To make a separate comment, my opinion is that Monk8 wasn't just better than the original 2014 clusterf&ck, it incorporated nearly every piece of criticism given to martial classes. It scales consistently all the way to level 20. It gains spell-like effects for many levels especially past level 10. It rewards straight class progression consistently and at level 20, the capstone rewards every subclass variation. The Monk in UA8 is possibly one of the best designed classes in D&D history next to the 2014 Paladin
I kinda wish there was a INT option Monk or a Dip option that would be impressive. But really, all the Wisdom casters (even Druids) can just have BETTER ARMOR.
5:12 Actually, the majority of classes only got 2 versions presented to us. Ranger, Rogue, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard, Paladin, Fighter ect. All got two. Barbarian and Druid IIRC are the *only* ones to receive 3 verions. It really feels like you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here Ted.
6:01 I only compared both versions of the Monk to the 2014 version. Comparing them to each other seems like a waste of time to me. Playtest 8 Monk is fantastic in almost all areas. Better resource management, better DPR, more versatility, more tactical options, features to make you viable on the front lines. My *only* complaint I've had was that the way of four elements monk in DnD Next is still the best version of it we've seen and I wish they'd revisit it. But I love the other subclasses, so I can live with one being a dud.
Out of all the ua classes, the monk was the one I am most satisfied with, not just as compared to the previous versions but, on its own merits. My group uses super heavy homebrew to balance and spice up the classes and subclasses, and the ua monk needed nearly no changes at all to fit into our heavily modified class mix.
@@silvinity4939 They say that May was a false date and in May they are going to be still working in the PHB yet so only in one or two months is difficult to be ready to sell.
@@sillvvasensei That's because they're dumb. the whole point was to release around the 50th anniversary and to get it out before summer so all the kids can buy the books and play over the summer.
@@sillvvasensei Yeah, I hadn't watched to that point yet, then for some reason couldn't find my comment again to edit it since I was on mobile, then just forgot.
I playtested both the Monk and the new Conjure Animals and really enjoyed both of them. Conjure Animals definitely loses some of the utility, but it is very fun to run and feels adequately powerful for the level, and I probably avoided a TPK because of it.
Regarding the timing issue, at the end of the D&D Studio Update: 2024 Core Rule Books and Survey Results video from WotC with Chris and Jeremy, they note that while the 50th anniversary is being celebrated all this year (2024) it's also going into next year (2025) because the 50th doesn't technically start until later in 2024. I'm guessing Chris/WotC knows an exact month when it launched back in 1974, so internally their 'year 50' is from that month until the same month in 2025.
I appreciated that they were direct. "Druids? 70% for most features and don't worry, this is the floor. Barbie? 80% for several features. Monks? Nearly unheard of approval, 90%+ for most features. Spell changes were generally approved. The release date in a previous graphic was wrong. See you in 2025."
I think 90% of players really were happy with the new monk. I know I was. Other youtubers were. Most people I talked to were. As for release date for the books, "still working on it in May" doesn't mean they can't publish the PHB in July, or August, and the other books in the fall. Fine-tuning the interior design and page editing/layout doesn't have to take several months.
I'm realizing it may not have come off that way in this video, but I'm quite haply with the changes to the monk. I just feel like a class that so many said needed a major overhaul had the shortest amount of time for playtesting
@@NerdImmersion It did sound like you didn't think the improvements were that great, "just a step up from the previous UA garbage" (to paraphrase). But I understand live reactions can be tricky. I share your opinion that they just should have skipped/removed the various conjure spells rather than giving us rebranded spells that function very similarly to existing spells like Spirit Guardians, Moonbeam, etc. I still prefer these newer spells, though, to the 2014 versions, just bc of the fact that that the older ones tend to bog the game. (They probably don't want to skip them because they need the newer ones to *replace* the Legacy 2014 spells, in particular for organized play AL games).
For the conjure spells, I feel like it would have been best if they renamed it to something like "Conjure Spiritual Animals" and "Conjure Celestial Presence". That simple name change along would have made them more thematic to their new purpose and separate them from the summon spells even more.
You could deep dive the Wizards site with something like the Wayback Machine, it's how I got a copy of the document with the Love domain cleric. That said, yeah, some of that old Unearthed Arcana is more fun than what we got. I'm playing the Raven Queen warlock, the one with the pet raven, and it's been a hoot.
The books will probably be 3rd quarter releases. Hasbro isn't going to have the same turn around time on a finished product to a printed product as a smaller company. As for why they don't rename 5e, I don't think they want a new edition when they are at the height of their popularity. It much easier to get people to continue to buy your product until the new version if they can continue to use the content after the switch. Its also easier to get people to adopt a "revised" edition then to move on to a completely new edition.
Ted, don't just diss on the improvements e.g. for monk, because it's Wotc and D&D, and we are all supposed to hate on what they are doing nowadays. Despite missteps, every class has got significantly better in the UA process in the last 12 months. This should make D&D players happy! Unless something goes DRAMATICALLY wrong between now and publication, the 2024 version of D&D will be significantly better than 5e originally was in 2014. If you are not convinced that the class features and subclass features of monk aren't better, please may I recommend the UA one-shot with Treantmonk, d4 Deep Dive, Pack Tactics and Insight Check? I understand that you might find it annoying that "Conjure" spells have been completely rewritten but maintaining their name, but most people who have tested these spells LOVED them, chiefly because they are much less annoying to other players than the old "Conjure" spells. The core rulebooks will almost certainly come out in time for Christmas. It would be insane if they missed the 50th anniversary completely. OK, Hasbro HAVE made enormous blunders recently, but they HAVE to get the completion and publication of the new core rulebooks right
I think most people figured the original Pax postings with the dates were just placeholders. Cause it would not make any sense for PHB and Vecna campaign to launch on same day. They need each individual book to breath on its own. My guess is the Vecna book will be April/May. The core books are most likely going to be Q3/Q4. The sensible thing would be releases in July, September, and November. With the 3pack in December. So each book has time to be enjoyed, before the next one comes out. But it will most likely be September, October, November. With a possible 3pack in December. But I am just guessing. I would have also liked to have seen one more look at the Ranger. But at least hope we see a UA of a few more DMG things. Still would like to see another proposal on Crits and death saves. I have seen some good homebrew ideas from and and other people. But would like at least one more go at it from WotC.
I’d bet there would be QR codes games at gencon that links to each of the different 5e class art and the first 200 people who get a pic of each image gets a PHB, DMG, and MM box set for free. Then there would be the full release like within a couple weeks of that point.
Waaayyyy back in the day, the first edition AD&D core books came out really far apart. Monster Manual was first in December 1977. The PHB came out in June 1978. And the DMG didn't come out until August of 1979, over a year after the PHB.
I have a feeling we are done with the UA permanently. The only exception might be a few new monster stat blocks especially if they change it up some. If we are lucky, they may release some of the new magic items especially the common and uncommon ones since one of the biggest complaints about the DMG is lack of common and uncommon magic items. As for the timing of the books, I say 4th Q but this wouldn't give too much time for any UA for either DMG or MM unless as I mention earlier they simply quit using them.
We may not see the new/revised/advanced/whatever core books until late this year/maybe next year, but I think we’ll still see some book this year. The Vecna book is still expected this year, unless I missed something.
To riff off the talk about the ranger not having any identity. I think they approached it with the creation of the expert grouping. The notion that rangers are experienced, a martial class with more skills because these are rugged self sufficient folks. A fighter fights, a barbarian endures, a ranger survives. The main issue is that mechanically the main thing they keep giving it is hunters mark which isn't all that compared to sneak attack, divine strikes, multiple extra attacks and the like and is a clunky use of spell mechanics for a class feature.
Well put. I know people keep hating on the concept of the "pet class" but really, I feel like that's the best way to do it. While I know everyone doesn't want to have a pet, which is totally fine, but why play Ranger then? A scout rogue with the outlander background can do things just as well if not better
@@NerdImmersionto be honest I'd steal from Scout Rogue for most Ranger features, and have the pets be subclass based (in the way that drakewarden suggests themed pets so the falconer, dragon keeper or wolf brother can all be different) but also have the scope for non pet rangers for people who don't want to multiclass rogue and fighter which is a lot of juggling between levels to eventually get the build doing what you may want of it.
@Schafecast I tried coming up with a way for the pet to be a summon using an ability called Ranger's Bond. Where that was one aspect and the other was like a weapon boost but I could never get it to work right. Also looking at most of the Ranger subclasses, they almost all have an ability that's just "I do more damage once a turn or against a designated enemy", so it really seems that's the main focus WotC wants subclasses for Ranger to have
@@NerdImmersion top of my head is pet version has a limited pool of hp and damage it can do without being buffed with subclass (at level up) (4hp and d6 damage, up to 8 hp and 2d6 damage at 6th level as an arbitrary level up) and have it be just temp hp and extra damage to your attacks whilst you have the temp hp active. A ranger is either capable of forming bonds and gaining help from the wilds or is self reliant and draws on an inner well. Maybe extra temphp (+pb to whatever the pet is on) because the pet is a little more flexibility on the field. Then the subclasses can add flavour to the pet (drakewarden give it dragon powers, beast master give it more hp or extra actions, bonus actions) or the nature of the rangers individual capabilities ala gloomstalker or horizon walker.
I feel like being able to ignore Difficult Terrain from an early level would be a flavorful, powerful option for Ranger that could be useful to melee, ranged, and pet Rangers. I like the idea of being able to choose a resistance, like in BG3. Shows that the Ranger has adapted to the perils of whatever terrain they trained in early in their Ranger career. I like the idea of Rangers having a GOOD creature sense/location feature. It could draw from a limited resource pool that I've been advocating for some time called Channel Nature (which they used for their first UA Druid, actually.) Like Pallys/Clerics/Druids, the Ranger could have a base class feature or features that draw from this resource pool, and also the subclasses could draw upon it for unique subclass features- nature-themed of course. I'm just disappointed, because it feels like they didn't put much effort into the Ranger at all. It's like they told themselves, "we already did this one in Tasha's, so it's already done."
I actually started a thread on the DnD Beyond forums that is titled "What is the Ranger's Mechanical Identity?" Naturally, it devolved into arguments about whether or not Ranger is powerful or not. Those people missed the point. I contend that the terrain-based features are very bad, because what if you're not in your terrain? Or what if there's an argument over whether where you are, qualifies as your terrain? Or what if where you are is not a terrain option (no urban, tomb, castle, or Dungeon options, e.g.)? Even with the UA option to choose 2 and change 1 after a rest... the bonuses are underwhelming. Advantage on Survival/Nature checks? Boo. I'd like to see some kind of feature that lets the Ranger sense enemies (but not the very sucky feature they have in the 2014 version) like Aragorn with his ear to the ground. Maybe something that gives them advantage on saves versus special attacks or abilities from creatures (because they know what to be wary of.) I'd like to see them make Hunter's Mark a class feature, not a spell. And I'd like them to figure out what to do with HM so that it is good but balanced and scales up with level. I'd really like the Hunter subclass to be revamped, so that the options you choose are more evenly balanced against each other, and so that they scale as you level. And much like the Sorcerer subclasses, if you're going to give some subs bonus spells, then I think all subs should get bonus spells. I don't know. There are a lot of things that could be done with Ranger to make it more unique, flavorful, and mechanically relevant. But the 2 versions I saw in the UA were not much more than what we saw from Tasha's. And that was a definite improvement over the 2014 version. But I thought Tasha's was basically a band-aid stop-gap measure, and now they have an opportunity to really do something... but no. It doesn't look like they're doing much at all. Oh well. There's always multiclassing.
Some random thoughts: 1. I don’t think we have any official D&D books set to release this year except for the 5.24 revision books. AFAIK we haven’t heard anything about any other books slated for release before or after those. It’s a very weird situation to be in given how much they want to monetize this brand. 2. There’s no way they’re going to show us any monsters and at most like 5 UA for the DMG. I don’t see them giving out much else this year since they’re so close to the end. They’re going to be grinding so hard to make that release date that I don’t think they can do anything else. 3. More than likely they’re going to make us wait through this drought all the way until October or November. I don’t think they’ll have enough time to finish otherwise. Which means that the third party releases are going to really have to do all the lifting in terms of keeping the game fresh. I don’t think this will be difficult as there’s a lot of great releases every year but it’s going to be very evident without anything official coming out. What would be sick is if they released a bunch of third party stuff on DDB to keep it up.
I think the reason they are so keen on calling it “revised DMG” and hyping it’s compatible to 5e…is because D&D players demand *more*, always more. More spells, more races, more weapons more power. And if it was called a new edition, with only 2-3 subclasses per level, and only 10-15 races…players would riot over having “less”. Most players started with 5e…and are a bit spoiled by the stability of 5e
Interesting that you weren't impressed by the monk, Ted. I was instantly on board reading the monk as it addressed the issues that I have always seen with the monk mainly not having enough things to do that don't require ki/discipline points to do. Also, bonus action not being tied to having to do an attack is a huge plus. If you want a great analysis, check out TreantMonk and Colby's video talking about the playtest 8 monk and you can see that they were both so impressed with it that they said it could be printed as is and they would be happy. I've already given a monk in my campaign permission to use many of the features from the new monk on their character as I think it makes it feel better to play the monk.
I'm not that worried about the timing. I think the other two books are probably well on their way in terms of development, and that the PHB was the book they needed the most playtesting for. I suspect that the other two books are pretty close to the same degree of "done" as the PHB, and stuff like art is already mostly submitted for everything in all of them. I think we are going to see the PHB in the summer, followed by DMG or MM in early fall, the other at the end of fall, with a box set in time for Christmas. Don't forget that WoTC, unlike basically any other game studio, has enough people to have dedicated team for each book. They can get a lot more done a lot faster than other companies can. Worst case scenario, we might see the books all released in the fall a month apart.
rangers really do need a mechanic to give them their identity, even brutal strikes and cunning strikes, beeing great as they are, are in addition to rage and sneak attack as a mechanic and identity, favored terrain/ foe does not do that for the ranger, not in any of these new editions
I feel like you're being way too harsh on that last playtest monk. That this is potent to all hell and back. Just a single dip into fighter gives this current playtest monk weapon masteries and a fighting style allowing a wide range of playstyles for it. Even a pure version of this monk would never have to rely on a feat like mobile if it can disengage with just a bonus action.
To really make the ranger shine , you need a game that puts emphasis on the danger of the wild . The need to track , hunt , and survive. I think if your game becomes too of a high power heroic game you lose those realistic aspects . The wilds and survival become a slog . When you lose these important aspect of a war game then You are kinda jsut stuck with some different flavor fighters and some difftent flavor magic users. In the Dolmenwood Game the ability of the friar to forage easier and to gets boosts to making. Meals at camp is a sought after game changer . It enables your characters can heal easier and they can stay out in the wilds longer . make time to get treasure and explore .
I wanna see a guide for magic items with pricing as opposed to the random tables. Like in the Dmg and Xanthar’s Tasha’s fizban’s bigbys and BoMT don’t have a major and minor tables for magic items so I guessing Wotc abandon them since they never made sense also hoping the new surprise spells are ranger spells
oh, i thought the first UA ever for 5e was "modifying classes", with a spell-less ranger and the earliest version of divine soul, both were really wonky and iirc it wasn't a pdf, just a blogpost
I just can't believe they are so smug about the state of the Ranger when every other martial/hybrid class got even more flavorful while the Ranger simply got some number balancing
My theories are that firstly may 21st was the original plan for the release date, but they've delayed it due to everything that has happened. and Secondly that this is the last PHB UA simply because they're running to close to the deadline to be doing UA instead of focusing on internal playtesting and development. I really wouldn't be surprised if these books do end up coming out in like December or being delayed to next year. While I'm Personally curious to see what the new PHB ends up being like, I still have ended up pretty negative towards update due to a lot of the changes. I'll probably stick to the good ol' 5e instead and maybe just modifying the new things I like to fit with that.
I have a feeling, only most people that really liked it responded, and that those that didn't left it blank or already have written off most of the UA changes since they started. I can't honestly believe they are all ranked so high, sorry.
For the spells, they are way better for gameplay. The names of the spells don't really matter as long as the base feel of it works, and it does. I love how at times you talk about how everyone has different opinions and wants and that it's impossible to please them all, but when it's your wants and ideas and such it's the only thing that matters. I understand you might not agree with them, but that's the opinion of just you and maybe a small group. You can't just please the small group when a majority approves of it. Perhaps it's better if you try to look at it not from your perspective but from one with no opinion. This is just how I would reccomend it for videoes such as this but am in no way demanding that you change it, just offering a different view. Keep making the great content and I hope you take what I said into consideration.
Ranger doesn't need a mechanical "identity", their identity is that they can be good at anything if you've built your ranger to do so. The idea that a fighter with Outlander background is just as good at the rangers role is a blatantly false idea. Fighter's can summon beast companions, control the battle field with spike growth or do anything more then attacking real good without taking feats or mulitclassing, fuck the fighter can't even heal. Ranger's are lowkey the best support class in the game. You just can't see that thru your spread sheets and damage calculators. When you say things like that it tells me you want to have each class be put into a box and not be allowed to be anything else. Rangers are not just worse fighters, they are skill experts, and casters, they do things fighters can only dream about doing, built into their core class, no subclasses or multiclassing needed. This is the rangers role in the game, they are the Specialist. Choose a role, then be the best at that one thing. Team needs a battlefield controller? Okay, I'll go Swarmkeeper, I'll choose area of denial spells, and stand back behind the group sharpshooting enemies into my spike growths. Need a tank? Sword and board drake warden. Need a face? Feywanderer, wisdom main stat, druidic warrior fighting style for shillelagh and magic stone for cantrips, plus the very potent spellcasting choses means your great at social and combat, and probably stealth too. Speaking of stealth, if you need Stealth guy turns out ranger eats the rogue's lunch. Not only can you be flat out completely invisible in darkness, (Gloomstalker) you can pick up Pass Without a Trace so now you can sneak the barbarian and wizard along with you. I could go on, but I won't. Stop trying to force the idea that Rangers are all Beastmaster Archers or some such nonsense. A ranger, properly built, can be the best character at what ever role they want to play in the party. It is actually a great boon to them that they don't have this one dumb ability, like they try and make Hunter's Mark into in previous UA's, it means they're free to choose what being a ranger means to them. We don't need smites or bardic inspirations or infusions or anything else. Those things put you into boxes, and we need to be thinking about how to take classes out of their boxes instead.
I really don’t understand why you’re harping on the monk. The previous iteration sucked, but the playtest 8 was great. Not great by comparison, just great.
Been running old school essentials for my grittier more reasltic games and “castles and crusades for my tad higher heroic games “ and I’ve never been happier . I’m so done with WOTC D&D . I got my last 5e campaign winding down over the next month . I gave these new UA a shot but I coudnt dig them and the 2014 rules kinda became Meh in light of I was think we’re better systems for the games I want to run.
I wonder how many were even responding to these surveys or sections by the end. I have a feeling they had a lot less responses and a lot more people very quickly reviewing features.
Wow, I can't believe they are not going to make the beginning of Summer release date. That means, they only have a few other big release date options... 1. Beginning of Summer (which they will miss) 2. GenCon release? Man, if they do that I'll be so mad I didn't go. 3. Late Summer - Tax Break Days - Start of School (this is probably before GenCon in most Southern states) 4. October - Halloween Release 5. Late November - Black Friday - Christmas release If we get out this far, that means ToV may be out, Paizo's 2e r1 will have their small books out, and MCDM's First draft will be out by then. Not sure if that will alter their numbers or not.
I think it is a very much a you thing when it comes to the ranger and monk.. In my whole dnd 5e career, I've played 5 rangers and loved and enjoyed every one of them. I have also played 3 monks and also loved them. This monk was very satisfied down the board... it was so much better than the 2014 monk and gives more versatility than it ever had. I know you know treantmonk and coby d4 deep dive, they loved the monk too. And the comment about the oath of ancient Paladin is a better ranger than a ranger. I completely disagree. But you are a paladin player. You love playing paladins, so of course you're going to have a better time playing a nature based paladin over any ranger . My current ranger is the controller in the party and it does a great job at it. And does decent damage and it doesn't even have hunters mark, or Tasha favored foe. Is the 2024 ranger perfect no... there isn't enough new on it though weapon mastery does bring a lot to the table. And they need to add a primeval awareness back to level. But I'm going to keep playing rangers cause it is what I like to play.
Bro, I care about the game too, and WOTC has had a bad year in terms of public perception. I get it. But your level of cynicism and indignation about Every. Single. Utterance in this interview is seriously off-putting. I do still like the game, and although he has a job to do, I trust that Crawford likes it too and wants it to be good.
Again i think the bigest problem of this new dnd is because there is not enough new stuff to justify a new release . With the all the material we got with u.a we can make a series of books like tasha or use it like homebrew . Side note 10 years to just 0.5 improvemt is to litle and late for it, but this is my personaly opinion.😊
I am not sure why everyone is so hung up on having a name for this version. Why can't we just call it Dungeons and Dragons and be done with it. They've mentioned that they're very happy overall with this version of the game minus the new tweaks they are making it's just D&D why do we have to give it a name let's just move on from that already
we aint seeing that book this year. If they have just finished the UA stuff for the book, lead time on printers is over 6 months if not longer, unless they have the time booked. With everything else coming out? No chance.
I'll say for myself, I gave up a couple UAs ago when they reverted all of the good & interesting changes to core gameplay so they are definitely seeing some selection bias in their responses at this point. For example I LOVED all the neat things they did in the first Bard UA and just about cried when I saw them revert them all in the next. Haven't filled out a survey since.
6:14 but I think he fails to mention that the last version of the monk was complete rancid garbage, and take it away and them an equivalence of a bland ham sandwich, yeah, satisfaction will be huge.
It saddens me to see you so bitter over the monk and the changes to the Conjure X spell. I have followed you for solid advice and coverage of dnd news for a while, but all that good will is soured seeing you act like this. It frankly breaks my heart you seem so caught up on these tiny details and make them taint anything good coming from this playtest. This kind of behavior is exactly why I'm glad that spells that need nerfs are not getting a dedicated playtest. It's the same kind of toxicity that made the subreddit unbearable most of the time. I sincerely hope you can be more productively critical instead of just getting loud and throwing a fit in the future. For now it would appear I will need to look elsewhere for my DND news coverage and product reviews
I agree with almost all that you sad. It seams to me that a lot of youtubers still mad with the OGL stuff and can or desire not to see the good things in this play test. Come on now Tad…. 90% approval you canot put that in only one thing, is like saying that thousands of dnd fans are stupid and do not know what is good or bad.
Yeah, while watching the video, it felt like a salty trip, and with reasons, the current news of Hasbro doing grim shit is awful. But the thing is, that saltyness does nothing but bring down the work of the people that really love TTRPGs at WotC
I saw this post before watching the whole video and expected a super salty rant. This video was not that. Ted acknowledged that the Monk was improved and that the new conjure spells themselves were fine. He just wanted more from the Monk and disagrees with keeping a spell name purely for the sake of backwards compatibility. He was way more sour about the ranger, but also gave good reasoning for his opinion. And that's just it: these are opinions! Man is allowed to have them and show disappointment over changes he disagrees with. If you've watched him for a while you'd know he did that well before any of the recent WotC drama. He praises WotC when they make decisions he feels are good and complains when they do things he feels is dumb. He's allowed to be honest about his opinions.
I didn't see all this bitterness and salt you were talking about in this video and as far as I've seen, UA-cam creator's have been surprisingly reserved in talking about Hasbro and WotC considering 1st party content for D&D has been of rather lackluster quality since Tasha's. 3rd party content has been where the real quality is for years now and that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. I personally found the majority of the playtest underwhelming and dissapointing. I have seen a lot of discussion where it seems like a lot of people stopped doing the surveys after the first 2 or 3, so I wouldn't be surprised if a great many of the survey takers are dedicated 1st party loyalists. I know people who won't touch 3rd party, no matter the quality, because it isn't "official" or it isn't on D&DBeyond. It all seems rather silly to me. My table will continue with the 2014 version of 5e and 3rd party content.
Ted I will be honest with you, you are sounding very much like the grognards of old. I agree with Treantmonk here that anything they do to tone down spells and change/remove problematic ones even if they adhering to weird rules such as backwards compatibility is good. As an example the Monk is crazy good now and you don't see it, the barbarian has options that is good etc. You seem so blindinded by misstrust and borderline hatred that it is hard to listen to you. It is weird having you still cover D&D when you seem to hate every step it takes even if they take a good step? The problem here is that you and a lot of people don't seem to be able to dissassociate between Hasbros and WotC. And while WotC did stupid things last year, I don't think Jeremy needs that vitriol and the way you talk here like you personally feel slighted against something that never touched you is truely astounding to me. Please stop combining you hate for WotC and Hasbros with OneDnD and Jeremy Crawford (he is after all the lead rules designer) I know I will get flack for this comment but it really felt like too much, at 13 minutes in you already felt exasperated for Jeremy telling you the result of the playtest even though he has nothing to do with the result/scoring of those playtest, that was all us [the community]. Please be kind and good, we dont need more hate towards people who do their job in terrible circumstances.
To be fair he didn't really complain about the monk and apells themselves. He said the spells were good spells, he just wish they changed the name since they are so different from the originals. And he said the monk was a vast improvement, he just was surprised it got such a high score.
@@NerdImmersion It's 100% player-facing. It should not be in the dmg. It doesn't help a GM run a better game. It should be in an adventure or setting guide that properly integrates and demonstrates its function, not jammed into the DMG.
@@jasondincauze3629 It will be in the new DMG because it is DM choice whether or not to use it. It also contains a bunch of non-player rules for running the Bastion events. I had to copy/paste the player contents instead of just printing from the PDF because of the information that the players shouldn't know when I made printouts for my players.
I think you're rolling poorly on your Insight check. He's simply relaying survey score results and his own interpretation of them. JC looks like a decent guy that loves the game, not some corporate BBEG trying to screw players. (That's someone else's job 😛) As for not knowing for example they had a planned release date for May 2024, as a novel writer with an upcoming book release, I know the publisher can have a date *planned* without properly relaying that info (and have marketing prepare ads), then push back date depending on the project's progression. JC might have known WotC had plans to publish the PHB in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2024 without knowing the tentative date that had been relayed to marketing.
@@Benz74M Yeah, but if I have to do find out something by a 3rd person with out the tangible proof of the results in a pie chart or graft to go along with what he's saying. That makes me inquisitively observe him with a red flag of doubt. I never trust anyone I don't know or have not worked with just because they say so. Everyone should be sceptical of anyone who sits in front of camera and tell you things.
i believe the satisfaction stats, the problem is that "do you like this?" isn't the same as "will this be balanced in the final game you haven't seen all at one?"
I don't know what circles you run in, but the satisfaction scores have always reflected the most common opinions I've seen across all the discords I'm part of.
@The_Crimson_Witch strange. I run games for 3 stores, have 2 private groups and talk shop with many more in the Massachusetts and Rhode Island area. Not all elements are negative, but some that they say got positive, especially the "very positive" results were the elements we disliked the most overall.
To make a separate comment, my opinion is that Monk8 wasn't just better than the original 2014 clusterf&ck, it incorporated nearly every piece of criticism given to martial classes. It scales consistently all the way to level 20. It gains spell-like effects for many levels especially past level 10. It rewards straight class progression consistently and at level 20, the capstone rewards every subclass variation. The Monk in UA8 is possibly one of the best designed classes in D&D history next to the 2014 Paladin
I kinda wish there was a INT option Monk or a Dip option that would be impressive. But really, all the Wisdom casters (even Druids) can just have BETTER ARMOR.
I honestly think Monk was an incredible design improvement. I certainly was 95% happy with what they did.
It's still trash, but for sure better than 5e
5:12 Actually, the majority of classes only got 2 versions presented to us.
Ranger, Rogue, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard, Paladin, Fighter ect. All got two.
Barbarian and Druid IIRC are the *only* ones to receive 3 verions.
It really feels like you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here Ted.
6:01 I only compared both versions of the Monk to the 2014 version. Comparing them to each other seems like a waste of time to me.
Playtest 8 Monk is fantastic in almost all areas. Better resource management, better DPR, more versatility, more tactical options, features to make you viable on the front lines.
My *only* complaint I've had was that the way of four elements monk in DnD Next is still the best version of it we've seen and I wish they'd revisit it. But I love the other subclasses, so I can live with one being a dud.
Did you put the wrong time stamps? Those don't seem relevant to the comments they are in.
Out of all the ua classes, the monk was the one I am most satisfied with, not just as compared to the previous versions but, on its own merits. My group uses super heavy homebrew to balance and spice up the classes and subclasses, and the ua monk needed nearly no changes at all to fit into our heavily modified class mix.
My guess is the release date will be in October, November and December each core book with a month between.
I’m pretty sure we already know the plan is for the new phb to be around may-june.
@@silvinity4939 They just said in the video that they'll still be working on the book in May, so that's wrong.
@@silvinity4939 They say that May was a false date and in May they are going to be still working in the PHB yet so only in one or two months is difficult to be ready to sell.
@@sillvvasensei That's because they're dumb. the whole point was to release around the 50th anniversary and to get it out before summer so all the kids can buy the books and play over the summer.
@@sillvvasensei Yeah, I hadn't watched to that point yet, then for some reason couldn't find my comment again to edit it since I was on mobile, then just forgot.
I playtested both the Monk and the new Conjure Animals and really enjoyed both of them. Conjure Animals definitely loses some of the utility, but it is very fun to run and feels adequately powerful for the level, and I probably avoided a TPK because of it.
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5фbad choice of words on my end, but in combat the spell still slaps.
Regarding the timing issue, at the end of the D&D Studio Update: 2024 Core Rule Books and Survey Results video from WotC with Chris and Jeremy, they note that while the 50th anniversary is being celebrated all this year (2024) it's also going into next year (2025) because the 50th doesn't technically start until later in 2024. I'm guessing Chris/WotC knows an exact month when it launched back in 1974, so internally their 'year 50' is from that month until the same month in 2025.
You can still find old UA. I found the mystic the other day.
And you're definitely overthinking it.
I appreciated that they were direct. "Druids? 70% for most features and don't worry, this is the floor. Barbie? 80% for several features. Monks? Nearly unheard of approval, 90%+ for most features. Spell changes were generally approved. The release date in a previous graphic was wrong. See you in 2025."
"See you in 2025" what
You were right up until the end, they're still releasing in 2024, just later than May
My guess is digital only in 2024, that printing "supplies & logistics" will delay physical books til Feb 2025
I think 90% of players really were happy with the new monk. I know I was. Other youtubers were. Most people I talked to were.
As for release date for the books, "still working on it in May" doesn't mean they can't publish the PHB in July, or August, and the other books in the fall. Fine-tuning the interior design and page editing/layout doesn't have to take several months.
I'm realizing it may not have come off that way in this video, but I'm quite haply with the changes to the monk. I just feel like a class that so many said needed a major overhaul had the shortest amount of time for playtesting
@@NerdImmersion It did sound like you didn't think the improvements were that great, "just a step up from the previous UA garbage" (to paraphrase). But I understand live reactions can be tricky. I share your opinion that they just should have skipped/removed the various conjure spells rather than giving us rebranded spells that function very similarly to existing spells like Spirit Guardians, Moonbeam, etc. I still prefer these newer spells, though, to the 2014 versions, just bc of the fact that that the older ones tend to bog the game. (They probably don't want to skip them because they need the newer ones to *replace* the Legacy 2014 spells, in particular for organized play AL games).
For the conjure spells, I feel like it would have been best if they renamed it to something like "Conjure Spiritual Animals" and "Conjure Celestial Presence". That simple name change along would have made them more thematic to their new purpose and separate them from the summon spells even more.
5E Revised is my new way of referring to it.
The queen will be pleased by my lack of tardiness
Hell yeah she will
You could deep dive the Wizards site with something like the Wayback Machine, it's how I got a copy of the document with the Love domain cleric. That said, yeah, some of that old Unearthed Arcana is more fun than what we got. I'm playing the Raven Queen warlock, the one with the pet raven, and it's been a hoot.
The books will probably be 3rd quarter releases. Hasbro isn't going to have the same turn around time on a finished product to a printed product as a smaller company.
As for why they don't rename 5e, I don't think they want a new edition when they are at the height of their popularity. It much easier to get people to continue to buy your product until the new version if they can continue to use the content after the switch. Its also easier to get people to adopt a "revised" edition then to move on to a completely new edition.
They stated in other videos they've been having a huge problem finding printers who can accommodate how much they'll need for this.
Ted, don't just diss on the improvements e.g. for monk, because it's Wotc and D&D, and we are all supposed to hate on what they are doing nowadays. Despite missteps, every class has got significantly better in the UA process in the last 12 months. This should make D&D players happy! Unless something goes DRAMATICALLY wrong between now and publication, the 2024 version of D&D will be significantly better than 5e originally was in 2014. If you are not convinced that the class features and subclass features of monk aren't better, please may I recommend the UA one-shot with Treantmonk, d4 Deep Dive, Pack Tactics and Insight Check? I understand that you might find it annoying that "Conjure" spells have been completely rewritten but maintaining their name, but most people who have tested these spells LOVED them, chiefly because they are much less annoying to other players than the old "Conjure" spells. The core rulebooks will almost certainly come out in time for Christmas. It would be insane if they missed the 50th anniversary completely. OK, Hasbro HAVE made enormous blunders recently, but they HAVE to get the completion and publication of the new core rulebooks right
Very well sad sir
I think most people figured the original Pax postings with the dates were just placeholders. Cause it would not make any sense for PHB and Vecna campaign to launch on same day. They need each individual book to breath on its own. My guess is the Vecna book will be April/May.
The core books are most likely going to be Q3/Q4. The sensible thing would be releases in July, September, and November. With the 3pack in December. So each book has time to be enjoyed, before the next one comes out. But it will most likely be September, October, November. With a possible 3pack in December. But I am just guessing.
I would have also liked to have seen one more look at the Ranger. But at least hope we see a UA of a few more DMG things. Still would like to see another proposal on Crits and death saves. I have seen some good homebrew ideas from and and other people. But would like at least one more go at it from WotC.
I’d bet there would be QR codes games at gencon that links to each of the different 5e class art and the first 200 people who get a pic of each image gets a PHB, DMG, and MM box set for free. Then there would be the full release like within a couple weeks of that point.
I think you are right that you can't get the old UAs from the official site anymore. You can still find them on the internets though.
Hey, if they release it on ddb on Dec. 31st 2024 they still technically make their advertised deadline. lol
Monk had a few subtle changes that really shifted game play. Had to stop watching because of your reaction.
Waaayyyy back in the day, the first edition AD&D core books came out really far apart. Monster Manual was first in December 1977. The PHB came out in June 1978. And the DMG didn't come out until August of 1979, over a year after the PHB.
I think the name that makes the most sense for the new books right now is “5e, 50th anniversary edition”
I have a feeling we are done with the UA permanently. The only exception might be a few new monster stat blocks especially if they change it up some. If we are lucky, they may release some of the new magic items especially the common and uncommon ones since one of the biggest complaints about the DMG is lack of common and uncommon magic items. As for the timing of the books, I say 4th Q but this wouldn't give too much time for any UA for either DMG or MM unless as I mention earlier they simply quit using them.
We may not see the new/revised/advanced/whatever core books until late this year/maybe next year, but I think we’ll still see some book this year. The Vecna book is still expected this year, unless I missed something.
To riff off the talk about the ranger not having any identity. I think they approached it with the creation of the expert grouping. The notion that rangers are experienced, a martial class with more skills because these are rugged self sufficient folks. A fighter fights, a barbarian endures, a ranger survives.
The main issue is that mechanically the main thing they keep giving it is hunters mark which isn't all that compared to sneak attack, divine strikes, multiple extra attacks and the like and is a clunky use of spell mechanics for a class feature.
Well put. I know people keep hating on the concept of the "pet class" but really, I feel like that's the best way to do it. While I know everyone doesn't want to have a pet, which is totally fine, but why play Ranger then? A scout rogue with the outlander background can do things just as well if not better
@@NerdImmersionto be honest I'd steal from Scout Rogue for most Ranger features, and have the pets be subclass based (in the way that drakewarden suggests themed pets so the falconer, dragon keeper or wolf brother can all be different) but also have the scope for non pet rangers for people who don't want to multiclass rogue and fighter which is a lot of juggling between levels to eventually get the build doing what you may want of it.
@Schafecast I tried coming up with a way for the pet to be a summon using an ability called Ranger's Bond. Where that was one aspect and the other was like a weapon boost but I could never get it to work right.
Also looking at most of the Ranger subclasses, they almost all have an ability that's just "I do more damage once a turn or against a designated enemy", so it really seems that's the main focus WotC wants subclasses for Ranger to have
@@NerdImmersion top of my head is pet version has a limited pool of hp and damage it can do without being buffed with subclass (at level up) (4hp and d6 damage, up to 8 hp and 2d6 damage at 6th level as an arbitrary level up) and have it be just temp hp and extra damage to your attacks whilst you have the temp hp active. A ranger is either capable of forming bonds and gaining help from the wilds or is self reliant and draws on an inner well. Maybe extra temphp (+pb to whatever the pet is on) because the pet is a little more flexibility on the field.
Then the subclasses can add flavour to the pet (drakewarden give it dragon powers, beast master give it more hp or extra actions, bonus actions) or the nature of the rangers individual capabilities ala gloomstalker or horizon walker.
I feel like being able to ignore Difficult Terrain from an early level would be a flavorful, powerful option for Ranger that could be useful to melee, ranged, and pet Rangers.
I like the idea of being able to choose a resistance, like in BG3. Shows that the Ranger has adapted to the perils of whatever terrain they trained in early in their Ranger career.
I like the idea of Rangers having a GOOD creature sense/location feature. It could draw from a limited resource pool that I've been advocating for some time called Channel Nature (which they used for their first UA Druid, actually.) Like Pallys/Clerics/Druids, the Ranger could have a base class feature or features that draw from this resource pool, and also the subclasses could draw upon it for unique subclass features- nature-themed of course.
I'm just disappointed, because it feels like they didn't put much effort into the Ranger at all. It's like they told themselves, "we already did this one in Tasha's, so it's already done."
We've gone for so long with Chill Touch being... the way it is... Having a few confusing Conjure spell names doesn't even faze me.
I actually started a thread on the DnD Beyond forums that is titled "What is the Ranger's Mechanical Identity?" Naturally, it devolved into arguments about whether or not Ranger is powerful or not. Those people missed the point. I contend that the terrain-based features are very bad, because what if you're not in your terrain? Or what if there's an argument over whether where you are, qualifies as your terrain? Or what if where you are is not a terrain option (no urban, tomb, castle, or Dungeon options, e.g.)? Even with the UA option to choose 2 and change 1 after a rest... the bonuses are underwhelming. Advantage on Survival/Nature checks? Boo.
I'd like to see some kind of feature that lets the Ranger sense enemies (but not the very sucky feature they have in the 2014 version) like Aragorn with his ear to the ground. Maybe something that gives them advantage on saves versus special attacks or abilities from creatures (because they know what to be wary of.) I'd like to see them make Hunter's Mark a class feature, not a spell. And I'd like them to figure out what to do with HM so that it is good but balanced and scales up with level. I'd really like the Hunter subclass to be revamped, so that the options you choose are more evenly balanced against each other, and so that they scale as you level. And much like the Sorcerer subclasses, if you're going to give some subs bonus spells, then I think all subs should get bonus spells.
I don't know. There are a lot of things that could be done with Ranger to make it more unique, flavorful, and mechanically relevant. But the 2 versions I saw in the UA were not much more than what we saw from Tasha's. And that was a definite improvement over the 2014 version. But I thought Tasha's was basically a band-aid stop-gap measure, and now they have an opportunity to really do something... but no. It doesn't look like they're doing much at all.
Oh well. There's always multiclassing.
My guess is open pre-orders with maybe a special addition at GenCon, and then open up the pre-orders for everyone else that Monday following
The way back machine might allow you to look up the old unearthed arcana.
Some random thoughts:
1. I don’t think we have any official D&D books set to release this year except for the 5.24 revision books. AFAIK we haven’t heard anything about any other books slated for release before or after those. It’s a very weird situation to be in given how much they want to monetize this brand.
2. There’s no way they’re going to show us any monsters and at most like 5 UA for the DMG. I don’t see them giving out much else this year since they’re so close to the end. They’re going to be grinding so hard to make that release date that I don’t think they can do anything else.
3. More than likely they’re going to make us wait through this drought all the way until October or November. I don’t think they’ll have enough time to finish otherwise. Which means that the third party releases are going to really have to do all the lifting in terms of keeping the game fresh. I don’t think this will be difficult as there’s a lot of great releases every year but it’s going to be very evident without anything official coming out. What would be sick is if they released a bunch of third party stuff on DDB to keep it up.
I think the reason they are so keen on calling it “revised DMG” and hyping it’s compatible to 5e…is because D&D players demand *more*, always more. More spells, more races, more weapons more power.
And if it was called a new edition, with only 2-3 subclasses per level, and only 10-15 races…players would riot over having “less”. Most players started with 5e…and are a bit spoiled by the stability of 5e
Interesting that you weren't impressed by the monk, Ted. I was instantly on board reading the monk as it addressed the issues that I have always seen with the monk mainly not having enough things to do that don't require ki/discipline points to do. Also, bonus action not being tied to having to do an attack is a huge plus. If you want a great analysis, check out TreantMonk and Colby's video talking about the playtest 8 monk and you can see that they were both so impressed with it that they said it could be printed as is and they would be happy. I've already given a monk in my campaign permission to use many of the features from the new monk on their character as I think it makes it feel better to play the monk.
I'm not that worried about the timing. I think the other two books are probably well on their way in terms of development, and that the PHB was the book they needed the most playtesting for. I suspect that the other two books are pretty close to the same degree of "done" as the PHB, and stuff like art is already mostly submitted for everything in all of them. I think we are going to see the PHB in the summer, followed by DMG or MM in early fall, the other at the end of fall, with a box set in time for Christmas. Don't forget that WoTC, unlike basically any other game studio, has enough people to have dedicated team for each book. They can get a lot more done a lot faster than other companies can. Worst case scenario, we might see the books all released in the fall a month apart.
I do think you'll find a lot of good stuff in the revised monk if you reexamine it, though yeah, the ranger still lacks identity
If sorcerer doesn't get spell list for all subclasses I'm going to loose my mind.
rangers really do need a mechanic to give them their identity, even brutal strikes and cunning strikes, beeing great as they are, are in addition to rage and sneak attack as a mechanic and identity, favored terrain/ foe does not do that for the ranger, not in any of these new editions
They didn't release a vod for survey results for playtest six. Both Pally and Ranger barely got two iterations.
Im glad to see these improvements, as much as i wanna switch to new aystems my friends seem to be mostly dnd still, so it seems im stuck with it.
I feel like you're being way too harsh on that last playtest monk. That this is potent to all hell and back. Just a single dip into fighter gives this current playtest monk weapon masteries and a fighting style allowing a wide range of playstyles for it. Even a pure version of this monk would never have to rely on a feat like mobile if it can disengage with just a bonus action.
I think that we will get release dates on the 2024 DnD Direct soon this year.
I'm thinking maybe March we'll get a stream providing the road map for the year. That would track with what we saw last year
To really make the ranger shine , you need a game that puts emphasis on the danger of the wild . The need to track , hunt , and survive. I think if your game becomes too of a high power heroic game you lose those realistic aspects . The wilds and survival become a slog . When you lose these important aspect of a war game then You are kinda jsut stuck with some different flavor fighters and some difftent flavor magic users.
In the Dolmenwood Game the ability of the friar to forage easier and to gets boosts to making. Meals at camp is a sought after game changer . It enables your characters can heal easier and they can stay out in the wilds longer . make time to get treasure and explore .
I wanna see a guide for magic items with pricing as opposed to the random tables. Like in the Dmg and Xanthar’s Tasha’s fizban’s bigbys and BoMT don’t have a major and minor tables for magic items so I guessing Wotc abandon them since they never made sense also hoping the new surprise spells are ranger spells
oh, i thought the first UA ever for 5e was "modifying classes", with a spell-less ranger and the earliest version of divine soul, both were really wonky and iirc it wasn't a pdf, just a blogpost
I miss the brute fighter :(
They haven't had the older UAs for a while l. I went looking for the player revenant option like two years ago and it was gone.
Wild. I wonder when they removed it
@@NerdImmersion Probably because they find it's obsolete and don't want their non- OGL, non- Creative Common ideas to be used in 3rd party products.
I'm betting on a GenCon release to refer back to 25th anniversary 3.0 ed.
I'd bet on a mid-late November release so they can capitalize on the holiday season.
At some point, monks having more points at less cost just becomes spell slots but more complicated & less useful for increasingly more niche uses.
Focused on testing encounter balance that is ONLY used internally he means 😂
Hope I get to see you at PAX East
I just can't believe they are so smug about the state of the Ranger when every other martial/hybrid class got even more flavorful while the Ranger simply got some number balancing
I think I still have those saved
Those spell changes are crazy to me. It completely guts the parts of the spells that made them them
My theories are that firstly may 21st was the original plan for the release date, but they've delayed it due to everything that has happened. and Secondly that this is the last PHB UA simply because they're running to close to the deadline to be doing UA instead of focusing on internal playtesting and development. I really wouldn't be surprised if these books do end up coming out in like December or being delayed to next year.
While I'm Personally curious to see what the new PHB ends up being like, I still have ended up pretty negative towards update due to a lot of the changes. I'll probably stick to the good ol' 5e instead and maybe just modifying the new things I like to fit with that.
I have a feeling, only most people that really liked it responded, and that those that didn't left it blank or already have written off most of the UA changes since they started. I can't honestly believe they are all ranked so high, sorry.
Release... Black Friday 2024 is my prediction. Hasbro loves the holiday spending season and will want to siphon as much of that cash as possible.
My money on PHB 2024 is August at best (or November at worse)!
For the spells, they are way better for gameplay. The names of the spells don't really matter as long as the base feel of it works, and it does. I love how at times you talk about how everyone has different opinions and wants and that it's impossible to please them all, but when it's your wants and ideas and such it's the only thing that matters. I understand you might not agree with them, but that's the opinion of just you and maybe a small group. You can't just please the small group when a majority approves of it. Perhaps it's better if you try to look at it not from your perspective but from one with no opinion. This is just how I would reccomend it for videoes such as this but am in no way demanding that you change it, just offering a different view. Keep making the great content and I hope you take what I said into consideration.
Definitely agree they're less problematic for sure. I was in a few game where conjure animals ruined the combat
Ranger doesn't need a mechanical "identity", their identity is that they can be good at anything if you've built your ranger to do so. The idea that a fighter with Outlander background is just as good at the rangers role is a blatantly false idea. Fighter's can summon beast companions, control the battle field with spike growth or do anything more then attacking real good without taking feats or mulitclassing, fuck the fighter can't even heal. Ranger's are lowkey the best support class in the game. You just can't see that thru your spread sheets and damage calculators.
When you say things like that it tells me you want to have each class be put into a box and not be allowed to be anything else. Rangers are not just worse fighters, they are skill experts, and casters, they do things fighters can only dream about doing, built into their core class, no subclasses or multiclassing needed.
This is the rangers role in the game, they are the Specialist. Choose a role, then be the best at that one thing. Team needs a battlefield controller? Okay, I'll go Swarmkeeper, I'll choose area of denial spells, and stand back behind the group sharpshooting enemies into my spike growths. Need a tank? Sword and board drake warden. Need a face? Feywanderer, wisdom main stat, druidic warrior fighting style for shillelagh and magic stone for cantrips, plus the very potent spellcasting choses means your great at social and combat, and probably stealth too. Speaking of stealth, if you need Stealth guy turns out ranger eats the rogue's lunch. Not only can you be flat out completely invisible in darkness, (Gloomstalker) you can pick up Pass Without a Trace so now you can sneak the barbarian and wizard along with you.
I could go on, but I won't. Stop trying to force the idea that Rangers are all Beastmaster Archers or some such nonsense. A ranger, properly built, can be the best character at what ever role they want to play in the party. It is actually a great boon to them that they don't have this one dumb ability, like they try and make Hunter's Mark into in previous UA's, it means they're free to choose what being a ranger means to them. We don't need smites or bardic inspirations or infusions or anything else. Those things put you into boxes, and we need to be thinking about how to take classes out of their boxes instead.
I really don’t understand why you’re harping on the monk. The previous iteration sucked, but the playtest 8 was great. Not great by comparison, just great.
Maybe D&D 5R is too close to L5R as an acronym?
super satisfied because people will not look at the whole picture. monks are still underwhelming.
Been running old school essentials for my grittier more reasltic games and “castles and crusades for my tad higher heroic games “ and I’ve never been happier . I’m so done with WOTC D&D . I got my last 5e campaign winding down over the next month . I gave these new UA a shot but I coudnt dig them and the 2014 rules kinda became Meh in light of I was think we’re better systems for the games I want to run.
I wonder how many were even responding to these surveys or sections by the end. I have a feeling they had a lot less responses and a lot more people very quickly reviewing features.
I like your videos and respect your opinions mostly but I think you’re in a bubble with your dislike of Monk.
no new phb ua means no dedicated spells UA
Wow, I can't believe they are not going to make the beginning of Summer release date. That means, they only have a few other big release date options...
1. Beginning of Summer (which they will miss)
2. GenCon release? Man, if they do that I'll be so mad I didn't go.
3. Late Summer - Tax Break Days - Start of School (this is probably before GenCon in most Southern states)
4. October - Halloween Release
5. Late November - Black Friday - Christmas release
If we get out this far, that means ToV may be out, Paizo's 2e r1 will have their small books out, and MCDM's First draft will be out by then. Not sure if that will alter their numbers or not.
I think it is a very much a you thing when it comes to the ranger and monk..
In my whole dnd 5e career, I've played 5 rangers and loved and enjoyed every one of them. I have also played 3 monks and also loved them.
This monk was very satisfied down the board... it was so much better than the 2014 monk and gives more versatility than it ever had. I know you know treantmonk and coby d4 deep dive, they loved the monk too.
And the comment about the oath of ancient Paladin is a better ranger than a ranger. I completely disagree. But you are a paladin player. You love playing paladins, so of course you're going to have a better time playing a nature based paladin over any ranger .
My current ranger is the controller in the party and it does a great job at it. And does decent damage and it doesn't even have hunters mark, or Tasha favored foe.
Is the 2024 ranger perfect no... there isn't enough new on it though weapon mastery does bring a lot to the table. And they need to add a primeval awareness back to level. But I'm going to keep playing rangers cause it is what I like to play.
Bro, I care about the game too, and WOTC has had a bad year in terms of public perception. I get it. But your level of cynicism and indignation about Every. Single. Utterance in this interview is seriously off-putting. I do still like the game, and although he has a job to do, I trust that Crawford likes it too and wants it to be good.
Agreed, Ranger still has no identity and monk is certainly good now, but, I'm with you, it's only that much better because of how low it started.
Time for the Ted Test. Would you play this Druid?
I would
call it advanced D&D 5e
Again i think the bigest problem of this new dnd is because there is not enough new stuff to justify a new release . With the all the material we got with u.a we can make a series of books like tasha or use it like homebrew .
Side note 10 years to just 0.5 improvemt is to litle and late for it, but this is my personaly opinion.😊
I feel like anything before playtest 5 was a huge waste of time and WotC should compensate it by making at least a couple more of UAs.
I am not sure why everyone is so hung up on having a name for this version. Why can't we just call it Dungeons and Dragons and be done with it. They've mentioned that they're very happy overall with this version of the game minus the new tweaks they are making it's just D&D why do we have to give it a name let's just move on from that already
we aint seeing that book this year. If they have just finished the UA stuff for the book, lead time on printers is over 6 months if not longer, unless they have the time booked. With everything else coming out? No chance.
I'll say for myself, I gave up a couple UAs ago when they reverted all of the good & interesting changes to core gameplay so they are definitely seeing some selection bias in their responses at this point. For example I LOVED all the neat things they did in the first Bard UA and just about cried when I saw them revert them all in the next. Haven't filled out a survey since.
6:14 but I think he fails to mention that the last version of the monk was complete rancid garbage, and take it away and them an equivalence of a bland ham sandwich, yeah, satisfaction will be huge.
I share your confusion about the ranger. I don't understand what there was to be excited about with the last version
31.12.2024 is still 2024! 😂
19:27-19:36
Methinks I smell just a hint of bullshit...
Martials are still so weak it's ridiculous
It saddens me to see you so bitter over the monk and the changes to the Conjure X spell. I have followed you for solid advice and coverage of dnd news for a while, but all that good will is soured seeing you act like this. It frankly breaks my heart you seem so caught up on these tiny details and make them taint anything good coming from this playtest. This kind of behavior is exactly why I'm glad that spells that need nerfs are not getting a dedicated playtest. It's the same kind of toxicity that made the subreddit unbearable most of the time. I sincerely hope you can be more productively critical instead of just getting loud and throwing a fit in the future. For now it would appear I will need to look elsewhere for my DND news coverage and product reviews
I agree with almost all that you sad. It seams to me that a lot of youtubers still mad with the OGL stuff and can or desire not to see the good things in this play test. Come on now Tad…. 90% approval you canot put that in only one thing, is like saying that thousands of dnd fans are stupid and do not know what is good or bad.
Yeah, while watching the video, it felt like a salty trip, and with reasons, the current news of Hasbro doing grim shit is awful. But the thing is, that saltyness does nothing but bring down the work of the people that really love TTRPGs at WotC
I saw this post before watching the whole video and expected a super salty rant. This video was not that. Ted acknowledged that the Monk was improved and that the new conjure spells themselves were fine. He just wanted more from the Monk and disagrees with keeping a spell name purely for the sake of backwards compatibility. He was way more sour about the ranger, but also gave good reasoning for his opinion.
And that's just it: these are opinions! Man is allowed to have them and show disappointment over changes he disagrees with. If you've watched him for a while you'd know he did that well before any of the recent WotC drama. He praises WotC when they make decisions he feels are good and complains when they do things he feels is dumb. He's allowed to be honest about his opinions.
The fact that you wrote this much of a response is crazy you if he has issues you have issues to for sure
I didn't see all this bitterness and salt you were talking about in this video and as far as I've seen, UA-cam creator's have been surprisingly reserved in talking about Hasbro and WotC considering 1st party content for D&D has been of rather lackluster quality since Tasha's. 3rd party content has been where the real quality is for years now and that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. I personally found the majority of the playtest underwhelming and dissapointing. I have seen a lot of discussion where it seems like a lot of people stopped doing the surveys after the first 2 or 3, so I wouldn't be surprised if a great many of the survey takers are dedicated 1st party loyalists. I know people who won't touch 3rd party, no matter the quality, because it isn't "official" or it isn't on D&DBeyond. It all seems rather silly to me. My table will continue with the 2014 version of 5e and 3rd party content.
Ted I will be honest with you, you are sounding very much like the grognards of old.
I agree with Treantmonk here that anything they do to tone down spells and change/remove problematic ones even if they adhering to weird rules such as backwards compatibility is good.
As an example the Monk is crazy good now and you don't see it, the barbarian has options that is good etc. You seem so blindinded by misstrust and borderline hatred that it is hard to listen to you.
It is weird having you still cover D&D when you seem to hate every step it takes even if they take a good step? The problem here is that you and a lot of people don't seem to be able to dissassociate between Hasbros and WotC. And while WotC did stupid things last year, I don't think Jeremy needs that vitriol and the way you talk here like you personally feel slighted against something that never touched you is truely astounding to me. Please stop combining you hate for WotC and Hasbros with OneDnD and Jeremy Crawford (he is after all the lead rules designer)
I know I will get flack for this comment but it really felt like too much, at 13 minutes in you already felt exasperated for Jeremy telling you the result of the playtest even though he has nothing to do with the result/scoring of those playtest, that was all us [the community].
Please be kind and good, we dont need more hate towards people who do their job in terrible circumstances.
I don't think it's hate here, I feel more or less disappointment and disinterest.
Throwing a fit over a new monk and spells that got a high satisfaction score... Could you please stop complaining for once?
To be fair he didn't really complain about the monk and apells themselves. He said the spells were good spells, he just wish they changed the name since they are so different from the originals. And he said the monk was a vast improvement, he just was surprised it got such a high score.
Ranger? More like ranged fighter
Have they mentioned Bastions in a while? I know I gave that very poor feedback myself.
That should be in the DMG, but I don't think we're getting another round of playtest for it
@@NerdImmersion It's 100% player-facing. It should not be in the dmg. It doesn't help a GM run a better game. It should be in an adventure or setting guide that properly integrates and demonstrates its function, not jammed into the DMG.
@@jasondincauze3629 I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was said in one of the panels at GenCon
@@jasondincauze3629 It will be in the new DMG because it is DM choice whether or not to use it. It also contains a bunch of non-player rules for running the Bastion events. I had to copy/paste the player contents instead of just printing from the PDF because of the information that the players shouldn't know when I made printouts for my players.
I'm still of the opinion that Ranger should have been a background and not a class.
I sense 15% truth and 85% bullshit from Jerry.
I think you're rolling poorly on your Insight check.
He's simply relaying survey score results and his own interpretation of them. JC looks like a decent guy that loves the game, not some corporate BBEG trying to screw players. (That's someone else's job 😛)
As for not knowing for example they had a planned release date for May 2024, as a novel writer with an upcoming book release, I know the publisher can have a date *planned* without properly relaying that info (and have marketing prepare ads), then push back date depending on the project's progression. JC might have known WotC had plans to publish the PHB in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2024 without knowing the tentative date that had been relayed to marketing.
@@Benz74M Yeah, but if I have to do find out something by a 3rd person with out the tangible proof of the results in a pie chart or graft to go along with what he's saying. That makes me inquisitively observe him with a red flag of doubt. I never trust anyone I don't know or have not worked with just because they say so. Everyone should be sceptical of anyone who sits in front of camera and tell you things.
I will not be buying 6th ed op crap
I'm convinced they are lying about the results. It doesn't reflect a lot of views I find common when discussing the uas
i believe the satisfaction stats, the problem is that "do you like this?" isn't the same as "will this be balanced in the final game you haven't seen all at one?"
I don't know what circles you run in, but the satisfaction scores have always reflected the most common opinions I've seen across all the discords I'm part of.
Loud people aren't always the ones that respond, Hawk
@The_Crimson_Witch strange. I run games for 3 stores, have 2 private groups and talk shop with many more in the Massachusetts and Rhode Island area. Not all elements are negative, but some that they say got positive, especially the "very positive" results were the elements we disliked the most overall.
@@HawkThePhoenix 🤷♂️
3 groups, 2 dedicated dnd discords for decenlty big dnd youtubers, and people generally like more than they don't.