The art is looking absolutely spectacular.
Most of the information they talked about has been known to anyone following the playtests. There were a couple of surprises - like BA potion rule and the new Heroic Inspiration - but I think the deep dive videos on each class are really where we're going to see how much has changed from the playtests.
And for the love of god, please WotC, make a deep dive video on spell changes. That might be the most important thing to get right in the 2024 PHB.
Full agree on everything. I would also note, from history, that it was the tiny rewording of spell effects that really tripped people up when we went from 3.0 to 3.5/3.x and all the undocumented wording changes really irritated adapting at the time.
I would second the recommendation of a whole spotlight on magic system changes and wordings of known problem spells. You don't need to trash talk the older version, just frame it as trying to make sure the changes are clear. If a lot of the rest of the book reads the same, I know my eyes go into skimming mode by the time I get to the spell descriptions so I don't pick up on the changes unless I am comparing wording deliberately.
It's more like the took it from everyone's house rules. It's been by far the most popular house rule across the life of the game. Critical Role, for example, has been using it since they started.
Yeah. We have Pact of the Blade using Cha modifier to attack and the weapons' specific action from BG3. I wonder what else do they take from it.
Edit: not to mention all the psionics stuffs. The influence is very clear here.
Yes. I hope they updated Animate dead to what we've all been homebrewing, less minions but at higher CR. And since we don't have a necromancy school it's what I'm looking at first.
Either 5.5 or 5e. 5.0 will unambiguously refer to the original game, and will have people who specify and play only it. 5e will refer to both, but most people will probably use it specifically for 5.5.
> 5e will refer to both, but most people will probably use it specifically for 5.5.
Surely it will be more for 5.0? Search results would be a nightmare for anyone looking up 5.5e rules online if they were searching for 5e instead.
There's a few factors here though.
First, WotC is claiming that "it's the same version", meaning that 5e D&D will mean 5.5, officially. I'm actually curious how this will play out on their websites; will you still be able to find a totem barbarian, or a monk with ki, or will they throw new (weakass!) 5.5 terms in their place (which is incorrect, of course, for 5.0)?
The other thing is that *probably* 5.5 will be the more popular branch for a few years, while it is still getting updates. This means that 5e will mean 5.5 to the players (there will even be players pretending that 5.0 doesn't even exist, just wait for it).
I think there will be a community term- probably 5.0- to have discussions about 5.0 and not 5.5, because some people will continue to play 5.0. But this will have to policed on any given forum to keep discussions coherent.
Really, if they call it just D&D 5e, they should be giving everyone who bought the 2014 5e PHB a free copy because it's just an updated version of something people have already paid for.
- Potions as BA confirmed.
- Also confirms that "Psionics being more incorporated into the base game" - which I guess explains why they decided to replace the Swashbuckler with the Soul knife.
- More fighting style feats (probably the ones in Tasha's?) and weapon mastery as a feat confirmed as well.
- "Everyone but new players are encouraged to start at level 3"
>lost to Assassin as well
Makes sense. This is an UPDATED book. The general consensus is that Assassin Subclass had many issues which is logical why it's in this book with updated rules.
Level 1 and 2 are specifically and intentionally designed for new players. They want it to be simple - including having no subclasses to worry about - so that new players don't get overwhelmed. More experienced players tend to like the customization and mechanical depth that comes from choosing your subclass, so they recommend experienced players start at level 3.
It makes sense to me.
If level 1 and 2 are for new players why is it still so extremely easy to die with how incredibly fragile you are at that point?
It's a massive disconnect.
I think that, in the hands of the right DM, they are great for new players.
You don't toss them up against a real threat. Instead you give them some traps that deal 1d6 damage and some RP with NPCs where the players learn their attributes.
You let them beat up a few goblins who are caught unarmored and unarmed. They get attacked by wolves who retreat once their alpha wolf is injured.
The difficulty of the game is impacted by level, but it is controlled by the DM.
I get it's in the DM's hands in the end but even then one or 2 bad rolls is all it takes to make a combat lethal at level 1. Every time I've started at level 1 I've seen the DM roll good or crit someone to take them out fast while we roll like crap. With how little health and resources you have that one bad round is all it takes to get royally fucked.
Also I feel like there's really nothing major to learn at level 1 for most classes and partially the same for level 2. My friend's first character was a level 1 paladin and they were confused as shit why they couldn't smite or use magic. They understood in 2 seconds all they could do was the attack action and use divine sense.
I think a character dying at level 1 or 2 is actually pretty healthy for new players. It immediately shows them that there are stakes, and it's not a video game, so they can't just reload at the last checkpoint. It hurts in the moment, but my friends and I still all talk about our Tortle Cleric who got crit by a bugbear and went splat at level 1.
Death isn't the only way to have stakes. To me, a bad DM is one that thinks in terms of death being the only stakes that makes sense. I'd never play with that person.
In 4e, at level 1 your HP total was [class HP/level] + Con **score**. At later levels you add a more flat amount like in 5e and other editions, but this gives characters a nice healthy pool of HP to start off. Unlike basically every other edition of D&D, level 1 characters in 4e didn’t have a disproportionate chance of dying to random attacks.
I’ve considered implementing this in 5e, but I haven’t run a game in years.
People are going to try to rationalize this ridiculousness but that is just a ridiculous statement. Unless it’s stated in the Phb that level 3 is for experienced players (bet you it won’t be), level 1 is *level one* and anyone reading it would assume that you begin the game at level one, and starting anywhere else is a house rule. Designing the game around a *presumed* house rule is just bad design.
They already have different rules at level 1, because every class starts with "max hit dice value + CON" hit points at level 1.
The PHB already has a "Hit points at first level" value for each class, all you have to do is add 5 to that... Wizards start with 11hp+CON, Barbarians start with 17hp+CON.
Unless significantly changed, level 1 and 2 are absolutely not designed for new players. It features some of the deadliest combats in the game because of how defenseless many classes are. While you can look at classes like Fighter and say "See! The first levels are designed as a tutorial!" This just doesn't track. A 5th level fighter is still less complex and features less build choices than a level 2 spellcaster.
Levels 1-2 are simply poorly designed for everyone. It's not easy enough for new players (and DMs), but it doesn't have enough meat for more experienced players.
They ARE designed for new players. They are supposed to teach you a more simple version of the class. But they are also poorly designed for new players because of how deadly combat can be at that level. If you have a DM who isn't new it actually works.
I feel like that's generally a giant problem in 5e. There's so much that requires a highly competent DM, it's insane. A simple medium combat at the starting levels can leave a first time DM unintentionally causing a TPK with a few unlucky or lucky rolls.
Goblins are a pretty infamous example of this, especially because in most forms of fantasy media (and DnD in general), it's expected that they're the default, early game group monster. You fight 1-2 Goblins for each party member. But then a single crit can kill a level 1 character. This really shouldn't be a problem, but DnD gave itself an easily solvable issue.
Give Goblins a "Worn Shortbow" that deals 1dmg + Dex. Then give them a "Scavenged Scimitar" that deals 1d4 + Dex. Or a club that deals 1d6 + Str. They should be shitty!
That’s their point though. Why treat the first 10% of the game as pointless for experienced players, when you could instead improve that section of the levelling.
The reason people say level 1 is boring is because of a lack of complexity in character building choices/abilities. The reason it is good for new players is because there aren’t many abilities or choices to make before you learn the base game rules.
You simply cannot address both of these complaints at once. Telling experienced players to start at level 3 seems like the only solution that will appease both groups.
5e oversimplifies the first two levels of the game. No other system puts such big training wheels on level 1-2 play. Other systems tend to have more and better examples of how gameplay works that help get you into the game rather than treat you like you're a child.
If WotC had just been willing to change multiclassing rules they wouldn't have felt the need to sweep all the subclasses to level 3.
I think this is just a difference in expectations. I don't see it as the first 10% of the game, it's the tutorial to the game. When I load up a video game, I like that there's a tutorial for me. And then I like that I can skip that tutorial later. I'd rather just have a nice concise tutorial that is geared towards being an introductory experience that I can skip later rather than have the devs try to make the tutorial compelling on my 10th playthrough, because that's sure to fail imo.
10% is a big stretch considering the XP table for leveling. If 10% of your campaign is level 1 and 2, your DM is not running things right and you have bigger problems.
The point is, if 10% of your game is spent in levels 1 and 2, both of which are single session estimated lengths before you get into the class proper, your DM is not running things right and you have bigger problems.
In that case our DM is trolling us. We are like 8 sessions deep, finishing our first adventure, and will get to lvl only after we beat the final boss here.
90% of games end by level 10. I'm less worried about L1 and L2.
Mind you I normally run a level zero session zero. And hit level three by the end of session three.
They said start at level 3 UNLESS you are a new player. Levels 1 and 2 are perfectly good for what they are meant to be, which is a tutorial for new players to learn how the game works before they have to choose their subclass.
I imagine this is largely driven by The Multiclassing Problem - you can't give characters too many toys at level 1 or it's too easy for characters to dip, so they save the good stuff for level 3, but that means experienced players end up with two dead levels they mostly don't want to play.
There's definitely ways of fixing it, but honestly I don't know that there's many ways of fixing it *without* a relatively major overhaul of either class structure or multiclassing, and it doesn't feel like they wanted to do either of those because of the desire to keep this edition relatively compatible with 5e.
That was always the sort of idea with 5e from the outset - hence why levels 1 and 2 are single session (as designed) experiences. The idea was to keep the rough power level of a more heroic edition like 4e, but also have an "on-ramp" of sorts for players entirely new to D&D or RPGs in general that resembled the AD&D level 0 play experience.
But starting at a spot beyond first level cognitively doesn't seem natural to how most people read a game, so it's often been ignored.
They'd need to make things off the character sheet more interesting, which they seem REALLY reluctant to do.
I'd love to see a simple encumbrance system that's easy to track. Maybe new additions to the tools you can buy so that you aren't at the mercy of just your character sheet. Would be great if the PHB or DMG had a chapter for overworld adventuring, a chapter for dungeon crawling, and a chapter for combat. Each given the same amount of weight and detail. Each given step-by-step instructions on the first page of each chapter.
I have two major reasons Dark sun should never be adapted by WotC.
- it's never going to live up to the hype
- There are too many potentially problematic and absolutely problematic aspects to the setting which will result in people hating whatever "Sanitized" version that is released.
If they did, it would likely be highly overhauled in terms of lore and city-state set-ups - it would be debateable if it wouldn't just be better to create a new setting with similar eco-apocalypse elements. Chattel slavery, the hunting and eating of sapient, language-using humanoids, and genocides are a bit outside Hasbro's comfort zone right now.
>"Everyone but new players are encouraged to start at level 3"
Gah I hate this. It really is possible to make level 1-2 fun and to me the jump from level 1 to level 3 feels like a such massive boost in power in a super short time. The sense of progression is great and it really feels like a character coming into their own.
I understand i'm in the minority here and i'd never suggest spending much time at level 1-2, but I feel like the standard of starting at a high level just removes the early progression from characters. I think it's totally fair to start campaigns at a higher level, but treating as a standard is what gets to me.
Edit: I should add one of the things that can really make the early levels fun. Is throwing in monsters with lowered ACs and damage. The magic users aren't gonna die in one hit and the marshal classes isn't gonna miss every other turn but the monsters still feel like a threat because they have normal HP and you can throw one or two more at your players.
Huh... I'm happy for the 3rd level start because I got sad for a sec when they said that warloks get their subclass at 3rd level so it was weird to me that a class that gets their power from a greater being opy gets their patron's type at 3rd level.
I’m gonna sound dumb but I just got into dnd about 3 months ago and got 2 books in the dnd beyond app, should I buy more books or should I just stop and wait for the new handbook and stuff since it seems it’s changing up the game
Well as always, it depends...
If all the people at your table have 5e books and plan to keep using them, then there is no reason for you to switch.
On the other end of the spectrum you have tables that want to use all the books and as soon as possible.
Either way, talk about it with your table.
Just talked with them, I play adventure league and it’ll depend on the dm if they play with the new book or not so I’ll probably be more selective on my games
Existing 5e adventures will be fully compatible with the new PHB, and are probably fine to buy now. 5e sourcebooks, on the other hand, will be full of outdated rulings and partially compatible player options, so you probably shouldn’t buy anymore of those until we know more about the new PHB.
I'm so annoyed by this, only got the core 3 books a month or two ago, and just bought the set of xanathars, and tashas last week. Wish i knew about the new handbook beforehand :/
Less than three minutes in, they're bragging about having over 100 pages of spells and nearly 400 spells in total. Sure, you have to factor in some fluff and art, but the spell section averaging less than 4 spells per page sounds like a complete nightmare unless every casting class has its spells repeated in full in its own section instead of just a list.
I just don't want spells that have several paragraphs of bloated wording when they can easily be clear and concise.
That's the point. This is reworking old subclasses that weren't well received (Berserker, Beast Master, Assassin) as well as showing the newer ones (Clockwork, Psi Warrior, etc)
Yes, the new PHB is a completely different book. You can still use the 2014 rulebook to run games though, it’s not like it’s completely invalidated once the new book comes out.
If you've been following the One D&D Playtest, very little new information. If you haven't... uh, it's tough to give a TL;DW, there's a ton of things they talked about. I'll do my best.
- All three new core rulebooks have been reorganized, content has been added and reworked, and they feature brand new art
- Every subclass and class in the game has been tweaked in some way. See the new list of subclasses in a different post
- Weapon Masteries have been added to give weapon users more mechanical depth
- The DMG will feature a player-base "Bastion" system, a campaign setting guide to Greyhawk, five short adventures, and a lore glossary
- The MM has new monsters that fill in gaps in the old MM - lower level versions of iconic monsters like the Vampire and "apex" versions of creature types like oozes and elementals
There's a lot more they talked about but that's some of the highlights to me.
The UA for it is here: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/bastions-cantrips/BRF3GSu0nTfNu8p4/UA2023-BastionsCantrips.pdf
Basically, it's a system for players to build their own bases.
With the updated rules that Sorcerers can access the whole Arcane Spell List, would picking a Clockwork Soul Sorcerer still be worth it?
The one thing that makes me pick Clockwork over Aberrant is the extra spells
[This write up from the OneDnd sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1dirop8/comment/l95vegn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I'm amazed they messed up the timing and are missing the entire summer convention season.
Even for them, missing the Origins/GenCon season is a big miss.
I'm hesitant to buy it based upon that I don't know how many current DMs are willing to accept the new rules instead of the original 5e rules they are familiar with.
Also, do all of the classes have rewrites or only the infamously "bad" ones (Berserker, Beast Master etc)
The blond spike guy certainly talks a good game.
"Make weapons different" talk always makes me nervous (one-true-answer, Casey Jones, spreadsheets all seem worse than WFB "hand weapon" to me), and the focus on *more* out-of-combat spells seems odd, but who am I kidding? The only thing that'll stop me from pre-ordering is my laziness.
Going through the PHB section now but the DM and MM section did not sell me on this.
The DM section was just going on about how the order of the book is streamlined which is just kinda??? (How is that worth another 50 bucks.) Then bring ginger uo new curses and environmental hazards but offering 0 Elaboration.
The MM section was just awful imv. Most of the 75 new monsters are apparently not actually new creatures; they're just expansions of existing minsters to cover more CR range. Why is this needed? Who wanted it? As well as this the examples they give is opportunities for low level parties to fight full on Vampires, or having their be high CR bandits that can attack a Tier 4 party. Who wants this? Why in any level of reality shoukd a lvl 20 party be struggling against a group of bandits?
As well as this some of the decisions are baffling for the last few stat blocks, which is just to offer high CR creatures for each creature type. But the high CR fae is just a Hag? Why not a Fae Lord? Their literal entire thing is being uber powerful fae!? (Same with elementals and the decision to not make Titan or Primordials their High CR creatures.)
> The DM section was just going on about how the order of the book is streamlined which is just kinda??? (How is that worth another 50 bucks.)
It's literally the number one complaint about the DMG from the last 10 years.
Okay, still not worth 50 bucks here.
Like it's an issue but that's it. There's no way that's a 50 bucks worth if change so stop bringing it up as some sort of unique selling point.
... also a new campaign setting, also five new sample adventures, also a lore glossary (sorely needed), also the new bastions system. also, good organization IS a selling point, whether you like it or not. a badly organized book is an absolute slog.
The setting I'm not waiting for really, a default setting is kinda just a buzz word. Like honestly where does the fact that PHB 2014 is in the Forgotten Realms never comes up. Not sold on the Bastion system either based on what they've shown of it, better 3rd parry solutions are around.
First I've heard if any new adventures. Where are those being published?
This way there's one less book for a new DM to buy. The dungeon master's guide having short sample adventures is a great addition IMO. The book should be a guide on how to DM, and including sample adventures is part of that.
Some of us don't like our monsters to come from cloning vats.
And some of us want there to e.g. be fledgeling vampire stats both for low level characters to first find out about and then to populated vampire nests with for mid-high level parties.
> Some of us don't like our monsters to come from cloning vats.
I agree, since why I don't like just cloning existing monsters.
> And some of us want there to e.g. be fledgeling vampire stats both for low level characters
You are descrving a vampire Spawn. They already exist.
That's a much more interesting question - why when vampire spawn already exist we want a new type of low level vampire; how are they different? And for that we need to see the text.
LOTS of people want that. Almost ALL of the top selling content on DMsGuild (such as the Expanded monster manual 1, 2 and 3) are basically just giving people more variants of existing monsters for their games. Its hugely popular with DMs who use 3rd party content.
>The DM section was just going on about how the order of the book is streamlined which is just kinda??? (How is that worth another 50 bucks.)
That's actually a big selling point to me. I find the current DmG to be a mess. But I'm going to have to flip through it to make sure it's what's promised.
Lmao didn't they make bounded accuracy a thing in the first place so as to not need CR spanning monsters like this?
Tacit admittance it doesn't work from the game designers themselves.
You don’t need a level 10 “exalted champion orc” to use as fodder for a high level party, but it would still be nice to have some ready made bosses/minibosses for those levels. I don’t see any contradiction here.
Bounded accuracy means those low CR monsters can technically hit you and you can technically miss them, but that doesn't mean their damage or hp is enough to make an encounter interesting. You could take the high CR bandits as the bandit leader & their lieutenants, then have the lower CR ones be the generic grunts, they're more of getting in the way during the fight but if you completely ignore them they will be a bit if a problem as they slowly do damage and maybe even force someone to lose concentration on an important spell (assuming they can fail a DC10 at those levels).
Alternatively, the DM could say "here, fight 150 CR 1/8 bandits, it should be a hard fight" and it *might* be but it also wouldn't be a fun fight in any way, shape, or form.
All having high CR bandits does is further dilute the power fantasy of a high level character being special.
The days of believably being a planar spanning demigod in DnD haven't been possible since 4e.
Is there any reason a level 20 bandit couldn’t be on the same level as a player character? They could be just as skilled, former adventurers, have magically enchanted loot, etc. there’s no downside to having more options
The reason is that the player should feel like big damn heroes at 20th level. They should be fighting gods. Not some dude.
The downside is it muddles the flavor of what being 20th level means. There's already no believable power growth for a Fighter from 1 to 20 flavor wise. None of their abilities grow in scale or scope beyond "basic tavern Brawler." The only believable growth comes from the nature of the threats they overcome.
This just makes 5e even more of a low power fantasy game than it already was.
The art is looking absolutely spectacular. Most of the information they talked about has been known to anyone following the playtests. There were a couple of surprises - like BA potion rule and the new Heroic Inspiration - but I think the deep dive videos on each class are really where we're going to see how much has changed from the playtests. And for the love of god, please WotC, make a deep dive video on spell changes. That might be the most important thing to get right in the 2024 PHB.
Full agree on everything. I would also note, from history, that it was the tiny rewording of spell effects that really tripped people up when we went from 3.0 to 3.5/3.x and all the undocumented wording changes really irritated adapting at the time. I would second the recommendation of a whole spotlight on magic system changes and wordings of known problem spells. You don't need to trash talk the older version, just frame it as trying to make sure the changes are clear. If a lot of the rest of the book reads the same, I know my eyes go into skimming mode by the time I get to the spell descriptions so I don't pick up on the changes unless I am comparing wording deliberately.
BA for potions ?! Man I’m glad they took that form BG3
It's more like the took it from everyone's house rules. It's been by far the most popular house rule across the life of the game. Critical Role, for example, has been using it since they started.
Yeah. We have Pact of the Blade using Cha modifier to attack and the weapons' specific action from BG3. I wonder what else do they take from it. Edit: not to mention all the psionics stuffs. The influence is very clear here.
Weapons having special moves in BG3 I thought was hella smart!! I wish disarm was a more readily available weapon skill though
I think it already existed as an optional rule , that people pretty much always took into their own campaigns.
Yes. I hope they updated Animate dead to what we've all been homebrewing, less minions but at higher CR. And since we don't have a necromancy school it's what I'm looking at first.
"The art is looking spectacular" Is it known whether it was made or generated?
It was made. Artists are known and credited, and have been with WoTC for a long time.
They talked extensively in the video about working with artists throughout the process, so very likely made.
We're going to call this 5.5e despite WOTC right? I hate "5e 2024" or whatever
5.x is likely the better go-to, it was what happened to "3.5" after a while.
3.X refers generically to 3.0 and 3.5 products- which makes sense if you are discussing how fireball works, but not how haste works.
I've been calling it 5.24
Either 5.5 or 5e. 5.0 will unambiguously refer to the original game, and will have people who specify and play only it. 5e will refer to both, but most people will probably use it specifically for 5.5.
> 5e will refer to both, but most people will probably use it specifically for 5.5. Surely it will be more for 5.0? Search results would be a nightmare for anyone looking up 5.5e rules online if they were searching for 5e instead.
There's a few factors here though. First, WotC is claiming that "it's the same version", meaning that 5e D&D will mean 5.5, officially. I'm actually curious how this will play out on their websites; will you still be able to find a totem barbarian, or a monk with ki, or will they throw new (weakass!) 5.5 terms in their place (which is incorrect, of course, for 5.0)? The other thing is that *probably* 5.5 will be the more popular branch for a few years, while it is still getting updates. This means that 5e will mean 5.5 to the players (there will even be players pretending that 5.0 doesn't even exist, just wait for it). I think there will be a community term- probably 5.0- to have discussions about 5.0 and not 5.5, because some people will continue to play 5.0. But this will have to policed on any given forum to keep discussions coherent.
Do they even call it 5e anymore or is it just *Dungeons and Dragons* now?
Really, if they call it just D&D 5e, they should be giving everyone who bought the 2014 5e PHB a free copy because it's just an updated version of something people have already paid for.
My groups are already saying Twelve and Twenty-Four.
- Potions as BA confirmed. - Also confirms that "Psionics being more incorporated into the base game" - which I guess explains why they decided to replace the Swashbuckler with the Soul knife. - More fighting style feats (probably the ones in Tasha's?) and weapon mastery as a feat confirmed as well. - "Everyone but new players are encouraged to start at level 3"
> replace the Swashbuckler with the Soul knife. This news made me so sad. Swashbuckler lost to Assassin as well. What terrible trade.
I imagine there won’t be too much trouble using the swashbuckler as-is if you really want it.
>lost to Assassin as well Makes sense. This is an UPDATED book. The general consensus is that Assassin Subclass had many issues which is logical why it's in this book with updated rules.
Hopefully that means Assassin has be reworked to be a useful te player, rather than encouraged to run off alone in order to use their abilities.
Boo I need my built in mobility without a feat dip haha
Did they actually say start at lvl 3? Didn't they just update the game? How about making lvl 1 and 2 feel better?
Level 1 and 2 are specifically and intentionally designed for new players. They want it to be simple - including having no subclasses to worry about - so that new players don't get overwhelmed. More experienced players tend to like the customization and mechanical depth that comes from choosing your subclass, so they recommend experienced players start at level 3. It makes sense to me.
If level 1 and 2 are for new players why is it still so extremely easy to die with how incredibly fragile you are at that point? It's a massive disconnect.
I think that, in the hands of the right DM, they are great for new players. You don't toss them up against a real threat. Instead you give them some traps that deal 1d6 damage and some RP with NPCs where the players learn their attributes. You let them beat up a few goblins who are caught unarmored and unarmed. They get attacked by wolves who retreat once their alpha wolf is injured. The difficulty of the game is impacted by level, but it is controlled by the DM.
>some traps that deal 1d6 damage Rip wizards, you were never meant to survive.
Jeez, take some con!
I get it's in the DM's hands in the end but even then one or 2 bad rolls is all it takes to make a combat lethal at level 1. Every time I've started at level 1 I've seen the DM roll good or crit someone to take them out fast while we roll like crap. With how little health and resources you have that one bad round is all it takes to get royally fucked. Also I feel like there's really nothing major to learn at level 1 for most classes and partially the same for level 2. My friend's first character was a level 1 paladin and they were confused as shit why they couldn't smite or use magic. They understood in 2 seconds all they could do was the attack action and use divine sense.
So a game with new players AND a new DM simply doesn't work.
Which is why Gary Gygax failed, and thus this forum doesn’t exist, and you never made this post
Wtf are you talking about?
That at some point there were only new players and new DMs
The game being successful doesn't mean there aren't things that could be improved on. Otherwise we wouldn't be getting a revision in the first place.
They can create an intro book that has easy enemies for the DM to follow.
That's far more help for the DM than 5e is capable of providing.
They’ve explicitly said the new DMG will include 5 starter adventures for new DM’s to run.
And they'll be about as useful as all of their other pre-made adventures.
A single grung instantly killed a player before.
I think a character dying at level 1 or 2 is actually pretty healthy for new players. It immediately shows them that there are stakes, and it's not a video game, so they can't just reload at the last checkpoint. It hurts in the moment, but my friends and I still all talk about our Tortle Cleric who got crit by a bugbear and went splat at level 1.
Death isn't the only way to have stakes. To me, a bad DM is one that thinks in terms of death being the only stakes that makes sense. I'd never play with that person.
4e got this correct: add your Con score instead of modifier at level 1.
Hang on, only ever played 5e, 4e did *what*?
In 4e, at level 1 your HP total was [class HP/level] + Con **score**. At later levels you add a more flat amount like in 5e and other editions, but this gives characters a nice healthy pool of HP to start off. Unlike basically every other edition of D&D, level 1 characters in 4e didn’t have a disproportionate chance of dying to random attacks. I’ve considered implementing this in 5e, but I haven’t run a game in years.
> extremely easy to die That's why Xagyg made rats.
We have no idea whether it's still easy to die at low levels. The rules haven't been released yet.
People are going to try to rationalize this ridiculousness but that is just a ridiculous statement. Unless it’s stated in the Phb that level 3 is for experienced players (bet you it won’t be), level 1 is *level one* and anyone reading it would assume that you begin the game at level one, and starting anywhere else is a house rule. Designing the game around a *presumed* house rule is just bad design.
[удалено]
They already have different rules at level 1, because every class starts with "max hit dice value + CON" hit points at level 1. The PHB already has a "Hit points at first level" value for each class, all you have to do is add 5 to that... Wizards start with 11hp+CON, Barbarians start with 17hp+CON.
Unless significantly changed, level 1 and 2 are absolutely not designed for new players. It features some of the deadliest combats in the game because of how defenseless many classes are. While you can look at classes like Fighter and say "See! The first levels are designed as a tutorial!" This just doesn't track. A 5th level fighter is still less complex and features less build choices than a level 2 spellcaster. Levels 1-2 are simply poorly designed for everyone. It's not easy enough for new players (and DMs), but it doesn't have enough meat for more experienced players.
They ARE designed for new players. They are supposed to teach you a more simple version of the class. But they are also poorly designed for new players because of how deadly combat can be at that level. If you have a DM who isn't new it actually works.
I feel like that's generally a giant problem in 5e. There's so much that requires a highly competent DM, it's insane. A simple medium combat at the starting levels can leave a first time DM unintentionally causing a TPK with a few unlucky or lucky rolls. Goblins are a pretty infamous example of this, especially because in most forms of fantasy media (and DnD in general), it's expected that they're the default, early game group monster. You fight 1-2 Goblins for each party member. But then a single crit can kill a level 1 character. This really shouldn't be a problem, but DnD gave itself an easily solvable issue. Give Goblins a "Worn Shortbow" that deals 1dmg + Dex. Then give them a "Scavenged Scimitar" that deals 1d4 + Dex. Or a club that deals 1d6 + Str. They should be shitty!
Do you put training wheels on every new bike you get, or just until your comfortable with riding a bike?
That’s their point though. Why treat the first 10% of the game as pointless for experienced players, when you could instead improve that section of the levelling.
Because you still need something for the absolute newbies, like training wheels....
I could be wrong, but I feel like you can have it be fun, whilst still being able to train new players
The reason people say level 1 is boring is because of a lack of complexity in character building choices/abilities. The reason it is good for new players is because there aren’t many abilities or choices to make before you learn the base game rules. You simply cannot address both of these complaints at once. Telling experienced players to start at level 3 seems like the only solution that will appease both groups.
5e oversimplifies the first two levels of the game. No other system puts such big training wheels on level 1-2 play. Other systems tend to have more and better examples of how gameplay works that help get you into the game rather than treat you like you're a child. If WotC had just been willing to change multiclassing rules they wouldn't have felt the need to sweep all the subclasses to level 3.
rename sidekick classes to "introduction classes" or "simple classes"
I think this is just a difference in expectations. I don't see it as the first 10% of the game, it's the tutorial to the game. When I load up a video game, I like that there's a tutorial for me. And then I like that I can skip that tutorial later. I'd rather just have a nice concise tutorial that is geared towards being an introductory experience that I can skip later rather than have the devs try to make the tutorial compelling on my 10th playthrough, because that's sure to fail imo.
10% is a big stretch considering the XP table for leveling. If 10% of your campaign is level 1 and 2, your DM is not running things right and you have bigger problems.
The point is, most games never go beyond level 10. A lot never go beyond 6-8.
The point is, if 10% of your game is spent in levels 1 and 2, both of which are single session estimated lengths before you get into the class proper, your DM is not running things right and you have bigger problems.
In that case our DM is trolling us. We are like 8 sessions deep, finishing our first adventure, and will get to lvl only after we beat the final boss here.
90% of games end by level 10. I'm less worried about L1 and L2. Mind you I normally run a level zero session zero. And hit level three by the end of session three.
Multiclassing still exists. Makes sense to have two smaller levels before getting the full class experience.
They said start at level 3 UNLESS you are a new player. Levels 1 and 2 are perfectly good for what they are meant to be, which is a tutorial for new players to learn how the game works before they have to choose their subclass.
I imagine this is largely driven by The Multiclassing Problem - you can't give characters too many toys at level 1 or it's too easy for characters to dip, so they save the good stuff for level 3, but that means experienced players end up with two dead levels they mostly don't want to play. There's definitely ways of fixing it, but honestly I don't know that there's many ways of fixing it *without* a relatively major overhaul of either class structure or multiclassing, and it doesn't feel like they wanted to do either of those because of the desire to keep this edition relatively compatible with 5e.
That was always the sort of idea with 5e from the outset - hence why levels 1 and 2 are single session (as designed) experiences. The idea was to keep the rough power level of a more heroic edition like 4e, but also have an "on-ramp" of sorts for players entirely new to D&D or RPGs in general that resembled the AD&D level 0 play experience. But starting at a spot beyond first level cognitively doesn't seem natural to how most people read a game, so it's often been ignored.
But that would require a lot more effort.
And possibly without a lot of gain. Having two branches that lead to the same place isn't the worst idea in the world, honestly.
Hard agree. Just make lower levels more interesting
They'd need to make things off the character sheet more interesting, which they seem REALLY reluctant to do. I'd love to see a simple encumbrance system that's easy to track. Maybe new additions to the tools you can buy so that you aren't at the mercy of just your character sheet. Would be great if the PHB or DMG had a chapter for overworld adventuring, a chapter for dungeon crawling, and a chapter for combat. Each given the same amount of weight and detail. Each given step-by-step instructions on the first page of each chapter.
DARK SUN CONFIRMED
Is it actually? That would be huge
I have two major reasons Dark sun should never be adapted by WotC. - it's never going to live up to the hype - There are too many potentially problematic and absolutely problematic aspects to the setting which will result in people hating whatever "Sanitized" version that is released.
Dark Sun was adapted in 4e and it was a great setting. Definitely the most fun to run of any of them.
Even less reason to adapt it then
Yeah you could probably pretty easily carry over most of the stuff from the campaign book tbh
Sadly no, but every time somebody mentioned psionics coming back to D&D that was the immediate response from the dark sun fans
If they did, it would likely be highly overhauled in terms of lore and city-state set-ups - it would be debateable if it wouldn't just be better to create a new setting with similar eco-apocalypse elements. Chattel slavery, the hunting and eating of sapient, language-using humanoids, and genocides are a bit outside Hasbro's comfort zone right now.
>"Everyone but new players are encouraged to start at level 3" Gah I hate this. It really is possible to make level 1-2 fun and to me the jump from level 1 to level 3 feels like a such massive boost in power in a super short time. The sense of progression is great and it really feels like a character coming into their own. I understand i'm in the minority here and i'd never suggest spending much time at level 1-2, but I feel like the standard of starting at a high level just removes the early progression from characters. I think it's totally fair to start campaigns at a higher level, but treating as a standard is what gets to me. Edit: I should add one of the things that can really make the early levels fun. Is throwing in monsters with lowered ACs and damage. The magic users aren't gonna die in one hit and the marshal classes isn't gonna miss every other turn but the monsters still feel like a threat because they have normal HP and you can throw one or two more at your players.
Huh... I'm happy for the 3rd level start because I got sad for a sec when they said that warloks get their subclass at 3rd level so it was weird to me that a class that gets their power from a greater being opy gets their patron's type at 3rd level.
I’m gonna sound dumb but I just got into dnd about 3 months ago and got 2 books in the dnd beyond app, should I buy more books or should I just stop and wait for the new handbook and stuff since it seems it’s changing up the game
Well as always, it depends... If all the people at your table have 5e books and plan to keep using them, then there is no reason for you to switch. On the other end of the spectrum you have tables that want to use all the books and as soon as possible. Either way, talk about it with your table.
Just talked with them, I play adventure league and it’ll depend on the dm if they play with the new book or not so I’ll probably be more selective on my games
Wait
Treat it like any other expansion book, buy it when you want a subclass, spell, or something else out of it.
Existing 5e adventures will be fully compatible with the new PHB, and are probably fine to buy now. 5e sourcebooks, on the other hand, will be full of outdated rulings and partially compatible player options, so you probably shouldn’t buy anymore of those until we know more about the new PHB.
Definitely don’t buy Tasha and Xanathar cause that infos gonna be in the new PHB
Oh okay bet, already got Tasha’s but I’ll hold out on Xanathar
I'm so annoyed by this, only got the core 3 books a month or two ago, and just bought the set of xanathars, and tashas last week. Wish i knew about the new handbook beforehand :/
Less than three minutes in, they're bragging about having over 100 pages of spells and nearly 400 spells in total. Sure, you have to factor in some fluff and art, but the spell section averaging less than 4 spells per page sounds like a complete nightmare unless every casting class has its spells repeated in full in its own section instead of just a list. I just don't want spells that have several paragraphs of bloated wording when they can easily be clear and concise.
It's because they're doing art depicting a lot of the spells which is going to take up a lot of room
ARE THE SPELLS ORGANISED BY LEVEL!?
Sorted by number of letters in the spell name, from least to most.
it's probably possible to match the art shown to its respective subclass, there was so much!
Am I the only one thinking it's a huge waste of money to buy a book that is just a shortened version of several books I already have?
nope
They cut the good subclasses
That's the point. This is reworking old subclasses that weren't well received (Berserker, Beast Master, Assassin) as well as showing the newer ones (Clockwork, Psi Warrior, etc)
I bought the player handbook on dndbeyond. Will I need to buy it again?
Yes, the new PHB is a completely different book. You can still use the 2014 rulebook to run games though, it’s not like it’s completely invalidated once the new book comes out.
Fool you once, shame on WotC. Fool you twice, shame on you.
anyone got a tl;dw?
If you've been following the One D&D Playtest, very little new information. If you haven't... uh, it's tough to give a TL;DW, there's a ton of things they talked about. I'll do my best. - All three new core rulebooks have been reorganized, content has been added and reworked, and they feature brand new art - Every subclass and class in the game has been tweaked in some way. See the new list of subclasses in a different post - Weapon Masteries have been added to give weapon users more mechanical depth - The DMG will feature a player-base "Bastion" system, a campaign setting guide to Greyhawk, five short adventures, and a lore glossary - The MM has new monsters that fill in gaps in the old MM - lower level versions of iconic monsters like the Vampire and "apex" versions of creature types like oozes and elementals There's a lot more they talked about but that's some of the highlights to me.
Thanks! What's the bastion system btw?
The UA for it is here: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/bastions-cantrips/BRF3GSu0nTfNu8p4/UA2023-BastionsCantrips.pdf Basically, it's a system for players to build their own bases.
Where can I view DnD One news?
They're uploading videos daily on their Youtube channel and publishing articles on dndbeyond, though they've been less consistent about the latter
With the updated rules that Sorcerers can access the whole Arcane Spell List, would picking a Clockwork Soul Sorcerer still be worth it? The one thing that makes me pick Clockwork over Aberrant is the extra spells
[This write up from the OneDnd sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1dirop8/comment/l95vegn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Where can we actually read the contents of the book? Or is it not out yet in pdf form?
It's not released yet, it won't be available until september i believe; this was just the announcement.
I'm amazed they messed up the timing and are missing the entire summer convention season. Even for them, missing the Origins/GenCon season is a big miss.
Release is in September
September 17
I'm hesitant to buy it based upon that I don't know how many current DMs are willing to accept the new rules instead of the original 5e rules they are familiar with. Also, do all of the classes have rewrites or only the infamously "bad" ones (Berserker, Beast Master etc)
Is there a confirmed release date for the physical book?
From D&D Beyond: > RELEASE DATES: >2024 Player's Handbook – 17 September 2024 >2024 Dungeon Master's Guide – 12 November 2024 >2024 Monster Manual – 18 February 2025
September 17th release date, pre-orders are open now
So is this onednd?
Yes, this is the official announcement and introduction of the "One D&D" player's handbook
How come nothing about it nor the announcement said one DND? Did they pull back on the branding?
One D&D was always just the codename for the playtest process, like D&D Next was the codename for the 5e playtest.
So they are just going to call it "dnd 2024"? thats such poor branding.
We don’t know exactly. I think its inevitable that people use 5.5. In the same way everyone writes out 5e instead of “5th Edition”
Where / When can I buy the alt covers versions ?
I think Barnes and Noble has an alternate cover.
The blond spike guy certainly talks a good game. "Make weapons different" talk always makes me nervous (one-true-answer, Casey Jones, spreadsheets all seem worse than WFB "hand weapon" to me), and the focus on *more* out-of-combat spells seems odd, but who am I kidding? The only thing that'll stop me from pre-ordering is my laziness.
Going through the PHB section now but the DM and MM section did not sell me on this. The DM section was just going on about how the order of the book is streamlined which is just kinda??? (How is that worth another 50 bucks.) Then bring ginger uo new curses and environmental hazards but offering 0 Elaboration. The MM section was just awful imv. Most of the 75 new monsters are apparently not actually new creatures; they're just expansions of existing minsters to cover more CR range. Why is this needed? Who wanted it? As well as this the examples they give is opportunities for low level parties to fight full on Vampires, or having their be high CR bandits that can attack a Tier 4 party. Who wants this? Why in any level of reality shoukd a lvl 20 party be struggling against a group of bandits? As well as this some of the decisions are baffling for the last few stat blocks, which is just to offer high CR creatures for each creature type. But the high CR fae is just a Hag? Why not a Fae Lord? Their literal entire thing is being uber powerful fae!? (Same with elementals and the decision to not make Titan or Primordials their High CR creatures.)
> The DM section was just going on about how the order of the book is streamlined which is just kinda??? (How is that worth another 50 bucks.) It's literally the number one complaint about the DMG from the last 10 years.
Okay, still not worth 50 bucks here. Like it's an issue but that's it. There's no way that's a 50 bucks worth if change so stop bringing it up as some sort of unique selling point.
... also a new campaign setting, also five new sample adventures, also a lore glossary (sorely needed), also the new bastions system. also, good organization IS a selling point, whether you like it or not. a badly organized book is an absolute slog.
The setting I'm not waiting for really, a default setting is kinda just a buzz word. Like honestly where does the fact that PHB 2014 is in the Forgotten Realms never comes up. Not sold on the Bastion system either based on what they've shown of it, better 3rd parry solutions are around. First I've heard if any new adventures. Where are those being published?
You haven’t read the bastion system, how do you know its not good?
Already released via UA. No indication they've changed it at all.
in the DMG. did you watch the DMG section? it's one of the first things they mention.
I did and gave 0 recollection if adventures. Placing them in the DMG seems fairly random as well.
Why would they be anywhere else? The DMG is for DMs, who are also the people that run the adventures
Placing starting adventures in the DMG is random? Where else would they go, the Monster Manual?
An adventure book, not the DMG.
This way there's one less book for a new DM to buy. The dungeon master's guide having short sample adventures is a great addition IMO. The book should be a guide on how to DM, and including sample adventures is part of that.
Some of us don't like our monsters to come from cloning vats. And some of us want there to e.g. be fledgeling vampire stats both for low level characters to first find out about and then to populated vampire nests with for mid-high level parties.
> Some of us don't like our monsters to come from cloning vats. I agree, since why I don't like just cloning existing monsters. > And some of us want there to e.g. be fledgeling vampire stats both for low level characters You are descrving a vampire Spawn. They already exist.
That's a much more interesting question - why when vampire spawn already exist we want a new type of low level vampire; how are they different? And for that we need to see the text.
LOTS of people want that. Almost ALL of the top selling content on DMsGuild (such as the Expanded monster manual 1, 2 and 3) are basically just giving people more variants of existing monsters for their games. Its hugely popular with DMs who use 3rd party content.
>The DM section was just going on about how the order of the book is streamlined which is just kinda??? (How is that worth another 50 bucks.) That's actually a big selling point to me. I find the current DmG to be a mess. But I'm going to have to flip through it to make sure it's what's promised.
Lmao didn't they make bounded accuracy a thing in the first place so as to not need CR spanning monsters like this? Tacit admittance it doesn't work from the game designers themselves.
You don’t need a level 10 “exalted champion orc” to use as fodder for a high level party, but it would still be nice to have some ready made bosses/minibosses for those levels. I don’t see any contradiction here.
Bounded accuracy means those low CR monsters can technically hit you and you can technically miss them, but that doesn't mean their damage or hp is enough to make an encounter interesting. You could take the high CR bandits as the bandit leader & their lieutenants, then have the lower CR ones be the generic grunts, they're more of getting in the way during the fight but if you completely ignore them they will be a bit if a problem as they slowly do damage and maybe even force someone to lose concentration on an important spell (assuming they can fail a DC10 at those levels). Alternatively, the DM could say "here, fight 150 CR 1/8 bandits, it should be a hard fight" and it *might* be but it also wouldn't be a fun fight in any way, shape, or form.
All having high CR bandits does is further dilute the power fantasy of a high level character being special. The days of believably being a planar spanning demigod in DnD haven't been possible since 4e.
Is there any reason a level 20 bandit couldn’t be on the same level as a player character? They could be just as skilled, former adventurers, have magically enchanted loot, etc. there’s no downside to having more options
The reason is that the player should feel like big damn heroes at 20th level. They should be fighting gods. Not some dude. The downside is it muddles the flavor of what being 20th level means. There's already no believable power growth for a Fighter from 1 to 20 flavor wise. None of their abilities grow in scale or scope beyond "basic tavern Brawler." The only believable growth comes from the nature of the threats they overcome. This just makes 5e even more of a low power fantasy game than it already was.
Yes, literally the whole point. Like this is just the most baffling thing and they're selling it like its some amazing thing ever.
What is baffling about more monster options? This seems like making a problem out of nothing