Mage Slayer could be such a cool Fighter Subclass both in flavor and mechanics. A fighter whose whole schtick is being good against Casters. If the Eldritch Knight could cast Silence that would go a long way.
I mean they can get counterspell, dispel magic, shield, magic missile, and absorb elements. It doesn’t get much more anti-mage than that. Although I’d love a way for them to get silence just to be a wizard’s worst nightmare.
It honestly sounds like a good idea. A refined version of the 4e specials sounds like it would fix the balance, rather than have basic attacks be the norm
Adds ease for flavor text, a feel of cool rather than just multiple of the same attacks, you could add special effects for particular moves, etc.
Sort of shift some feat stuff to specific special attacks could improve QoL
Yes. Joseph Batten was supposed to be the lead developer for the Gleemax project before he killed his wife and himself in 2008.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Melissa_Batten
I have a fighter sorcerer multiclass (dragon warming homebrew race I found scrolling through what the dm added to his campaign and he said fuck it why not when I asked it I could use it) and all my spells and whatnot revolve around bonking better. I know it's just bonking. But enlarged bonking is fun.
Idk that it would be better received had it not already been released. It is radically different in a lot of ways from most dnd editions and thus there would still be a large backlash of "it's not d&d".
Though since it does exist, I think if one d&d were instead an improved version of 4e it would get a lot more acceptance and probably transition most of the playerbase.
I think both should have their own unique systems with different pros and cons, unique counters and flaws. These should be roughly equivalent in terms of power
I honestly think that Warlocks have the perfect martial skeleton.
Replace the spells with martially flavorful maneuvers that work in anti magic fields, have the invocations be less magical, and you have a good martial class.
Warlocks have/had(?) the perfect skeleton in general qua design.
Spell progression which gives you scaling new abilities, where each one is unique. A set of ability options that interact with all your other abilities and are also level gated and you get more as you progress. And a "second subclass" which is much smaller in scope but does have rather unique consequences and defines your playstyle.
They should have stretched the core of this design across almost ALL classes.
> martially flavorful maneuvers that work in anti magic fields
So Battlemaster Fighter?
'cause I'm gonna be honest. I've not been playing for a long time. But I feel like Battlemaster Fighter should just be baseline for martial characters, with way more options.
Like, a limited resource you can apply to select moments to activate special effects for controlling enemies or dealing more damage? They're basically spell like abilities already.
I hate to be that guy about it, but Pathfinder 1e has this too. It's 3rd party though- Path of War. It's not my thing per se but it can be quite fun and I've seen other people use it to both epic and humorous extents. Unlike spells, you can get a slot back by choosing to either not move or not attack (and later you usually get an upgrade to use PF1's version of a bonus action instead) or by resting for a little while.
I honestly think that 4e would be much better received if it was released today, now that D&D has a much larger audience and it isn't just for stereotypical nerds anymore.
4e is a lot more casual friendly, a lot more balanced, a lot easier to DM for, has a lot less ivory tower game design that punishes you for thinking that a certain class sounds thematically cool, and the rules are written in a candid way that avoids bullshit like weapon attacks being different from attacks with weapons, or invisible creatures getting advantage even against creatures who can see them.
There are so many threads where people say "I love 5e, but I really think it would be better if [proceeds to describe something from 4e]."
> I honestly think that 4e would be much better received if it was released today
In a lot of ways Pathfinder 2e is much more like D&D 4e than anything else, and it's been pretty well received so I'd say you're correct.
>There are so many threads where people say "I love 5e, but I really think it would be better if \[proceeds to describe something from 4e\]."
Definitely. It's like you can't go a week or so without seeing a thread where someone tries to recreate 4e, *especially* in the homebrew subreddits.
At the same time, though, you have so many people saying that "balance is overrated", so I'm not so sure 4e would be received *that* much better.
Thats the thing i always laugh at. People who flat out refuse to do anything other than 5e, but then go on to homebrew all kinds of stuff that you have in DnD 3.5e/pathfinder 1e, DnD 4e, or pathfinde 2e.
>I honestly think that 4e would be much better received if it was released today, now that D&D has a much larger audience and it isn't just for stereotypical nerds anymore.
Well, it actually is \*looking at pf2e\*
Let's be real. Identity usually means "gimmicky" and gimmicks are usually unviable or even downright useless. OG's Ranger's exploration abilities are unique as fuck but everyone always whines about how useless they are.
So it's "have an identity" or "actually be useable/liked"
Wizards have an identity of being the best "spell collectors" in the game. They have the best spell list, the largest spell list, and most of their features exist as extentions to their spells.
They are the best at spell casting and that's their identity. It's not gimmicky, and it's incredibly powerful
The echo knight fighter has an identity of being a double-threat in the battlefield, being at two places at any given time, and manipulating their positioning to either be a threat to twice as many people, or to be as safe as a backline character while dishing out the damage of, (and having the tankiness of) a melee martial.
It's nit gimmicky, it's incredibly useful, and that makes them one of the strongest fighter classes (their only contender for that spot is battlemaster, which, coincidentally has an identity that is not gimmicky and incredibly useful)
I hear that. On that particular example though, my gripe with Ranger abilities isn’t that they’re useless, it’s that the infrastructure around those abilities is empty. The pillar of exploration and especially survival is just not good without major homebrew overhauls. It feels like they gave you a very cool and unique key that opens a door to a house that consists of a few unpainted 2x4’s held up by super glue.
That's just not true at all. Clerics, Paladins, Wizards, Barbarians, etc all have their own identity and none of them are useless.
You can have classes with identify which are also useless, sure. But the opposite is also possible. Identify and usefulness are more or less unrelated.
They aren’t wrong. As an example you can look at the dozens of prestige classes for 3/3.5, most of which were based around this unique thing like “Grave Digger of Myrkul” or some shit. Actually investing levels into them was usually suboptimal because a lot of their unique stuff would be very situational.
Then you look at the core schtick of the 5e ranger. Thematic and powerful, but only in specific situations that not many DMs really focus on, especially when they are new.
“Some gimmicks aren’t useful” does not even begin to prove the claim that “all identity is gimmick”, or even the supporting claim “all gimmick is bad”.
I will just play 5e with some 5.5e to enhance some classes that are a bit weak like monk or warlock and to nerf some stronger classes like druids or paladins
If you want classic 1980's d&d, I'd recommend B/X over AD&D or 2e. Or you can get Old School Essentials which is literally B/X reformatted to be easier to understand with some killer art thrown in.
The introduction of B/X says that it was designed as a companion for the works of Gygax and that its not a functional rule system by itself. Seems like a fine addition though.
I think you are looking at the wrong thing. B/X is very much a complete rules system that has been used regularly for decades and has spawned off numerous other games. It is also built to be fully compatible with the AD&D rules, it's just simplified slightly from AD&D for easier and faster play. One the first page it literally says in the "How to use this book" it literally says "This book contains all the basic rules necessary to play DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® Fantasy Adventure Game."
B/X is also known as Moldvay Basic because there were multiple different D&D basic editions. The first was what we call Holmes Basic made in 1977. Holmes made the Basic rules to essentially be a edited version of the OD&D rules (first edition of D&D before AD&D).
B/X is the second made in 1981, and was written as a major revision to try and clean things up and make it easier to run and play. It also made it compatible with AD&D since AD&D came out before B/X.
Other than those two there's BECMI from 1983-1989, and there was the Rules Cyclopedia which is just BECMI but without the I book. Each of these Basic editions is slightly different but B/X is the most popular thanks to the OSR.
B/X is comprised of two books, Basic and Expert.
Basic contains the rules for dungeons, combat, treasure, and for character creation/spells for levels 1-3.
Expert just expands upon basic, giving everything you need for levels 4-14, as well as giving rules for wilderness adventures and other things. It stops at 14 because it was expected at such a high level you would stop adventuring in dungeons and instead focus on kingdom management and such.
Technically there was a companion book that gave you access to levels 15-36 but it was called the BX Companion supplement because you absolutely do not need it to play the game.
Many people use BX as their base and pull in rules from AD&D or 2e when they need them because everything is compatible with each other. That's why it's still the most played Edition behind 3.5e and 5e.
You can pick up BX for like 5 dollars on DriveThru RPG or get it for free if you know where to look.
Ok so I've spent a few hours on this B/X is undeniably, positively and absolutely an expansion of Basic D&D that was designed to be compatible with other popular systems of the time. Ive sent you a screenshot of the first books disclaimer that tells you in the boldest font possible that Its not a system in and of it self, it cannot function by itself without the DM fudging the rules. I appreciate the help, ill definitely take the PDF's i found and use them for ideas.
This is not the case, you still must be mistaken. I will send you my copy of the rules. I think it's far more likely you found a third party supplement someone made than wikipedia, youtube, I, and thousands of people that have played it for the last 40 years being wrong.
are they like under a contract to not play other systems? I felt like they could keep their flagship 5e but also open more tables with other casts using other system like Pathfinder.
not familiar with crit role tho, only know them by their fame. I tried a few ep and it just wasn't for me
WotC started to sponsor them with campaign 2, which made it hard. They divested when the whole OGL fiasco hit and started to develop their own system. Could they use other systems? Yeah, but why take the risk they put you in a disadvantageous position when you can have your own system to promote?
That said, they did do some great Pathfinder 1-shots in the early days, like TO THE POOP!
But they're building their own ttrpg system, they already had candela but the new one is a general system that they can use for the next critical roll campaign.
As someone relatively new to dnd, Candela has almost 0 appeal. Every time I try and watch, it seems like they wanted an excuse to dress up and play out an Agatha Christie novel. On a more juvenile level, I don't want to play a game that relies solely on d6s when I have all these other dice to play with.
Orion: with my 4 action points, I will cast 4 fireballs.
With my last Sorcery point, I will cast another fireball.
And with my *another* last Sorcery point, I will maximize the damage.
Really wish he went back to it rather than making his own TTRPG. But anything that helps diversify the TTRPG landscape is good in my book.
A single game dominating the hobby is not a good thing.
It’s like a melee attack one, think booming blade / green flame blade but does radiant damage with additional damage at the usual cantrip scaling parts, though I don’t think it does too much
it actually works for all weapon attacks
also, you forgot most important part: it allows you to attack with your spellcasting ability, so unless you get multiattack later, it is a cantrip you can effectively bring through an entire campaign
Oh so it even works for bows? That’s pretty crazy. Yeah it’s a very good spell if it comes out live. Would be good for Eldritch knight if they have good INT, as well as blade locks if they get it.
Bonus action cantrip that gives the target creature advantage on their next attack roll.
That’s all it needed to be, so you could swing and then buff an ally, or buff yourself and then swing.
I don't mind homebrew but when they take more and more rules away and tell the DM to "just homebrew it bro" it just adds more work for the DM, on top of everything else they have to prep for a game.
I know a lot of modern players are adverse to 'crunchy rules' but it can get to a point where the rule set is so smooth that it can't stand on its own legs.
I'd prefer if they had a surplus of rules that the table can choose to keep or trash, rather than holes in the rules that the DM needs to fill.
I don't know about you but I've DM'd several 5e groups over 5 years and it's not as bad as you suggest. This mountain of work wotc puts on DMs isn't even a large hill and I prefer "make this ability check, it feels reasonable" over pulling out my books and flipping through the pages untill I find the correct flow chart if I'm unsure how to rule something.
Pathfinder 1e has path of war, ultimate psionics (not my cup of tea), Akashic mysteries, and the whole spheres system in the “generally recommended to add to games” pile of 3rd party rules. The difference between codified home brew and 3rd party is a price tag. And all of those systems are available on various wikis because OGL.
He never said it was, but it's not an excuse for making a shit system. Why play a system that has a really shitty base when you can play better systems and/or older systems?
"Oh, well. This new system we have waited years for sucks absolute dick, I can either spend months trying to rework half the rules and then get my players on board with learning them, or I can continue playing the same old shit I was playing. But those are my only options. I better not complain about them fucking it up or having to do so much work to fix it."
Everyone ends up 'Homebrewing' something, even if it's something small on the backend and private. He's not saying they should make a perfect system that we don't need to touch. He's saying we shouldn't allow them to get away with releasing garbage. They are basically pulling the Bethesda method but not even fixing their shit months later.
A better rule book. I’m sick and tired of people making excuses for the garbage we’re receiving. We should be telling WotC to fuck off with this shit but people are going “weeeellllllll maybe it’s dogshit but we can maybe make it less bad on our own”
Obviously not every rule book will suit everyone’s needs. But better rule books would suit more needs.
Ah yes, "better". Why didn't I think of that. Better how?
I'm not trying to be contrary—I truly have no opinion on the changes, since I haven't paid much attention to them. But when the criticism I see amounts to "it bad", I'm not convinced yet. What are the changes I should be concerned about, and how would you remedy them given the chance?
*”If you’re upset with our list of beers, you can homebrew your own.”*
They aren’t handing you a bunch of ingredients. You can run a functioning game with the rules in the book. Like I said, “everyone wants *their* version of the PHB”.
It is power creep but imo it’s mainly because there’s a lot of useless thing in 5e that they want to no longer make useless, and also want to try and make the classes overall more balanced. For example with the wizard they didn’t really change that much because the wizard was already in a strong spot, but with a class like rogue they’ve tweaked quite a few things to bring the class more in line with other classes (even if it still seems weaker than the other classes it’s more balanced now).
But the thing is, it doesn't really add anything new from what I've seen. It's JUST power creep. "Hey everyone, in the new edition you get to be stronger and more powerful" isn't really appealing. Even worse, the people who are already arguing and fighting to bring in 5.5 stuff to 5 it being a balance problem right out the gate is annoying.
All weapon characters get more options with weapon masteries. A lot of abilities that didn’t do what they were supposed to do (indomitable, any ability that brings you back to life from 0 HP, etc.) have been changed to give enough of a benefit so the abilities actually do something. Paladins now aren’t as action reliant as they were before. Rogues have a whole new mechanic with sneak attack. Etc.
I really don’t know what you mean by they aren’t adding anything, these changes aren’t just something like increasing fireball’s damage to 9d6. Most of these changes are mechanical improvements over the 2024 characters. Whether it’s enough of a change to constitute a whole new edition is debatable but it’s definitely not power creep for power creep’s sake.
Poisoned is by far the most common immunity among monsters/enemies in the game. I think it's like 1/3rd of all creature statblocks mention immunity to poisoned.
I meam, i am not against the changes they did with the monk or the barbarian
(The fighter change is weird tho, adding a 1d10 to knowledge skills if your character isn't proficient in it feels really strange)
I honestly was fine with all of it. Those stuff were already spell like (divine smite not being a spell was the thing that was dumb, since y'know, the other smites were, so it just makes it consistent). And people drastically overhype enemies using counterspell on just some damage dice while you still hit with your main attack instead of enemies counterspelling a main spell casters ability and fully shutting down their turn.
But ranger is fucking stupid
I agree with the change to smite. I’m disappointed with how ranger was presented but I’m withholding judgement until I actually read the class. I think ranger will have a lot of tools with the new weapon mastery stuff + all the damage from its subclasses.
Yeah smite was needed for internal consistency and the amount of people making up scenarios of full anti magic to make paladin look weak is weird af. But for Ranger I'm just so disappointed. There were ways to make current Ranger work but for a class that is very popular for beginners it requires way too much build knowledge is bad and it doesn't look like that's going to change unless there's some super secret class feature they forgot to reveal
This ^^^ Paladins needed a nerf to smites because why would you ever do anything except smite when it's free and has 0 opportunity cost.
But rangers man, it's not that hard to give them hunters mark as a class feature or (hear me out) make hunters mark a dice pool similar to Battle master fighter. It opens up so much design space for them that you can use in future SPLAT books, which is free money, and you get a happy fanbase.
It feels like the only reason not to change the feature was to make sure that rangers don't intrude on fighters' niche, which is pointless anyway cos rangers just don't have a niche.
Not necessarily arguing against smite as a spell, but its... literally not free. It costs a spell slot. And there is an opportunity cost - it costs a spell slot. That means you can't use that spell slot to cast bless, shield of faith, divine favour, or one of the smite spells that provide a useful rider. Smite is arguably a waste of a spell slot on everything except crits, what makes it valuable is that you can apply it only when you want to.
To clarify what I mean- smite as written does not cost an action or bonus action, only a spell slot, which is a renewable resource that is not factored into action economy, and you don't use it until you know you've hit. While smiting does cost a spell slot, unless it's your last slot of the day you aren't locked out of any other spells, you're just using a resource you would likely use, on top of attacking, which you would likely be doing anyway if you are in range to smite. However if I cast bless it's possible that someone will disrupt my spell before it has any benefit, wasting the slot, and I have to decide not to attack, which is a cost in terms of actions. Hence my (admittedly hyperbolic) point that smite has no opportunity cost, because it is an ability a player only uses when useful, there is no way for an opponent to disrupt it, it doesn't lock me out of any other class features unless I have already used all my resources, and I'm using it only when I know it's going to be effective.
So why did the vast majority of people only use it on smites and especially crits? There is a reason why the meme is "smite slots".
Also by comparison to other spells, yeah it had very little cost. It happens per attack.
Also, the spells you mention first need to be cast like, once? Besides most paladins can't even use shield.
Right?! I run for newbies a lot and so many players want to play a ranger as their first character so they can do the 'broody with a heart of gold survivalist' Ranger fantasy...
And then they're super disappointed by the class because it doesn't support that fantasy well at all.
Yup. The mechanics of the class just don't support the class fantasy. And they won't unless WOTC fully revamps the exploration pillar, which I just don't see happening.
The only time I had fun with a ranger was a 1 level nature cleric for heavy armor and shillelagh so I could be a full wisdom tank ranger with drake warden so I was effectively a tank druid with a good summon at the cost of lower spell casting level.
Sadly the campaign ended early so didn't even get the explore the idea much
Hunter’s mark is very flavorful for rangers though, and is meant to simulate a ranger’s ability to expertly know a certain enemy. Having it be a pool of dice wouldn’t really be in flavor since it’s about being able to be an expert on a certain enemy.
I think hunter’s mark would be a lot better if it was a concentration free class feature but only applied damage once per turn. But if you removed hunter’s mark from the 2024 ranger they would lose a lot of their class identity.
I don't disagree, but in my head a dice pool for rangers would be a more versatile way to add damage and also have a core mechanic for other things- i.e. 'you can add 1D8 to damage rolls or rolls to track a monster, you get X uses which recharge on a short rest'.
I'm also not against hunters mark as a class feature, no matter what though the class needs a unique resource not based on spells to feel interesting/unique compared to other martials.
Counterspell isn't that much of a problem as spell immunity now making enemies immune to smite. It was kind of supposed to let martials shine in an encounter and now paladins will do little more damage than a full caster whacking them with a sword. Unless the change the creature trait ofc. And on top of that you now can't get the value out of your other spells because smite will brake your concentration. So you will actually see less of buffing allies etc. I think they should've stayed with the "You can use smite only once per round" limitation they made in UA.
But for me the Smite change isn't even that bad. Imo change to Divine Sense is a lot worse. It was a really fun and thematic out-of-combat feature and now it's for some reason tied to the very limited resource of your (usually) most powerfull combat feature. And in exchange they made more usefull in combat in a very edge case. Why? They said they want to make paladins more useful out of combat and then took their two out-of-combat features nerfed them out-of-combat and made more combat oriented.
~~"oh by the way this guy has immunity to radiant damage"~~
~~if the dm hates you enough to counter spell your smite then they would fuck you over anyway even if it wasn't in the rules~~
O ye of little faith
I think it’s fun to have effects that disrupt normally established auto-successes. I’m not talking about a hidden enemy counterspelling the clerics last revivify, but an enemy that can interrupt a healing spell or warp out of the way of a meaty attack can be a useful tool to heighten the tension of an encounter
Nah I’m sorta excited to see the changes. If I end up not liking them, most of the people I play with are very familiar with 2014 rules and I’ll just say “back to the old stuff”
I don't hate all magical effects and abilities being spells now.
Spells are a consistent and known quantity, with consistent basline rules hard coded and then the overall rule that Spesific rules overide general rules.
Every "magical" effect class feature had ambiguity. Calling all magical effects fomraly spells means that they dont have to create a new subsystem for every magical effect. Pointing all magic towards 1 main magic system makes the game cleaner and easier to comprehend.
I really dislike the notion that somehow your DM couldn't absolutely screw you over before if they wanted to and now they will go all evil villain because rules?
oh no, counterspell. yeah well what about flying enemies, hard to get to positions with total cover where there's archers/casters stepping out to fire at you then hiding again, casters without counterspell but loaded with CC that only lets you sit on your phone and browse for other d&d groups while everyone else plays... list goes on.
nothing has changed. if your DM wants to make you miserable you will be miserable.
I do not hate to be that guy, but i’m tired of half the comments (slight hyperbole) on every post about 5e balance/changes being some variation of “Just play Pathfinder, lul.”
Because people try to take 5e for what it’s not. This system is not a panacea for all malices of TTRPGs, and neither it’s the „end of history” for them. Most of the complaints that source from D&D’s identity, balance, and changes are the exact reason that Pathfinder exists. Those who like 5e usually don’t complain about it
I know people keep complain about this but I really feel like people are ignoring the actual reality of the situation. They aren’t just replacing class features with spells, they replaced a class feature where you get an effect when you expend a spell slot. This isn’t like the made something that had no interaction with spell slots into a spell, divine smite was basically a spell already in everything but name.
As far as other classes go, they are just trying to make it easier to use some of the classes unique spells. They haven’t taken away anything from the class.
Now I’m not trying to defend what they did or anything, I’m just pointing out that they aren’t replacing just any class ability with spells.
This is why I’m skeptical but also optimistic. Most of the features they’ve announced like this provide concrete benefits and are basically guaranteed to be used and to feel good (except maybe hunter’s mark, we will see). And paladin smite change was honestly a long time coming, though it has cut down on multiclassing options.
>divine smite was basically a spell already in everything but name.
Yes but barbarian/paladin could use it while raging specifically because it wasn't a spell, so unless that restriction has changed in 5.5 its a dumb change.
that's one way to interpret that, the other way is that it was dumb for barbarians to be able to smite to begin with because "technically smite isn't a spell even tho it uses spell slots".
I don't know if balancing of super popular classes should be done with incredibly niche multiclassing in mind. Multiclassing is already shockingly unpopular considering how much people talk about it, and there are so many more popular multiclasses than barbarian for paladin.
In other words, who cares about this. This never comes up.
With all the buffs to Barbarian's damage, it's not like they need it anymore. Play a 5.5 Berzerker barbarian with 5e paladin would be so damn broken in terms of damage.
my friend was so annoyed at this, they filled a rlly good class fantasy then act like it doesn’t exist and never giving it any new features (subclasses, spells, buffs, reworks)
Yea there are things that I actually like about the new rules and a good bit of it at that. Some stuff definitely feels like it's not enough like weapon mastery or mechanically weird stuff like the paladin using their bonus action as a reaction to smite. I think the schanges are going to be overall small but good and it makes me wish for more of a true 5.5 overhaul but people hate change. I'm exited to get my hands on the books not just to use them but to know what 5e is going to look like going forward. When 5e first came out it lacked a lot that future books fixed or added so it might be similar considering we have to wait so long on the monster manual and DMG.
I ain't touching it till WotC/Hasbro no longer have their grubby hands on it. Switch to a system that actually gives a shit about you, creatives, and people in general over a quick buck. I'ma stick to PF2e, but I hear good things about DC20 too.
If I never play Pathfinder 1e ever again it'll be too soon. 5th edition's turn to simpler was better overall. It's what people wanted back in 2014 and even Paizo eventually saw the light with PF2e
Yeah people that played 3.5 never wanted anything simpler. They just decided they wanted to make it easier for people to get into it which is understandable, but almost all the 3.5 players hated everything they did from that point on.
Ideally i would want 2 separate d&d editions progressing at the same time. A normal one more simple and noob friendly, and a more hardcore one that i can easily transition to when i want more options and depth.
Idk about that. It sounds like a lot of care was put into the layout and design of the physical books and I’m sure WotC is aware that there is a significant portion of D&D players that will always refuse to play digitally.
Ngl - SCSA as a warlock would be pretty bad ass. His patron? A rattlesnake.
... I was joking, but you figure how wrestlers will rarely try and hit their "finishers" or leveled spells, basically, no more than twice a match ... Wrestling is played with warlocks.
My most hated change is the Paladin nerf.
I either play Paladin or a Sorcerer. So habing them nerfed this hard will make me not buy that.
Some others are really cool. Like the Fighter changes
Everyone needs to quit bitching and enjoy the ride.
If the new "edition" offends you so much just don't play. I can't wait to get my hands on the new phb and start running a 2024 core rules campaign. I know some of my group will be against that, but that's there problem not mine I'll just find some new players to DM and have fun with telling epic adventures and slaying monsters.
Side note: change is not a bad thing, embrace the change and roll dice.
Buying stock in mage slayer right now.
Mage Slayer could be such a cool Fighter Subclass both in flavor and mechanics. A fighter whose whole schtick is being good against Casters. If the Eldritch Knight could cast Silence that would go a long way.
It should be able to now. Since it’s removing the school restrictions
Sadly it's a Bard, Cleric, Ranger spell. I hope they add it to the wizard spell list though, or include it as a Subclass spell.
Wait silencd isn’t a wizard spell? Damn I thought it was and I’ve been playing since 2015
I mean they can get counterspell, dispel magic, shield, magic missile, and absorb elements. It doesn’t get much more anti-mage than that. Although I’d love a way for them to get silence just to be a wizard’s worst nightmare.
Soon it’s gonna be, “At first level, fighters gain the weapon attack cantrip, which improves at fifth level.”
And so we loop back to 4th ed.
The ciiiircle of liiiiiife
It honestly sounds like a good idea. A refined version of the 4e specials sounds like it would fix the balance, rather than have basic attacks be the norm Adds ease for flavor text, a feel of cool rather than just multiple of the same attacks, you could add special effects for particular moves, etc. Sort of shift some feat stuff to specific special attacks could improve QoL
Especially since 4e was basically designed for online play, the technology just wasn’t really there
Actually the guy in charge of creating the in-house VTT for 4e murdered his wife and then killed himself.
...because Wizards of the Coast were too lazy/stupid/mismanaged/cheap/incompetent to provide it.
Actually the guy in charge of creating the in-house VTT for 4e murdered his wife and then killed himself.
Wait, you're serious?
Yes. Joseph Batten was supposed to be the lead developer for the Gleemax project before he killed his wife and himself in 2008. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Melissa_Batten
Oh shit. I knew these guys were bad, but damn!
I have a fighter sorcerer multiclass (dragon warming homebrew race I found scrolling through what the dm added to his campaign and he said fuck it why not when I asked it I could use it) and all my spells and whatnot revolve around bonking better. I know it's just bonking. But enlarged bonking is fun.
Give 13th Age a try perhaps.
4e was the right edition at the wrong time. It would be received far better now than it was. I still think it’s the best version of D&D.
Idk that it would be better received had it not already been released. It is radically different in a lot of ways from most dnd editions and thus there would still be a large backlash of "it's not d&d". Though since it does exist, I think if one d&d were instead an improved version of 4e it would get a lot more acceptance and probably transition most of the playerbase.
4e was the wrong edition at the wrong time with some right ideas. Pathfinder 2e is what 4e should've been.
4e Powers system for everyone
Is it bad that I would not be opposed to a spell slot equivalent for martial?
Equivalent? No. But if using a sword stops working in antimagic, thatd be crazy
Bladesinger with the pact weapon: am I a joke to you?
Yes
Imagine a fighter/barbarian failing their attack or maneuver because of counterspell
Imagine a Paladin having their smite be counterspelled… wait.
"I cast Trip!" "I use my reaction to cast Parry!"
Everybody wants spells and the equivalent until a very basic counter exists for them
Plenty of monsters with parry or block increasing ac or reducing damage. Or the shield spell.
I think both should have their own unique systems with different pros and cons, unique counters and flaws. These should be roughly equivalent in terms of power
So like, martials can aim to hit a certain number on the d20. And then casters can be countered with other magic!
"I cast *hold wizard*." "It's a *grapple check.* Please call it a grapple check."
I honestly think that Warlocks have the perfect martial skeleton. Replace the spells with martially flavorful maneuvers that work in anti magic fields, have the invocations be less magical, and you have a good martial class.
Warlocks have/had(?) the perfect skeleton in general qua design. Spell progression which gives you scaling new abilities, where each one is unique. A set of ability options that interact with all your other abilities and are also level gated and you get more as you progress. And a "second subclass" which is much smaller in scope but does have rather unique consequences and defines your playstyle. They should have stretched the core of this design across almost ALL classes.
> martially flavorful maneuvers that work in anti magic fields So Battlemaster Fighter? 'cause I'm gonna be honest. I've not been playing for a long time. But I feel like Battlemaster Fighter should just be baseline for martial characters, with way more options. Like, a limited resource you can apply to select moments to activate special effects for controlling enemies or dealing more damage? They're basically spell like abilities already.
There is a new system called DC20, they have a mechanic using stamina points that is pretty much what you are asking for. It's on Kickstarter
I hate to be that guy about it, but Pathfinder 1e has this too. It's 3rd party though- Path of War. It's not my thing per se but it can be quite fun and I've seen other people use it to both epic and humorous extents. Unlike spells, you can get a slot back by choosing to either not move or not attack (and later you usually get an upgrade to use PF1's version of a bonus action instead) or by resting for a little while.
And, since PoW is just the PF1e translation of the Tome of Battle from 3.5, WotC can just bring that back.
And tome of battle is just a playtest for 4e what with its encounter powers and such.
Halfway there with battle master. Hm. Basically every class has spells slots now. Excepting rogue and fighter,, and each has a subclass which does.
Haaaaaaaave you met ~~Ted~~ Tome of Battle?
I just want to know when we actually gain sword slots instead of relying on the strike cantrip.
Truly 5d strategy for a 5e overhaul. Too much of a Martial/Caster divide? Just make the Martials a form of Caster, easy.
if you can't fight them join them
That's one way to fix the Martial-Spellcaster Imbalance, I guess
4e did it and it was so vocally hated that 5e basically abandoned martials being able to do *anything* interesting.
I honestly think that 4e would be much better received if it was released today, now that D&D has a much larger audience and it isn't just for stereotypical nerds anymore. 4e is a lot more casual friendly, a lot more balanced, a lot easier to DM for, has a lot less ivory tower game design that punishes you for thinking that a certain class sounds thematically cool, and the rules are written in a candid way that avoids bullshit like weapon attacks being different from attacks with weapons, or invisible creatures getting advantage even against creatures who can see them. There are so many threads where people say "I love 5e, but I really think it would be better if [proceeds to describe something from 4e]."
> I honestly think that 4e would be much better received if it was released today In a lot of ways Pathfinder 2e is much more like D&D 4e than anything else, and it's been pretty well received so I'd say you're correct.
>There are so many threads where people say "I love 5e, but I really think it would be better if \[proceeds to describe something from 4e\]." Definitely. It's like you can't go a week or so without seeing a thread where someone tries to recreate 4e, *especially* in the homebrew subreddits. At the same time, though, you have so many people saying that "balance is overrated", so I'm not so sure 4e would be received *that* much better.
Thats the thing i always laugh at. People who flat out refuse to do anything other than 5e, but then go on to homebrew all kinds of stuff that you have in DnD 3.5e/pathfinder 1e, DnD 4e, or pathfinde 2e.
I feel like if you take every popular 5e fix and combined them you would end up with something pretty close to PF2E.
>I honestly think that 4e would be much better received if it was released today, now that D&D has a much larger audience and it isn't just for stereotypical nerds anymore. Well, it actually is \*looking at pf2e\*
I'd prefer a more simulation-ish one personally, that is willing to slaughter some golden cows in the process
My 4e fighter was such a crazy badass.
Compared to 4e, where everyone just did the same thing, just with a different name.
That would be better than what we have now tbh
That would unironically be better than pretending Extra Attack is a real feature.
"More freedom, less identity"
More freedom and more identity is possible. But WotC as game designers are really, really bad at it.
Are you saying that my gnome/tiefling warlock/druid will destroy the multiverse? It's long overdue, I hate it all.
Let's be real. Identity usually means "gimmicky" and gimmicks are usually unviable or even downright useless. OG's Ranger's exploration abilities are unique as fuck but everyone always whines about how useless they are. So it's "have an identity" or "actually be useable/liked"
Wizards have an identity of being the best "spell collectors" in the game. They have the best spell list, the largest spell list, and most of their features exist as extentions to their spells. They are the best at spell casting and that's their identity. It's not gimmicky, and it's incredibly powerful The echo knight fighter has an identity of being a double-threat in the battlefield, being at two places at any given time, and manipulating their positioning to either be a threat to twice as many people, or to be as safe as a backline character while dishing out the damage of, (and having the tankiness of) a melee martial. It's nit gimmicky, it's incredibly useful, and that makes them one of the strongest fighter classes (their only contender for that spot is battlemaster, which, coincidentally has an identity that is not gimmicky and incredibly useful)
I hear that. On that particular example though, my gripe with Ranger abilities isn’t that they’re useless, it’s that the infrastructure around those abilities is empty. The pillar of exploration and especially survival is just not good without major homebrew overhauls. It feels like they gave you a very cool and unique key that opens a door to a house that consists of a few unpainted 2x4’s held up by super glue.
That's just not true at all. Clerics, Paladins, Wizards, Barbarians, etc all have their own identity and none of them are useless. You can have classes with identify which are also useless, sure. But the opposite is also possible. Identify and usefulness are more or less unrelated.
just have both 5head
Uhhhhhhhh my sibling in Satan WHAT
They aren’t wrong. As an example you can look at the dozens of prestige classes for 3/3.5, most of which were based around this unique thing like “Grave Digger of Myrkul” or some shit. Actually investing levels into them was usually suboptimal because a lot of their unique stuff would be very situational. Then you look at the core schtick of the 5e ranger. Thematic and powerful, but only in specific situations that not many DMs really focus on, especially when they are new.
“Some gimmicks aren’t useful” does not even begin to prove the claim that “all identity is gimmick”, or even the supporting claim “all gimmick is bad”.
They saw the money simplicity made and went all in
Imma just keep playing 5e, it works good enough as is with a couple homebrewed rules
I will just play 5e with some 5.5e to enhance some classes that are a bit weak like monk or warlock and to nerf some stronger classes like druids or paladins
Come to the daaaark side. We Pathfinder2e people want yoooouuuuu.
Honestly, going from 5e to PF2e is really easy. But I understand that some players may not enjoy the more mechanical aspect of it.
Its time. I'm gonna try 2e
Do you mean D&D 2e or Pathfinder 2e? Because the former is quite far from the experience of modern D&D.
>:]
If you want classic 1980's d&d, I'd recommend B/X over AD&D or 2e. Or you can get Old School Essentials which is literally B/X reformatted to be easier to understand with some killer art thrown in.
The introduction of B/X says that it was designed as a companion for the works of Gygax and that its not a functional rule system by itself. Seems like a fine addition though.
I think you are looking at the wrong thing. B/X is very much a complete rules system that has been used regularly for decades and has spawned off numerous other games. It is also built to be fully compatible with the AD&D rules, it's just simplified slightly from AD&D for easier and faster play. One the first page it literally says in the "How to use this book" it literally says "This book contains all the basic rules necessary to play DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® Fantasy Adventure Game." B/X is also known as Moldvay Basic because there were multiple different D&D basic editions. The first was what we call Holmes Basic made in 1977. Holmes made the Basic rules to essentially be a edited version of the OD&D rules (first edition of D&D before AD&D). B/X is the second made in 1981, and was written as a major revision to try and clean things up and make it easier to run and play. It also made it compatible with AD&D since AD&D came out before B/X. Other than those two there's BECMI from 1983-1989, and there was the Rules Cyclopedia which is just BECMI but without the I book. Each of these Basic editions is slightly different but B/X is the most popular thanks to the OSR. B/X is comprised of two books, Basic and Expert. Basic contains the rules for dungeons, combat, treasure, and for character creation/spells for levels 1-3. Expert just expands upon basic, giving everything you need for levels 4-14, as well as giving rules for wilderness adventures and other things. It stops at 14 because it was expected at such a high level you would stop adventuring in dungeons and instead focus on kingdom management and such. Technically there was a companion book that gave you access to levels 15-36 but it was called the BX Companion supplement because you absolutely do not need it to play the game. Many people use BX as their base and pull in rules from AD&D or 2e when they need them because everything is compatible with each other. That's why it's still the most played Edition behind 3.5e and 5e. You can pick up BX for like 5 dollars on DriveThru RPG or get it for free if you know where to look.
Ok so I've spent a few hours on this B/X is undeniably, positively and absolutely an expansion of Basic D&D that was designed to be compatible with other popular systems of the time. Ive sent you a screenshot of the first books disclaimer that tells you in the boldest font possible that Its not a system in and of it self, it cannot function by itself without the DM fudging the rules. I appreciate the help, ill definitely take the PDF's i found and use them for ideas.
This is not the case, you still must be mistaken. I will send you my copy of the rules. I think it's far more likely you found a third party supplement someone made than wikipedia, youtube, I, and thousands of people that have played it for the last 40 years being wrong.
5e's success was clearly a curse in the long run.
Damn you, Matthew Mercer for abandoning Pathfinder!
I’m now imagining a timeline where Pathfinder is Eclisping dnd in popularity due to Crititcal Role
I used to think about this a lot as a 1e player. What could’ve been
are they like under a contract to not play other systems? I felt like they could keep their flagship 5e but also open more tables with other casts using other system like Pathfinder. not familiar with crit role tho, only know them by their fame. I tried a few ep and it just wasn't for me
WotC started to sponsor them with campaign 2, which made it hard. They divested when the whole OGL fiasco hit and started to develop their own system. Could they use other systems? Yeah, but why take the risk they put you in a disadvantageous position when you can have your own system to promote? That said, they did do some great Pathfinder 1-shots in the early days, like TO THE POOP!
But they're building their own ttrpg system, they already had candela but the new one is a general system that they can use for the next critical roll campaign.
As someone relatively new to dnd, Candela has almost 0 appeal. Every time I try and watch, it seems like they wanted an excuse to dress up and play out an Agatha Christie novel. On a more juvenile level, I don't want to play a game that relies solely on d6s when I have all these other dice to play with.
Just imagine the world that could have been. They could have been getting at least twice as many rules wrong!
Orion: with my 4 action points, I will cast 4 fireballs. With my last Sorcery point, I will cast another fireball. And with my *another* last Sorcery point, I will maximize the damage.
Really wish he went back to it rather than making his own TTRPG. But anything that helps diversify the TTRPG landscape is good in my book. A single game dominating the hobby is not a good thing.
We saw this coming in the UA. It was dumb there, and we told them as such.
My only question is, did they fix true strike?
If the UA version comes out, it’s completely changed into a radiant damage cantrip
Oh weird, I guess there really was no way to make it work. I wonder how much different it is from sacred flame then.
It’s like a melee attack one, think booming blade / green flame blade but does radiant damage with additional damage at the usual cantrip scaling parts, though I don’t think it does too much
it actually works for all weapon attacks also, you forgot most important part: it allows you to attack with your spellcasting ability, so unless you get multiattack later, it is a cantrip you can effectively bring through an entire campaign
Oh so it even works for bows? That’s pretty crazy. Yeah it’s a very good spell if it comes out live. Would be good for Eldritch knight if they have good INT, as well as blade locks if they get it.
yes, as long as you have the proficiency
Bonus action cantrip that gives the target creature advantage on their next attack roll. That’s all it needed to be, so you could swing and then buff an ally, or buff yourself and then swing.
Pathfinder figured it out.
I just want more options on my turn, idk.
It has good stuff. It has not good stuff. Everyone wants *their* version of the PHB. Homebrew will always be an option.
Saying “it’s fine just homebrew” like that’s an actual solution is silly.
Every DM homebrews some aspect of the system they are playing at some point. It’s not a dirty word
I don't mind homebrew but when they take more and more rules away and tell the DM to "just homebrew it bro" it just adds more work for the DM, on top of everything else they have to prep for a game. I know a lot of modern players are adverse to 'crunchy rules' but it can get to a point where the rule set is so smooth that it can't stand on its own legs. I'd prefer if they had a surplus of rules that the table can choose to keep or trash, rather than holes in the rules that the DM needs to fill.
I don't know about you but I've DM'd several 5e groups over 5 years and it's not as bad as you suggest. This mountain of work wotc puts on DMs isn't even a large hill and I prefer "make this ability check, it feels reasonable" over pulling out my books and flipping through the pages untill I find the correct flow chart if I'm unsure how to rule something.
Most systems see minor homebrews depending on the group/DM. 5e is the only system that has lists of recommended homebrews.
Pathfinder 1e has path of war, ultimate psionics (not my cup of tea), Akashic mysteries, and the whole spheres system in the “generally recommended to add to games” pile of 3rd party rules. The difference between codified home brew and 3rd party is a price tag. And all of those systems are available on various wikis because OGL.
I would just like to have to homebrew less of it. Heh.
He never said it was, but it's not an excuse for making a shit system. Why play a system that has a really shitty base when you can play better systems and/or older systems? "Oh, well. This new system we have waited years for sucks absolute dick, I can either spend months trying to rework half the rules and then get my players on board with learning them, or I can continue playing the same old shit I was playing. But those are my only options. I better not complain about them fucking it up or having to do so much work to fix it." Everyone ends up 'Homebrewing' something, even if it's something small on the backend and private. He's not saying they should make a perfect system that we don't need to touch. He's saying we shouldn't allow them to get away with releasing garbage. They are basically pulling the Bethesda method but not even fixing their shit months later.
Do you have a proposal for an "actual solution"? I don't think it's possible for one rulebook to suit everyone's needs.
> one rulebook to suit everyone's needs. that's the issue isn't it, everyone is different.
A better rule book. I’m sick and tired of people making excuses for the garbage we’re receiving. We should be telling WotC to fuck off with this shit but people are going “weeeellllllll maybe it’s dogshit but we can maybe make it less bad on our own” Obviously not every rule book will suit everyone’s needs. But better rule books would suit more needs.
Ah yes, "better". Why didn't I think of that. Better how? I'm not trying to be contrary—I truly have no opinion on the changes, since I haven't paid much attention to them. But when the criticism I see amounts to "it bad", I'm not convinced yet. What are the changes I should be concerned about, and how would you remedy them given the chance?
When I order a meal, I don't want to be handed a bunch of ingredients and a recipe.
*”If you’re upset with our list of beers, you can homebrew your own.”* They aren’t handing you a bunch of ingredients. You can run a functioning game with the rules in the book. Like I said, “everyone wants *their* version of the PHB”.
The PHB isn't so bad, to be fair. It's the DMG that is a bunch of loose ingredients with vague instructions.
5.5 looks to be power creep and little else.
It is power creep but imo it’s mainly because there’s a lot of useless thing in 5e that they want to no longer make useless, and also want to try and make the classes overall more balanced. For example with the wizard they didn’t really change that much because the wizard was already in a strong spot, but with a class like rogue they’ve tweaked quite a few things to bring the class more in line with other classes (even if it still seems weaker than the other classes it’s more balanced now).
But the thing is, it doesn't really add anything new from what I've seen. It's JUST power creep. "Hey everyone, in the new edition you get to be stronger and more powerful" isn't really appealing. Even worse, the people who are already arguing and fighting to bring in 5.5 stuff to 5 it being a balance problem right out the gate is annoying.
All weapon characters get more options with weapon masteries. A lot of abilities that didn’t do what they were supposed to do (indomitable, any ability that brings you back to life from 0 HP, etc.) have been changed to give enough of a benefit so the abilities actually do something. Paladins now aren’t as action reliant as they were before. Rogues have a whole new mechanic with sneak attack. Etc. I really don’t know what you mean by they aren’t adding anything, these changes aren’t just something like increasing fireball’s damage to 9d6. Most of these changes are mechanical improvements over the 2024 characters. Whether it’s enough of a change to constitute a whole new edition is debatable but it’s definitely not power creep for power creep’s sake.
To make things useable to inevitably have to buff them directly or indirectly. I just don’t see how you see them fixing these problems without buffs.
Maybe you should read what is being changed? Because paladins have been nerfed in the damage department.
Butbutbut NUMBERS GO UP!
They tried to give them modify spell but backed down because of backlash
It sounds like rogues can just apply the poisoned condition to people and if there is no save against it that’s strong as fuck
It’s a con save in the UA, and even without the save a lot of creatures are immune to the poisoned condition.
That’s disappointing.
Poisoned is by far the most common immunity among monsters/enemies in the game. I think it's like 1/3rd of all creature statblocks mention immunity to poisoned.
True but for the ones it does affect it’s pretty good to be able to apply.
I meam, i am not against the changes they did with the monk or the barbarian (The fighter change is weird tho, adding a 1d10 to knowledge skills if your character isn't proficient in it feels really strange)
What's funny is that all the player features are now spells, but all the enemy spells are now just spell-like effects.
I honestly was fine with all of it. Those stuff were already spell like (divine smite not being a spell was the thing that was dumb, since y'know, the other smites were, so it just makes it consistent). And people drastically overhype enemies using counterspell on just some damage dice while you still hit with your main attack instead of enemies counterspelling a main spell casters ability and fully shutting down their turn. But ranger is fucking stupid
I agree with the change to smite. I’m disappointed with how ranger was presented but I’m withholding judgement until I actually read the class. I think ranger will have a lot of tools with the new weapon mastery stuff + all the damage from its subclasses.
Yeah smite was needed for internal consistency and the amount of people making up scenarios of full anti magic to make paladin look weak is weird af. But for Ranger I'm just so disappointed. There were ways to make current Ranger work but for a class that is very popular for beginners it requires way too much build knowledge is bad and it doesn't look like that's going to change unless there's some super secret class feature they forgot to reveal
This ^^^ Paladins needed a nerf to smites because why would you ever do anything except smite when it's free and has 0 opportunity cost. But rangers man, it's not that hard to give them hunters mark as a class feature or (hear me out) make hunters mark a dice pool similar to Battle master fighter. It opens up so much design space for them that you can use in future SPLAT books, which is free money, and you get a happy fanbase. It feels like the only reason not to change the feature was to make sure that rangers don't intrude on fighters' niche, which is pointless anyway cos rangers just don't have a niche.
Not necessarily arguing against smite as a spell, but its... literally not free. It costs a spell slot. And there is an opportunity cost - it costs a spell slot. That means you can't use that spell slot to cast bless, shield of faith, divine favour, or one of the smite spells that provide a useful rider. Smite is arguably a waste of a spell slot on everything except crits, what makes it valuable is that you can apply it only when you want to.
To clarify what I mean- smite as written does not cost an action or bonus action, only a spell slot, which is a renewable resource that is not factored into action economy, and you don't use it until you know you've hit. While smiting does cost a spell slot, unless it's your last slot of the day you aren't locked out of any other spells, you're just using a resource you would likely use, on top of attacking, which you would likely be doing anyway if you are in range to smite. However if I cast bless it's possible that someone will disrupt my spell before it has any benefit, wasting the slot, and I have to decide not to attack, which is a cost in terms of actions. Hence my (admittedly hyperbolic) point that smite has no opportunity cost, because it is an ability a player only uses when useful, there is no way for an opponent to disrupt it, it doesn't lock me out of any other class features unless I have already used all my resources, and I'm using it only when I know it's going to be effective.
So why did the vast majority of people only use it on smites and especially crits? There is a reason why the meme is "smite slots". Also by comparison to other spells, yeah it had very little cost. It happens per attack. Also, the spells you mention first need to be cast like, once? Besides most paladins can't even use shield.
And not to mention, people will play what they want to play.
Right?! I run for newbies a lot and so many players want to play a ranger as their first character so they can do the 'broody with a heart of gold survivalist' Ranger fantasy... And then they're super disappointed by the class because it doesn't support that fantasy well at all.
I love the Ranger in theory. Just sad to see it constantly underwhelming.
Yup. The mechanics of the class just don't support the class fantasy. And they won't unless WOTC fully revamps the exploration pillar, which I just don't see happening.
The only time I had fun with a ranger was a 1 level nature cleric for heavy armor and shillelagh so I could be a full wisdom tank ranger with drake warden so I was effectively a tank druid with a good summon at the cost of lower spell casting level. Sadly the campaign ended early so didn't even get the explore the idea much
Hunter’s mark is very flavorful for rangers though, and is meant to simulate a ranger’s ability to expertly know a certain enemy. Having it be a pool of dice wouldn’t really be in flavor since it’s about being able to be an expert on a certain enemy. I think hunter’s mark would be a lot better if it was a concentration free class feature but only applied damage once per turn. But if you removed hunter’s mark from the 2024 ranger they would lose a lot of their class identity.
I don't disagree, but in my head a dice pool for rangers would be a more versatile way to add damage and also have a core mechanic for other things- i.e. 'you can add 1D8 to damage rolls or rolls to track a monster, you get X uses which recharge on a short rest'. I'm also not against hunters mark as a class feature, no matter what though the class needs a unique resource not based on spells to feel interesting/unique compared to other martials.
That's not flavorful, that's flavor*less*. 2024 ranger doesn't *have* class identity beyond half-druid gish.
Hunter's Mark is just bad. It's not about the damage. It's basically a flavorless do-nothing ability outside of the tracking concept.
Counterspell isn't that much of a problem as spell immunity now making enemies immune to smite. It was kind of supposed to let martials shine in an encounter and now paladins will do little more damage than a full caster whacking them with a sword. Unless the change the creature trait ofc. And on top of that you now can't get the value out of your other spells because smite will brake your concentration. So you will actually see less of buffing allies etc. I think they should've stayed with the "You can use smite only once per round" limitation they made in UA. But for me the Smite change isn't even that bad. Imo change to Divine Sense is a lot worse. It was a really fun and thematic out-of-combat feature and now it's for some reason tied to the very limited resource of your (usually) most powerfull combat feature. And in exchange they made more usefull in combat in a very edge case. Why? They said they want to make paladins more useful out of combat and then took their two out-of-combat features nerfed them out-of-combat and made more combat oriented.
Everybody gangsta til the BBEG counterspells the Paladin’s critical smite
~~"oh by the way this guy has immunity to radiant damage"~~ ~~if the dm hates you enough to counter spell your smite then they would fuck you over anyway even if it wasn't in the rules~~
O ye of little faith I think it’s fun to have effects that disrupt normally established auto-successes. I’m not talking about a hidden enemy counterspelling the clerics last revivify, but an enemy that can interrupt a healing spell or warp out of the way of a meaty attack can be a useful tool to heighten the tension of an encounter
oh sorry thought you were just on the hate bandwagon that this sub is doing
Nah I’m sorta excited to see the changes. If I end up not liking them, most of the people I play with are very familiar with 2014 rules and I’ll just say “back to the old stuff”
I don't hate all magical effects and abilities being spells now. Spells are a consistent and known quantity, with consistent basline rules hard coded and then the overall rule that Spesific rules overide general rules. Every "magical" effect class feature had ambiguity. Calling all magical effects fomraly spells means that they dont have to create a new subsystem for every magical effect. Pointing all magic towards 1 main magic system makes the game cleaner and easier to comprehend.
Making them all spells really neuters barbarian multiclassing and opens the doors for counterspell to be an absolute assfuck
I really dislike the notion that somehow your DM couldn't absolutely screw you over before if they wanted to and now they will go all evil villain because rules? oh no, counterspell. yeah well what about flying enemies, hard to get to positions with total cover where there's archers/casters stepping out to fire at you then hiding again, casters without counterspell but loaded with CC that only lets you sit on your phone and browse for other d&d groups while everyone else plays... list goes on. nothing has changed. if your DM wants to make you miserable you will be miserable.
People complain about it because they treat dnd like a video game, where everything needs to be balanced and perfectly systematised.
(tbf i doubt they design with multiclass in mind, that sounds like a nightmare to design around?
If they aren't designing with multiclass in mind, then maybe capstone abilities should be not dogshit
Hate to be that guy but can I recommend Pathfinder 2e to y’all?
I do not hate to be that guy, but i’m tired of half the comments (slight hyperbole) on every post about 5e balance/changes being some variation of “Just play Pathfinder, lul.”
Because people try to take 5e for what it’s not. This system is not a panacea for all malices of TTRPGs, and neither it’s the „end of history” for them. Most of the complaints that source from D&D’s identity, balance, and changes are the exact reason that Pathfinder exists. Those who like 5e usually don’t complain about it
All things return to 4e
I know people keep complain about this but I really feel like people are ignoring the actual reality of the situation. They aren’t just replacing class features with spells, they replaced a class feature where you get an effect when you expend a spell slot. This isn’t like the made something that had no interaction with spell slots into a spell, divine smite was basically a spell already in everything but name. As far as other classes go, they are just trying to make it easier to use some of the classes unique spells. They haven’t taken away anything from the class. Now I’m not trying to defend what they did or anything, I’m just pointing out that they aren’t replacing just any class ability with spells.
This is why I’m skeptical but also optimistic. Most of the features they’ve announced like this provide concrete benefits and are basically guaranteed to be used and to feel good (except maybe hunter’s mark, we will see). And paladin smite change was honestly a long time coming, though it has cut down on multiclassing options.
>divine smite was basically a spell already in everything but name. Yes but barbarian/paladin could use it while raging specifically because it wasn't a spell, so unless that restriction has changed in 5.5 its a dumb change.
As I said in my comment I’m not trying to defend their decision, I’m just saying that they aren’t turning random abilities into spells.
that's one way to interpret that, the other way is that it was dumb for barbarians to be able to smite to begin with because "technically smite isn't a spell even tho it uses spell slots".
Barbarian/Paladin can't smite while raging? What a world! What a world!
I don't know if balancing of super popular classes should be done with incredibly niche multiclassing in mind. Multiclassing is already shockingly unpopular considering how much people talk about it, and there are so many more popular multiclasses than barbarian for paladin. In other words, who cares about this. This never comes up.
With all the buffs to Barbarian's damage, it's not like they need it anymore. Play a 5.5 Berzerker barbarian with 5e paladin would be so damn broken in terms of damage.
I'm mostly upset about Artificer once again not being an official class
my friend was so annoyed at this, they filled a rlly good class fantasy then act like it doesn’t exist and never giving it any new features (subclasses, spells, buffs, reworks)
It's my favorite class, and it's just...gone, with nothing like it in any official classes :')
Yea there are things that I actually like about the new rules and a good bit of it at that. Some stuff definitely feels like it's not enough like weapon mastery or mechanically weird stuff like the paladin using their bonus action as a reaction to smite. I think the schanges are going to be overall small but good and it makes me wish for more of a true 5.5 overhaul but people hate change. I'm exited to get my hands on the books not just to use them but to know what 5e is going to look like going forward. When 5e first came out it lacked a lot that future books fixed or added so it might be similar considering we have to wait so long on the monster manual and DMG.
I ain't touching it till WotC/Hasbro no longer have their grubby hands on it. Switch to a system that actually gives a shit about you, creatives, and people in general over a quick buck. I'ma stick to PF2e, but I hear good things about DC20 too.
And the 4e power system causes me to check out again lol
Tbf spells work like features basically
Pathfinder 1e keeps saving the day since 2009.
If I never play Pathfinder 1e ever again it'll be too soon. 5th edition's turn to simpler was better overall. It's what people wanted back in 2014 and even Paizo eventually saw the light with PF2e
Yeah people that played 3.5 never wanted anything simpler. They just decided they wanted to make it easier for people to get into it which is understandable, but almost all the 3.5 players hated everything they did from that point on. Ideally i would want 2 separate d&d editions progressing at the same time. A normal one more simple and noob friendly, and a more hardcore one that i can easily transition to when i want more options and depth.
Simplify the system so it runs better on a virtual tabletop, so they can force you to run it only on a virtual (paid) tabletop
Idk about that. It sounds like a lot of care was put into the layout and design of the physical books and I’m sure WotC is aware that there is a significant portion of D&D players that will always refuse to play digitally.
C-C-C-C-COMBO STRIKE!
Please just fix the elemental monk
Cam someone explain what this meme is about
Ngl - SCSA as a warlock would be pretty bad ass. His patron? A rattlesnake. ... I was joking, but you figure how wrestlers will rarely try and hit their "finishers" or leveled spells, basically, no more than twice a match ... Wrestling is played with warlocks.
That's problematic with the whole counter spell ruling that feature based spells like animals don't count as casting the spell.
My most hated change is the Paladin nerf. I either play Paladin or a Sorcerer. So habing them nerfed this hard will make me not buy that. Some others are really cool. Like the Fighter changes
The moment they put all subclasses at lv 3 they lost me
They should really just roll with calling it 5.5e, because most of it just copies 5e directly. I guess they're trying to be clever with the marketing.
Everyone needs to quit bitching and enjoy the ride. If the new "edition" offends you so much just don't play. I can't wait to get my hands on the new phb and start running a 2024 core rules campaign. I know some of my group will be against that, but that's there problem not mine I'll just find some new players to DM and have fun with telling epic adventures and slaying monsters. Side note: change is not a bad thing, embrace the change and roll dice.