason why it doesn't need more playtesting.
I hope they put an actual guide with tips for running lvls 14+, also would like to know if monk is gonna get another chance in a UA
Monk Barb and Druid confirmed to be in the next UA
So what were the announcements?
They mention the Artificer but it will not be in the book. Hmmm.
Base Class Monk is getting another pass? Yes, but they said in an earlier video that they were happy with 4 Elements, Shadow and Mercy. So only the Open Hand will be getting a big revision depending on what they do with the Base Class.
Base Class Barbarian and some of the aspects of the sub-classes still needs checking.
Druid changes? I am not sure why. Land was good, Stars was good, Moon may have been fixed but I'm not sure. I forget the last one (Water?).
Brawler Fighter is getting dropped and they will have a new 4th sub-class. Does that mean the Dancer Bard, who was a better Monk than Monk is going to stay?
No more Changes to Ranger? They didn't say anything about it but that probably doesn't mean anything.
The only time frame they gave was "2024", and "LATER in the year..." I have no idea when these books will show up.
Also are there any other books coming out next year? Anthology Adventures? World Books? a Campaign? A level 8-12 MID-GAME Kit instead of a Starter Kit? No, no announcements.
If they do add a new Fighter subclass I'd love to see it be the 5e version of a Warlord.
I watched your video at 2x speed and the interview was perfectly clear on what was being said.
My group basically doesn't know anything unless I tell them. So next year when we start a new campaign I'll just say, hey use these class rules, and they will. No issues. I'm just glad the adventures will be forward compatible.
They’re probably going to be doing something from Tasha’s to fill the fighter slot since the fighter isn’t going to appear in another UA.
My guess is they're just going to reprint Rune Knight, since the subclasses showing up in the 2024 books are confirmed to be mirrored themes (Life and War Cleric, Fiend and Celestial Warlock, Diviner and Illusionist Wizard, etc), and Rune Knight is both really popular and has a similar sort of wild and brutal vibe that Brawler was going for as the contrast to Battle Master.
You had it a 1.5 and I had you at 1.75 and it still sounded normal lol
Same 😂
I agree we need high level campaigns
Having "mixed" parties is no problem with regard to theme. I think it depends on how much minutiae the DM must keep track of in addition to everything else.
The barbarian is being revised due to the world tree barb receiving some bad marks.
The druid still needs to be revisited due to the kinda weird state it was left in.
The monk still needs a full rebuild.
Where is the Bard though, last play test it was using all 3 spell lists, which don't even exist anymore, they need to come out with something functional.
They say in the video because both the world tree needed some tweaking but also some Barbarian features. So there will be some (likely minor) tweaks to the base class as well if they aren’t lying
I need a revamp arcane archer badly! Also I hear so much about the players guide and monster manual but very little for the DM's guide. DMs need love too.
Perkins has said the DMG is getting a complete rework. Explaining how to run a campaign and examples included. Plus so much more.
@@DQuartermaneDMG revamp is soooo necessary; the 5e DMG has whole chunks literally copy/pasted from earlier editions.
Now after finishing the video, yes, I completely agree that if they're bringing old subclasses to the book that they shouldn't just be taken from Tasha's or Volo's, they should at least have some updates to them.
And yeah, that's disappointing that Brawler didn't make it in
In an earlier video they said the Druid itself is fine. They are releasing it again to revamp the moon druid again.
Warlock needs another pass
They set out to make every class appear twice and warlocks first apperance was an entirely different class and its second appearance only asked about one feature
@@badmojo0777 have the scores they want? They only asked about one feature.
1. Backwards compatibility is an illusion. Everytime a new generation of game consoles come out, everyone screams for backwards compatible and then the new system comes out and no one plays the old games anymore because they have a new toy. This will be the same. I would rather them improve the game, rather than shoehorn old stuff, which will drag it down and not he used in 2 years.
2. More art means less content. I would rather have a page with a new subclass than a full spread art page. Art does nothing and has no value. This is supposed to be a rule book, I am not buying it for the art.
3. They need to remove attunement. Attunement prevents DMs from rewarding players and limits character building during play.
4. Remove concentration spells for most utility spells. Casters rarely cast utility spells because it's highly likely they will lose concentration, and they want to reserve concentration for powerful damage spells.
I REALLY hope that the Arcane Trickster's Spell Thief ability can get buffed to be multiple use. Nothing crazy, just like 3 times per long rest or let it recharge on a short rest maybe? And change it to an Int save across the board regardless of the caster.
That was really my only critic about the Arcane Trickster in the UA. I worry that ability, targeting a caster's primary save, will be harder to get off and may not see as much reliable use as say a Paladin's avatar form or something. I wouldn't be so critical if it wasn't the thing that drew me to Arcane Trickster.
Have done the same thing with species... Half-Elf didn't get an update for MotM.. or Dwarves didn't either. But if you play a Dwarf in my game you get 30ft of movement. And you can do the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1, you're not restricted to what the book says.
I like that they're going with a modular set up.
What I have learned from the publishing business is that printing on this scale usually takes about 6 months, shipments from 2-3 months so if they finish the work by the beginning of January they might have stuff ready somewhere of September but there is greater catch in play and that is bookstores. They want to be informed 7 months prior what you are gonna sell in their stores so they’ll know to reserve space for them. Hasbro has some leverage of course but still they cannot prolong the publication too long
Maybe this means that they'll be focusing on a digital release and having print-on-demand or a widespread physical release later on...
And this is after Hasbro just dropped their main bookstore distributor....
@@wesleyrussell8386I'll be honest if they're doing that. It's going to be another big fiasco like the OGL situation. One of the big points of tension was them dropping their main supplier and basically ruining their relationship with game shops and book stores
“Some of the new best art in all of fantasy.”
Yea well that’s easy to say when AI is pulling from the best artists of all time and making most of the art for you
Only 7 or so minutes into the video, but I'm already answering yes to using the 2014 subclass with the 2024 core class as some of the subclasses are taken straight out of Volo's Guide to Everything and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (mostly the latter), so WotC at this point designed it that way of playing either core class and choosing either version of the subclass (though definitely wants you to be using the updated versions more)
I think with the amount of homebrew and concessions most DMs allow at the table to tweak the game into the most playable form it can be in, I see a lot of people playing whichever version they prefer in terms of the 2014 (or later printing) or the 2024 versions. Provided it's not a random group you've never played with, most people I know speak very openly and clearly from DM > Player and Player > DM about their goals, ideas and expectations. This is just another way to tailor the game to your needs with options, imo.
The bigger issue to me is how this would work in DND Beyond... are the current versions of the class just going to be marked as legacy versions, like they do with monsters already?
That will be very interesting to see.
I sure hope so, otherwise all my chsracters are gonna disappear.
I’d like to see some more of Wayne Reynolds artwork on the covers
Been waiting for this! Appreciate you getting this out quickly.
The ranger still needed work with its lack of identity and bland features.
I normally let players do what they want.
But in every case there would be a discussion.
I quit D&D after 24 years January 2023. Spelljammer and the crossovers with MTG were basically a bummer and strongly disappointed me. I moved to Starfinder and love the races, chases and to build Mechs, Starships, vehicles and using of skills like Engineering, survival, medicine, Computers, Culture/ Life Science/Physical Science...
Also... i love art but im more interested in freely printable Maps with the modules... The overpricing of books is also a bummer
High level monsters help support high level campaigns, so the foundations for high level campaigns are being laid.
Personally. As in the paladins case, if it was overall better but a feature would be slowed down, I'd allow the player to use the previous version. So if I will have a player with the new paladin but wanting the old smite rules, I'll allow it.
Im chuckling because 'bastion' is every other word; nothing against it, but I hope that's not their focus for the DMG. I will attest that I met and chatted with Perkins at SDCC and genuinely cares about the fandom feedback. Also, Its clearly teased that technically the 50th anniversary is much later in the year
IMO they still haven't understood where the world of ttrpg is... With the ending of stranger things and critical role going towards daggerheart, wotc going for a digital tabletop system and the only marketing is what, baldur's gate for the past years?
They should 100% do big changes to the game to try and bring people back and focused on D&D, because with the new games being released, even black flag and pathfinder 2e reviewed, everyone is trying to bite into their playerbase. Those conservative changes and the whole "you can still play with old classes" is just "middle of the road" decision making.
If anyone's talking it seems like really sped up and then Crawford talks and it just sounds normal. He is such a slow talker in comparison
I will agree, at the start of the video if it wasn't for the presenter, I would have thought you were playing it at normal speed.
I am currently running a campaign which will most likely still be running when these new books drop. As such, I will allow the players to remain with their current 2014 class/subclass if they wish, or, if they want to, convert their character over to the new version of the same class/subclass if they prefer. I already have one player who is running a fighter/bard who is asking me to use the UI version of fighter (which I am not against, I just don't want to do it just yet when the official stuff is coming down the pipe and I would rather handle it all at once with everyone).
After that, I will allow my players to use which ever year rulebook they prefer as I don't want to hinder how they want to play.
If they replace the Brawler with the Arcane Archer just to take the opportunity to further sideline the Ranger, I will LMAO
I would not have an issue with 2014 and 2024 subclasses at the same table. even if it is just because of strength. the stronger they are the more I can throw at them.
@@badmojo0777 yeah, play whichever you want. I balance against the 2014 subclasses now. Why would it be an issue to do the same in 2 years.
I just want a good monk man
I'm already DMing a group that is both 2014 and the (play test) 2024 rules. One of the paladin players didnt want to use the 2024 rules, and another wanted to wait to see what was in the published version of the 2024 rules. I have a bloodhunter, who I've helped boost a little bit (I've given him the weapon mastery stuff), and then I've got two other players that absolutely love the changes to the Rogue (Thief) and Sorcerer in 2024.
The playback was REALLY fast at 1.5x, because I was watching your video at 1.5x lmao. So it played at 2.25x for me.
I feel like Wotc has really put a ton of effort into building their rep back up from the previous (multiple) scandals (OGL, Pinkertons, etc)
I just wouldn't allow mixing and matching, so no 2024 subclass with 2014 class for example, with the exception being using a subclass that didn't get updated.
I wouldn't allow same subclass from 2014 and 2024. It would probably create situations like 'why you get that and I don't' for both players. I'd probably allow a mix of 2014 and 2024 characters.
It's probably fine to use some subclasses from older books if the 2024 books don't have a corresponding one (like some Cleric domains, for example). For classes that are getting updates in 2024, like Archfey Warlock or Champion Fighter, it's probably moot since the new version is usually better. Endorsing the mixing of core classes is a *massive* mistake. You'll run into a situation where you, for example, have someone playing a 2024 version of Fighter for all of the new features, and then have a Wizard player want to take a 2 level dip into 2014 Fighter because they don't give a damn about Weapon Mastery and just want the version of Action Surge that allows them to cast multiple leveled spells per turn.
Played 1st Edition for approx 25 years. Next edition I played was 5E. It works fine for me & my group and I don't see us flirting with the 2024 edition as there is already more than a lifetime's worth of 5E material to draw on. I think this is marketed at another generation.
I would like to see a bit more psionics in the PHB even if we have a few psionic subclasses in the older books. Often times psionics is a challenge for DnD to handle well and balance. Part of me would like a brand new base class for psionics. There is also a great dream of mine is them going back further like to previous editions as they did when 5th first came out. I still miss Magic of Incarnum from late 3.5 era but doubt it would come due to the number of magic item limit on characters. Now, if they are returning to the monsters having "treasure", maybe they will increase the magic item usage for characters.
Gary Gygax wanted Psionics removed from D&D and had he been involved with 2E AD&D it would have been gone from D&D and psionics would have been moved over to something like Star Frontiers (Gaqry said he wanted it taken out of D&D and used for one of their sci fi games instead.).
@@welovettrpgs I know of others who would argue the same idea like my oldest brother. Some would say the 3.5 version was basically spell casting but better in every way.
@@jasonsumma1530 From several interviews with Gary he said he included Psionics as sort of a favor to some friends he ussed to game with in the 70s. He did however say he came to regret it.
I cannot praise Tales of the Valiant by Kobold Press enough. If you want a redone 5e DnD with updated classes, new Dungeon Master Tools, and updated monster statblocks that aim to make them more engaging and tactical rather than less (looking at you DnD. I still hate that enemy spellcasters no longer have spell lists) please take a look at their playtest material. It is actively compatible with all of their currently existing books and they have 10 short adventures made, with their system as the focus, by various talented publishers including the folks that made Grim Hollow.
I backed TotV when it was first announced under Project Black Flag and I haven’t been excited about One DnD since. Everything I need is being provided by Kobold Press at a fraction of the cost
The barbarian has to go to UA again not because of the core class but because the new subclass isn't where they want it to be.
I'd like to see a revamped banneret fighter, lots of buffs for allies, giving up attacks to give allies free reactions, something like that. A real commander-type. Ooh, I know it would make ranger even worse but maybe it would get a squire or animal companion or something
Bring back the warlord, make it a fighter subclass
I want to mention that I have YOUR video at 1.5 speed, and I can STILL make up what their saying. lol
Personally, if a player was like "I want to play the 2014 champion fighter because I'm more familiar with it." I would be like how about try the new one, but if they insisted, I would allow it, but I would also include homebrew items to show up that would include 2024 features as sort of a dip your toe in experience. If the player wanted to play it to fulfill a specific fantasy, I would tell them to go ahead and play the old version.
The Ranger might not be changing, but they could still tweak Hunter’s Mark.
If no issues with compatibility as they are claiming - then yes same class/subclass different publication versions not an issue.
Could you do a video where you go over all the monsters in the book for chains of asmodeus? Because I counted and I didn’t see over 50 monsters in monsters + npcs+ arch devil section may have miscounted I guess
I have attended Gen Con quite a few times because I live in Indiana. One thing I have noticed over the years is that Dungeons and Dragons seems to get pushed away from the spotlight. The organized play isn't even given space in the Indiana Convention Center. Paizo has a nice, huge room right in the ICC as you walk over from Circle Center Mall, while D&D is pushed out to the JW Marriott hotel across the street. My feeling is that the owner of Gen Con, Peter Adkison, isn't too crazy about D&D. He now uses Gen Con to promote independent publishers like himself. It would not surprise me if the sudden change of venue for your panel was a result of Peter reminding Wizards who is boss at Gen Con. Call it a bit of gamesmanship.
To be fair dnd doesn't really need the help being the main thing and there are a number of issues with how the company side of things have been run the last few years when it comes to anyone not dnd and such .
2014 class with 2024 subclass, or vice versa.... It's gonna happen
I just hope they change spellcasting back to what it is already.
i haven't dm'd in a while. is there a vid or resource that helps explain all the changes in the 2024 crb's to help people returning to the game?
Arcane Archer rework?
That wouldn't be bad
ב"ה
In my campaign that will likely keep going in 2024 when the new books will come out, I will probably allow for players to update their characters to 2024 versions.
If they’re gonna use an old fighter in place of the brawler then fix the arcane archer
By giving battlemaster manuveurs to all martials you give meaningful options for martials, you bridge gap between martials and casters by creating symmetry between martials and casters! Casters get cantrips at will and resources to spend by casting spells; Martials on the other hand get weapon masteries at will and resources (superiority dices) to spend by using battlemaster maneuvers
On top of weapon masteries, give all martials battlemaster maneuvers!!! You can design martials with a possibility to choose or not to access battlemaster maneuvers, very much like the new holy order feat for clerics for whoch you choose heavy armor or thaumaturgy… meaning that you can still design martials which are easy to play and if players want other types of martials which can opt to have more tactical options
Did he say we wont see revised spells in UA?
Wait, they're still doing Acquisitions Incorporated!??!?
Didn’t they say in another one of these that they will be printing the first version of the Ranger from the playtest? So basically the 2nd version was just there for contrast and they’re abandoning stuff people didn’t like.
would be cool if they did class PHB, the books can cost less and they will sell more books and make it easier to get new player to join the game.
Example: if I want to play paladin, I can buy a PHB that only has what you need to play the paladin. the book can be smaller and cost around $10 to $15 per Class book
and they can still offer the full PHB for those that want the full PHB.
More art is always great. I'm excited to have art for eldrich knight to go with the better rules. Now I just need some spells for them
They need to fix Improved War Magic before that, it's ridiculous have a limitation of only 1st and 2nd level spells for a 18th level feature
"Better rules"
LMAO, you are showing you don't know how to play 5e.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusketOk buddy.
Barbarian adjustments are awesome. Sorry past Ted.
I don't know how I feel about this. With the Pathfinder remaster, their terms of service make the Archives of Nethys 100% legal. So you can just suppliment your old books with that if you want. Their refresh was wholly caused by WotC as well hence it being so fast.
This though is very different. While stuff does exist, none of the Achives equivilents actually appear to be allowed under the WotC rules. That means that to play the updated version you do have to buy the new ones. So is this actually just a way of boosting earnings while kind of pretending to update the game? I will largely be paying for the same thing.
This is similar to the reprint of Tyranny of Dragons, and Monsters of the Multiverse. If you didn't own the books it isn't really an issue, but if you bought the originals it sucks.
When will the 2024 core rule books come out? I hope not right at the beginning of the year
I’m so excited for the new core rule books 💯💯💯
Why do you hate D&D or something? We're switching to Pathfinder after we're done with 5e, 5.5e isn't well written.
I don't like not having another UA of Ranger because I still don't like it entirely
I’m the dm for my group and I want my players to have fun. If they find a dramatic scene fun, we will do that. If they want a 2024 base class and 2014 subclass, I’m all for it. I do draw a line with rule breaking, I’ll allow for bending sometimes. Also impossible things. Someone may find it fun to ride a whale across the desert, but that, without a super specific circumstance, is impossible.
Until you discover... the legendary Sand Whale!
Really hate that every smite steals your bonus action.
Fine with once per turn, but not the Bonus action crap.
1.5 speed sounds like 1.5 speed. It's not unintelligible, I get why some people don't mind it, and tbh it doesn't hugely impact whether or not I watch these videos - but it doesn't sound normal either.
The brawler didn’t make it, they didn’t even bother making a revision of it. How badly did it score that they just killed it?
Let’sa go!!
1.5x speed is where it's at.
Almost makes JC listenable. lol j/k j/k