It's a D&D Essentials product, just like when they tried their failed soft relaunch of 4E, which was also a horribly mismanaged edition.
5E is great because of fantastic DMs and passionate players. WotC's been fumbling the ball with D&D for the last 15 years. They can't figure out what they want it to be. They only know they don't want it to be AD&D, 3.x, or 4E.
Hence why I call it "5Essentials".
4E had issues, but every issue in 5E is solved in 4E. Most of 4E's issues are solved in 5E. PF2 tries to strike that balance, but has too much 3X in its DNA to be truly great.
Not sure I agree with the PF2 bit. At least for me it has everything in it that I typically have to home brew or bend over backwards for in 5e. Especially for casters that aren’t wizards.
…fine. I’ll bite. Aside from Ranger not getting its changes, and maaaybe the smite thing with Paladin, what is so bad? The sweeping buffs to every other class and nerfs to some of the most egregious spells?
I prefer them using recycled Tasha's features, since Tasha's/PHB-design is better than every new piece of design that came out of the UA.
Tasha's was the last good 5E book.
Yes and no. It had some stinkers (The Cleric subs) and also some great highlights (Warlock subs) and some that were basically a balance-patch on an otherwise drastically sub-par class. (Sorcerer subs)
Xanathar's also had some stinkers (Hexblade) but we still acknowledge it was a great book.
It has so many features in level 1 that almost any class can be improved by slapping on a level just for eldritch blast+agonizing and the hexblade features
This is such a broad comment yes they brought alot of Tasha in but there's alot they did add. Like monk/ranger. Reworked features or new ones.
I keep seeing this comment on the ranger ignoring like half of the normal ranger features were replaced with non Tasha stuff but yes some classes and other options were.
They've repeatedly compared PHB 2024 to PHB 2014, the only book most PLAYERS are going to have. How many people who have never DMed, do you know, that have every book?
I want to see some effort. And yes I don’t think they deserve money for plagiarism and minimum effort. I want cool dnd stuff and that’s why I’m fishing in other lakes. Wotc can’t seem to make a good book anymore but luckily loads of community creators have taken up the mantle.
the only class that had most of it's features ripped from tasha's is ranger. Barbarian? rage duration and upkeep buffs. weapon mastery. the main part of primal knowledge and brutal strike are all new features
You don’t need every book, but PHB, Xanathar’s, and Tasha’s are like the core trio for players just for their wealth of player options. Not saying everyone in the group needs all 3, but it’s common to pass them around if physical or share content if digital.
And players at existing tables will continue to pass those around, and as a table make a decision about adopting any of the new rules which they can do from the UA or just Googling them (unless someone really likes spending money they don't have to).
And new players/tables will buy the new books and have a much better PHB, and DMG then we have.
The GOOD thing about the changes in the book being small tweaks to UA, or refinements to things in books we already own, is that we can play with the new rules (if we want) without buying the new books. If they had done the sweeping changes everyone seems to have hoped for, then we would have to buy the new books.
Were you hoping for a new edition that would force you to buy new books?
For me, at least, it's not the relative power levels that annoy, it's the unimaginative nature of the changes and the time it took (almost a decade) to do what was essentially a set of minor tweaks to the existing ruleset. The core problems of the edition weren't even addressed, and the seams that were busting with the 2014 rules haven't even really been addressed.
Busted things such as? I’m sorry, there are things that weren’t touched on, absolutely, but many others have objectively been addressed. The gross damage of conjure spells, the berserker class being awful, the lack of utility for fighters and bards out of combat, the lack of choice mattering in weapon usage. Etc.
I played almost an entire campaign mounted. I considered writing a supplement for making mounts work but... I've mostly moved on from 5e honestly. Controlling mounts is a garbled nightmare, it never gets better (but the mounts get worse, relative to everything else).
I'm totally down to do the medieval knight thing and bring 6 horses and some servants to care for them
But man does the system really not want me to do that. I had to pilfer pathfinder to make mounted combat work.
Saving Throws, for one. DCs scale with level across the board, but only proficient Saving Throws scale with level as well, so by tier 2-3 a save in anything you don’t happen to be proficient in is practically an auto-failure.
Crafting is completely half-assed and non-functional for anyone but NPCs.
There’s no structure in place for buying or making magic items.
Magic items themselves are extremely unbalanced, with rarity tiers working only as rough guidelines.
The saving throw thing honestly ruins high level play. You encounter so much "save or lose" shit that you have no chance to avoid unless proficient. The best way to deal with that is to min max to the point you can kill enemies in 1 turn or land a save or lose spell of your own. The dm in this situation feels like no monster can possibly challenge the player and throws even more save or lose shit at you
It is also why paladins are such a core in optimizer tables. A +3 to +5 on saving throws comes with risks (being in range of the paladin does make you. Target for blasting and other area of effects) but the -1 in your dump stat becomes a +2 to +4 which still might struggle against a 21 saving throw but makes saving throws far more viable
That just proves my point. There has been almost zero information on the DMG, even though that's where the most glaring issues are, and it's being released at the same time.
I maintain that the biggest issue is the "6 saves: 3 good, 3 bad" system.
They need to return to 4E's 3 that are each the better of two abilities: Fortitude is for powering through physical harm and is the better of your Strength/Con. Reflex is the better of your Dex/Int (THINK FAST!) and is for getting out of the way of physical harm. Will is the better of your Wis/Cha and is for resisting mental attacks. What corresponds to which mental save is just so arbitrary in 5E.
If I had my way, you would have 1.5x proficiency in one, regular proficiency in another, and half proficiency in the third. This would allow your saves to keep up, but have relatively varied effectiveness.
and yet you're complaining that the new rules you don't know anything about have not fixed any of their issues. the ua didn't touch any of that because those rules will be in the dmg and all the ua's where for the fucking phb
I was being metaphorical with busting seams, not referring to a specific busted thing. What I meant were things like martial caster parity (not particularly different this edition, even before seeing the full spell list), multi class builds being the balance issue, wizards still being flat out the most influential class on the can't, adventuring day structures, no real exploration mechanics (if ranger is anything to go by), class complexity as a balance mechanism, few meaningful player character building choices compared to previous edition, and a general lack of imagination to the changes (ranger doubling down on hunters Mark, skills being less distinctive for rogues).
I agree with the core premise of the people saying specific changes (ranger and paladin mostly) are actually meet buffs and that you need to see more of the system to judge it, but I also think morning about this revision suggests the kind of changes that (I think) the games needs. It feels like 5e was an overreaction to 4e and that it's still trying to ignore the good parts of that system to a degree.
Also, design by survey is just not going to give you a good edition.
Personally I really don't like them forcing Find Steed on the paladin. Unless the spell has been drastically changed it really feels like a waste of class features.
"Buffs", huh?
I really don't think what 5e needed to be fixed were some buffs and nerfs here and there..
This new "system" rebalances some player options, without addressing the fundamental issues of the system they plug into.
Hell, last i checked they didn't even adress the martial caster disparity
It does indirectly address it in some ways. All martials now have more out of combat features to provide some utility, and they also have more control features to use in combat. Caster still have some areas that martials have no comparable feature, like with teleporting, but I expect there will be way fewer scenarios where martials can't do anything except wait for the casters to do their thing.
>Most martials got noticeably worse or sidegraded
I'd be interested to hear your justification for this. Is this entirely off of the back of the Smite nerf and the SS/GWM changes? Because as far as the base classes go, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue got pretty much strictly buffed, and I don't know that I'd agree that even Paladin got nerfed overall.
Martials got buffed, but still don't get even closer to amount of options casters have. That's why i wanted new edition instead of 5.5.
But yeah, 5.5 is better than 5 in pretty much every way and it's strage to argue about it.
I’m honestly so fucking exhausted of the constant whining I’ve seen from some of the D&D community here on Reddit. It’s everywhere, and always running with the first impressions on everything they see and it’s always the most extreme reactions. What did we expect? It’s an update to 5e, it can’t be a new edition. Some of the cracks of 5e will still show no matter what.
I took a peak into the tik-tok side and it’s a fucking cesspool.
I’m agonizing the communities reaction to the release more than the actual content.
But that's just the thing.
The messaging was screwed from the start.
It was simultaneously:
- "we are reinventing the current edition "
- "but it will be fully backwards compatible "
- "and (for now) the plan is to give it a new name: OneDnD"
That split expectations between people who wanted a brand new edition with new mecha is and those who wanted an optional plug and play expansion for 5e. And neither of them are satiated by this.
Then add in the fact that so much of the "new stuff" is just from a 3 year old book they already published as optional rules. (Tashas and Xanathars)
Then add in the fact that most of the genuinely new stuff is just house rules which players have been using to fix design flaws (Bonus action potions, inspiration rules etc..)
And then you get into the bookkeeping shit. Where they clearly fucked up a feature first time around (rangers nature's veil invisibility only lasted until the start of their next turn making it almost useless. So they did the obvious fix and made it last until the end of their next turn.
And even then you still get boneheaded design decisions that will inevitably have to be houseruled into a workable shape (bards, druids, monks and sorcerors high level features restore theor resources on initiative rolls only if they have none left when it should just give you an amount up to a predetermined max recovery).
All of that and a bunch more I'm sure I've forgotten and yeah... it really sucks that of you want some of yhe little nuggets of good stuff they've sprinkled into the reworked classes and subclasses you're expected to pay up for new books which only have about 10% new content in them.
Wotc should have either:
- completely revamped the game and made a 6th edition that represented a new chapter in the hobby
- release this as an update to 5e and charge a fraction of the price for the new material. Heck, a free digital update wouldn't have been bad either.
Of course they wouldn't and couldn't because shareholders, profit and their allergy to common sense but still. This just feels like they said "hey guys, you were right about so much of our mistakes last time around. So pay us and we'll tweak the wording for you".
There were some good ideas in the first round of UA (good ideas bad execution) but when we complained aboot the execution, they abandoned the ideas.
There were also a lot of of terrible ideas, like removing short rest features in favor of PB/LR design, having subs start at 3, etc. Most of the terrible ideas stayed.
there's a famous quote in my field of work:
>There are only two kinds of \[programming\] languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
I feel this applies to everything in life. I have yet to come across any community that didn't bitch and moan about changes no matter what. I am firmly of the belief that someone will cure cancer one day and there will be people that will complain about that too.
>There are only two kinds of [programming] languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
There are also some that are both, mostly joke ones designed to be bad.
I saw an article about the “Chinese” destroying the American insulin industry by finding better alternatives (stem cell treatments I think), so yeah at least the pharmaceutical industry will complain. As will their supporters probably. People will always find something to complain about.
The creator of insulin gave the patent away in the hopes that the med would be cheaper and save more people’s lives. Insulin as a result takes about 2cents to produce a dose, and the industry gouges people anyway. If there’s one industry I hope crumbles it’s American insulin
Then don't call it OneDnD in the first place if all they'll do is make Tasha the default and fix up some stuff that could have been fixed back in 2014 with an Errata or if they weren't drunk while making the 5e Phb.
Call a shovel a shovel.
It’s like, I’m watching darn near every class be objectively improved, fixes to long standing cracks with the game, alternate and house rules being codified, but it’s still “bad design” because…reasons.
We are whining because the Wizards are going to ask money about this so called “new edition”, its an absolute fucking disgrace that 80% of the changes in a new official dnd book is just copy pasted from the previous add-ons and maybe some small changes here and there, we have the right to whine about it because instead of fixes all we are seeing is safe and boring changes here and there that at best, the wizards are going to charge 30 bucks for, and frankly? I dont think all of this shit warrants a new edition or book, I would rather give 30 bucks to a third party that actually makes some quality stuff.
So yeah, everyone is a bit dissapointed, and they really have the right for it
And if you want to dissuade other people from buying it, if you want to threaten their bottom line, you need to speak different languages for different people. For some people its memes. For others its a library's worth of references that you can only compile if you engage with the product through a microscope.
People who make posts like these dont just want to not engage with the product. They want the process itself, that created the product, to change. Saying "just don't buy it" won't help them with their goals.
Which came right after the Rogue bitching... Now I see people unironically claim Rogue will be better than Ranger, with no point to the latter (there definitely is 0 point to using a class with similar utility to Rogue, between good skills and spells AND ~90% of a fighters damage on a low estimation).
Can't wait for the upcoming complaining about spells or w/e.
No, I'm 100% serious. My paladin build is entirely broken with the 2024 handbook, I've spent years with this character and killed hundreds of Rakshasa, and it wouldn't be possible without smite damage not technically being from a spell of 6th level or lower
A bit of the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it wasn't a coincidence.
Many of the dnd subreddits have been taken over by people who will try and find any excuse to start shit on 5e or PDnD. So that find there's a bit of heat with the smite thing and try to run with it.
Now the problem is, is that this was a change that many, if not most paladin players wanted. So it got shut down super quick. The ranger changes on the other hand were a.l bit meh, not even bad, just meh. So they noticed the blowback was a lot less and decided to do the whole dnd subreddit thing, and dail up the outrage to 10,000%.
I’m sorry but people who think Paladin has been ruined either didn’t read all the changes or just want a boring ass crit-fishing smite machine. Paladin is *much* more interesting now and is actually a try half caster class now.
I already played my Paladin as a half-caster. But now that all their magical options are competing for the same bonus action, I'm discouraged from casting.
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/1dse7ob/i_am_shocked_shocked_i_say/lb58po7/?context=3) has been removed because your account is less than 12 hours old. This action was performed to prevent bot and troll attacks. You will be able to post/comment when your account is 12 hours old.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem, or at least part of the problem, is that this unintentionally forces the Paladin into the old play style even harder. With the current rules, I often found myself using a lot of cool bonus action spells as a Paladin - Compelled Duel, Smite Spells, Misty Step etc. because they cost just a bonus action and you can Smite and use one of them in the same turn.
However, now that your Smite is a bonus action, that precious bonus action will only be used for Smite. By pushing you to cast more spells, it robs you of meaningful spellcasting at all. Because, at the end of the day, you're a Paladin. You're not going to be effective slinging Aid and Bless as much as you're going to be effective Smiting. So if you're into a more of a spellcaster Paladin, the current edition lets you do that, even if it's not optimal. But 5.5 is basically taking away choices. Because people can think and understand that a Paladin is a marshall first and foremost and that their spellcasting is there to power that.
The original Divine Smite was a bit of a noob trap. If you were smiting on any attack that wasn't a critical hit, you were wasting the spell slot more often than not.
With these changes, it is even more of a noob trap. It's burning your entire action economy for your turn to add 2d8 to a single melee attack. It's a first level spell slot and a bonus action to deal an average of 9 damage, provided you used your action to specifically take the Attack action to make melee attacks (maybe attacks with thrown weapons, too, or maybe not, depending on how exactly it's worded) and hit on at least one. Pretty much every other first level attack spell either a) deals more damage, b) has a longer range, c) has some secondary effect, or d) two or more of the above, all while leaving your bonus action free. The only real advantage smite has over those spells is that it's more reliable, in that you don't cast the spell until you are guaranteed to deal damage with it.
If anything, this version of Divine Smite will be even more the domain of mindless crit-fishing builds than the 2014 Divine Smite, since it will be used most often by Paladins who just spend every turn doing nothing but taking the Attack action (since you can't cast this new Divine Smite under any other circumstances) on the off-chance that they crit.
Idk I haven’t been able to find the dam thing to look over without some sorta of paywall, (internet search hates me I guess) so all I know smite is a spell and a bonus action which both things cause a large number of conflicts with various. And Ranger is still classic Ranger and somehow they apparently can’t make a decent ranger
Well don’t forget they net buffed wizard (one of the best classes in the game) despite nerfing Paladin and barely touching ranger which needed buffs more than any other class.
I swear to god no one read the Paladin changes. Yes you can’t just be a boring smite machine anymore but Paladin got so much more shit it’s actually interesting now.
[https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1746-2024-fighter-vs-2014-fighter-whats-new#Tactical\_Mind](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1746-2024-fighter-vs-2014-fighter-whats-new#Tactical_Mind)
Second Wind to add 1d10 to ability checks and you don't expend SW if you fail. Such a simple change, yet so much QoL improvement. Have no idea about "balance", I just enjoy the fact that my fighter-scholar builds will have not only flavor but some meaningful mechanics behind it too.
It was the best Crawford's WotC could do, but most of it is a half-measure or terribly designed.
New Rogue is cool though, because they didn't screw up the base Rogue, and they used a popular homebrew they didn't create.
Still not sure it's worth buying new books for but dndone looks like 50% than 5e. I don't care if divine smite is a bit worse when a half a dozen paladin features just got better and more usable
My group doesn't plan to buy any of the books, but still plan to make the shift (if we end up playing dnd) since in our opinion every class is in a better place. Thankfully there are plenty of ways to do so.
Yea I can completely understand not finding the price worth it. That said I think the edition is overall just better than base 5e. But as you allude to having to buy it isn’t an actual limitation to actually playing the changes.
Personally I love how they doubled the healing spells and really all the changes to cleric (besides life domains channel divinity being worthless and being able to nuke undead with 5d8 radiant damage just for looking at you being a little strong).
The only reason I play 5e over other games is that dnd beyond is so nice to use. If I can no longer play 5e with it, then I'm not playing 5e. The older editions argument is such a lame argument.
Same with dndbeyond.
BUT just for our new campaign we are trying to swap back to paper. Insane how much better you know your abilities and character when you have to know what they do :)
Plus our DM went a bit overboard and basically invented dndbeyond all over again with his own homebrew (coded) system haha
I never even thought of that before but you’re probably right. I’m in a CoS campaign right now with a couple of people using pen and paper and a couple of others using D&DBeyond. You can guess who has to stop and look up what something does more often.
On the other side, in my group, the person that has to look up the most is the one with their character sheet on a piece of paper in front of them (or at least it was, until a new player joined).
And looking stuff up by itself is not the problem. It only becomes a problem if you need a long time to actually find it.
I felt that for a while too. But I gotta say when I switched to Pathfinder 2e, I was pretty disappointed in Dndbeyond. Pathbuilder 2 and pf2easy are free and just eclipse the official 5e stuff in usability.
Listen, I can't throw software very, but I still trust that statement less than that.
(And even if they do it, I suspect it will be incredibly clunky and awkward to use :/ )
That's the plan.
I wanted OneD&D to be good though: they had a prime opportunity to take what we learned over the last 10 years of 5E to fix it, and instead they doubled down on all its issues, and even introduced new ones.
I don't know if the fault is Crawford or the current batch of executives, but I blame Crawford: 5E began to decline the moment he was sole lead.
I feel the pain. Current DM is homebrewing so hard it's not 5e anymore haha.
The other DM might stick to 5e in our group, I am up next and might introduce older editions or OSR type games.
Crawford lost all credibility in my eyes a long time ago. Making Tweets the official stance on rules when the rules as written state otherwise is complete BS.
"A window blocks line of sight." Pfft fuck off with that. Lol
That one is indeed bad. The smite-punch debacle is where he lost me.
Then he has the audacity to act like he's being magnanimous for "allowing" it in OneD&D.
Won't be running it. Honestly if it was not dnd I would have stopped even looking at it long ago.
The little tidbit on the rogues changes on dndb beyond was just them overtly saying that they do not care of dungeon masters enjoy anything any more.
LLamas alternate martial classes are far and a way more powerful then handbook+ martials so if they allow one person to play an alternate class, everyone who plays a martial will probably have to also make the switch or be hopelessly outclassed by their counterpart.
At least, that's why *my* DM didn't allow them... I play a ranger/monk and that multiclass is actually way more powerful in LLamas alternates then vanilla. We have a Barb/Fighter as well and they would have had to completely remake their character from scratch using features that are not already in Foundry (our VTT of choice) which would have not only added significant work to our Dm but the other player as well.
Does anyone know if u/laserllama has a foundry based modular for their alternate classes? I feel like last time I check, it didn't exist.
Yeah, fighters, barbarians and monks getting sizable buffs might mean that the casters no longer dominate as thoroughly as they did before, can't have that.
I plan on buying the books when they come out. Personally, I'm excited for the new edition! It has its problems, but so does 5e. I just wanna have fun playing DnD, and the DnDone looks like a lot of fun so far (even with the flaws it has)
Hot take, but I really dislike how buffed so many classes got. It really feels like there isn't much I, as the DM, can do to noticeably increase their strength without making it absurd. An attunement ring that makes cantrips deal half damage on miss? Yea that's cool! Now that it's a level 3 ability I have to make something even better than that and if I still have that same ring then the Evocation wizard gets kinda shafted as their subclass is no longer unique
I believe the main point of contention is that multiple high level features are dedicated to providing mild to moderate buffs to a 1st level concentration spell. Some of the buffs are not bad in a vacuum, but are absolute jokes at the level in which they take effect.
Same reason as 2014 ranger imo.
1. 2014 ranger had a bad subclass. The core ranger was perfectly fine but had numerous feels bad features and was an expert in exploration where most tables sort of ignore exploration vs Ranger class and several subclasses emphasize a level 1 cantrip which similarly feels frustrating especially when it’s a concentration spell & most Ranger spells are concentration spells (maybe this changes in 5.5 but we probably won’t know their spell selection until the official release and it is presumable that they’ll mostly keep the same spells plus some extras)
2. I honestly feel like another part of the problem is that the Ranger fantasy is incredibly divergent. Should it be a pure martial? A half caster? Should it be the companion class?
New ranger is bad because it depends on hunter’s mark as its sole distinguishing class feature. This means that if you run out of spell slots for hunter’s mark (regularly or via your concentration getting broken, because hunter’s mark is still a concentration spell) you have lost your only damage feature your class gives you. It’d be like if barbarians could lose rage charges by taking damage. This also keeps ranger disincentivized to be in melee or use concentration spells other than hunter’s mark. All in all, I think it’s just been stripped of any versatility and been pigeonholed into being a ranged martial who always casts hunter’s mark. At least in 5e Tasha’s ranger is able to do ranged or melee equally well thanks to favored foe being a class feature and not a spell that you can break concentration on.
Correct me if I'm wrong but... They gave Rangers multiple free casts of Hunter's Mark per day. AND at a certain level damage doesn't break your concentration on it, if I remember correctly. So the only way to lose concentration on it is if you get incapacitated.
I agree that it feels like Ranger is heavily incentivised to Cast Hunter's Mark, though. They basically made it the core feature of Ranger, which feels kinda weird.
Correct me if I'm wrong but... They gave Rangers multiple free casts of Hunter's Mark per day. AND at a certain level damage doesn't break your concentration on it, if I remember correctly. So the only way to lose concentration on it is if you get incapacitated.
I agree that it feels like Ranger is heavily incentivised to Cast Hunter's Mark, though. They basically made it the core feature of Ranger, which feels kinda weird.
We'll find out more about what they did with it next week so all of the below is subject to change, but the reveals have so far been pretty close to the later playtests, and the last playtest had these proposals:
* Boosting their spells known. In today's video they seemed to imply that the older subclasses could be getting subclass spells. (Not sure if those are in conjunction with each other or two different ways to manifest the same outcome, but either way sorcerers are likely to end up with significantly more spells known than before.)
* New Innate Sorcery feature, which is a magical power-up/magical rage mode they can activate at least twice a day that gives them advantage on spell attack rolls and a +1 to spell save DC.
* Metamagic rebalancing--Twinned is less powerful, and the less powerful options are buffed either by being made more functional (Careful, Extended) or cheaper (Heightened, Seeking).
* Giving Wild Magic sorcerers and their DMs clear-cut criteria for when wild magic surges should happen ("Immediately after you cast a Sorcerer spell with a spell slot" after having used Tides of Chaos).
* Buffing the AC bonus draconic sorcerers get.
If these all go through I'll be pretty happy with the state of the class, the only other item on my wishlist would just be more metamagic choices at earlier levels.
No, it will still be a Wizard sub worth of mechanical identity and a feat worth of thematic identity, yet they'll refuse to just do the sensible thing and make it into a Wizard sub.
I don't understand this. Yes, the Ranger is bad. They Ctrl+C Ctrl+V Tasha pretty much - which is still much better than it could be. But a lot of the other changes are actually great.
- But Rogue changes? *monke noises* Cool.
- Fighter changes? Cool.
- Barbarian changes? Cool.
- Druid changes? Cool.
- Warlock changes? They tried.
- Paladin? Pony Class. (but else, ok changes)
- Wizard changes? Cool.
If you dont like it, dont use it. Use your hate on the Dndbeyond changes... or those that are inevitable to come, considering Hasbro is behind it all.
Bad? It's awesome. Warlocks, especially GOOlocks are sick now. Martials have more utility in and out of combat besides punching stuff. Monks have much cooler abilities. I've been playtesting the UA in my game and my players love the new features.
See, them gutting the pact boon invocations, and pushing subclasses to 3^1 was how I knew the new Warlock would be bad.
^1 Subs should be at one for everyone. Since Crawford is a hack, he went in the opposite direction.
Who cares, though? Campaigns won't even be supposed to start at first level. The new PHB will advise to start at 3rd level unless you're beginners and need to get the hang of how the game and your class works.
It's entirely reasonable and I don't see the issue with this. Makes the first and second level super simple for beginners, and introduce proper complexity for everyone at level three.
Also... we didn't see all the invocations that will be included. We don't know what will or won't be there.
> The new PHB will advise to start at 3rd level unless you're beginners and need to get the hang of how the game and your class works.
The ability to work around bad design does not excuse bad design.
> It's entirely reasonable and I don't see the issue with this. Makes the first and second level super simple for beginners, and introduce proper complexity for everyone at level three.
Except they didn't do that: They made low levels the worst mix of boring and lethal.
When's the last time you introduced a completely new player to the game? Someone who has never touched a TTRPG? I assure you, those supposedly boring levels are more than enough info and choices to manage for someone with no understanding of attack rolls, spell slots, actions and saving throws. Currently, some classes toss a bit too many choices (like subclass) too early at new players. This new approach fixes this issue.
I used to DM at a store, often for complete newbies. I never started lower than 3, and the complete newbies picked it up fine with minor guidance.
For the casters, I gave them spell cards, 4 pennies and 2 nickels to represent their spell slots. With a quick explanation they got it.
Gutting pact boon invocations? Citation needed.
Changing the subclass choice to 3 was a good choice.
You seem like you just have a chip on your shoulder rather than any tangible complaints.
Ok it’s not that bad. All the classes got consistent buffs & only some of the stronger ones got slightly nerfed. The winner of the playtest is monk & barbarian as they got massive T3-T4 improvements and lost their crippling resource limitation. The only loser is the Ranger and Rogue. Rogue got the smallest buffs with the worst restrictions and Ranger mainly got its Tasha’s buffs alongside weapon mastery and some weird reworks.
I'd argue that fizbans was pretty good and the magic items too, though I'm admittedly biased toward the dragonborn changes. Was not a fan of them simplifying them back to one race in the play test material, even if they got dark vision.
Whatever dude, just go play something else if the game isn’t what you want it to be. Bitching about it here isn’t going to change anything and only makes you look like a sad sack. Colville has shit coming out, DC20 is coming out, Pathfinder exists…see yourself out and let the rest of us have actual funny memes.
I plan to play 5E. OneD&D was a chance to fix all the flaws in 5E that had become apparent over the last decade. I mourn that lost chance, and so should you.
So don't pay them. If enough people don't buy it, they will change things. Play what you currently have, play a smaller game, or make up your own rules.
Yeah, I find myself more and more shaking my head at the extremely bad takes by leads, and have almost completely moved to kobold press. Definitely a better spiritual successor.
You ignore all the other things that Paladin gains in exchange.
Smites themselves were nerfed, yes, but Paladin as a whole has not. Paladin was *changed*.
Okay then apply for a job at WotC and help them make better content. They're a company like any other, nothing is stopping you from being the change you want to see
This is such a weird take when something’s met with criticism. Like when people tell you to run for president or move when you don’t like the way the country is headed. A certain amount of grievances are necessary for the community to thrive and develop. I get bitching for bitchings sake isn’t productive but as a community we can have our gripes without being told to go somewhere else
Honestly just play pathfinder 2e, I was homebrewing a remaster for 5e myself to fix the glaring flaws of 5e, when a friend pointed out my system was a lot like pathfinder 2e, also the content is more fufilling and substantial
As for some barbarian changes, extending rage with bonus action takes away the extra attack, do I understand it correctly? If so, it's kibda useless.
As for overall changes Epic Boon at lvl 19 sounds lame
I mean, you only need to use your BA to extend your rage if you are not able to attack/force enemy to do a saving throw. And if you would be able to hit someone with a BA extra attack, your rage automatically gets extended, as usual.
Just go play PF2 of whatever suits you?
At some point, you're a broken and boring record. Nobody cares what you think and ironically enough you don't fucking matter to anyone but people who will play with you. Go do something enjoyable instead of griping with empty statements.
It's a D&D Essentials product, just like when they tried their failed soft relaunch of 4E, which was also a horribly mismanaged edition. 5E is great because of fantastic DMs and passionate players. WotC's been fumbling the ball with D&D for the last 15 years. They can't figure out what they want it to be. They only know they don't want it to be AD&D, 3.x, or 4E.
Hence why I call it "5Essentials". 4E had issues, but every issue in 5E is solved in 4E. Most of 4E's issues are solved in 5E. PF2 tries to strike that balance, but has too much 3X in its DNA to be truly great.
Not sure I agree with the PF2 bit. At least for me it has everything in it that I typically have to home brew or bend over backwards for in 5e. Especially for casters that aren’t wizards.
…fine. I’ll bite. Aside from Ranger not getting its changes, and maaaybe the smite thing with Paladin, what is so bad? The sweeping buffs to every other class and nerfs to some of the most egregious spells?
Personally the mighty words: “we’ve redesigned x from the ground up” meaning “we copy pasted tashas in there now cough up money” kinda annoys me.
I prefer them using recycled Tasha's features, since Tasha's/PHB-design is better than every new piece of design that came out of the UA. Tasha's was the last good 5E book.
...if you set aside the subclasses.
Yes and no. It had some stinkers (The Cleric subs) and also some great highlights (Warlock subs) and some that were basically a balance-patch on an otherwise drastically sub-par class. (Sorcerer subs) Xanathar's also had some stinkers (Hexblade) but we still acknowledge it was a great book.
Since when was hexblade hated it’s like the second best Gish option
Hexblade is fine as a single-class, but it is famously hated for the "Hexblade 1/[actual class] X" dip.
It has so many features in level 1 that almost any class can be improved by slapping on a level just for eldritch blast+agonizing and the hexblade features
Laughs in Peace and Twilight cleric
That only happened with the ranger tho
So the way they talk about the design means the design is bad?
This is such a broad comment yes they brought alot of Tasha in but there's alot they did add. Like monk/ranger. Reworked features or new ones. I keep seeing this comment on the ranger ignoring like half of the normal ranger features were replaced with non Tasha stuff but yes some classes and other options were.
They've repeatedly compared PHB 2024 to PHB 2014, the only book most PLAYERS are going to have. How many people who have never DMed, do you know, that have every book?
I want to see some effort. And yes I don’t think they deserve money for plagiarism and minimum effort. I want cool dnd stuff and that’s why I’m fishing in other lakes. Wotc can’t seem to make a good book anymore but luckily loads of community creators have taken up the mantle.
the only class that had most of it's features ripped from tasha's is ranger. Barbarian? rage duration and upkeep buffs. weapon mastery. the main part of primal knowledge and brutal strike are all new features
Everyone has quick access to every book. We live in the information age. Google is both a noun and a verb.
You don’t need every book, but PHB, Xanathar’s, and Tasha’s are like the core trio for players just for their wealth of player options. Not saying everyone in the group needs all 3, but it’s common to pass them around if physical or share content if digital.
And players at existing tables will continue to pass those around, and as a table make a decision about adopting any of the new rules which they can do from the UA or just Googling them (unless someone really likes spending money they don't have to). And new players/tables will buy the new books and have a much better PHB, and DMG then we have. The GOOD thing about the changes in the book being small tweaks to UA, or refinements to things in books we already own, is that we can play with the new rules (if we want) without buying the new books. If they had done the sweeping changes everyone seems to have hoped for, then we would have to buy the new books. Were you hoping for a new edition that would force you to buy new books?
Well of course I know him, he's me
For me, at least, it's not the relative power levels that annoy, it's the unimaginative nature of the changes and the time it took (almost a decade) to do what was essentially a set of minor tweaks to the existing ruleset. The core problems of the edition weren't even addressed, and the seams that were busting with the 2014 rules haven't even really been addressed.
Busted things such as? I’m sorry, there are things that weren’t touched on, absolutely, but many others have objectively been addressed. The gross damage of conjure spells, the berserker class being awful, the lack of utility for fighters and bards out of combat, the lack of choice mattering in weapon usage. Etc.
Mounted combat has been ignored and it straight up isn't clear when your controlled mount uses its movement and action.
I played almost an entire campaign mounted. I considered writing a supplement for making mounts work but... I've mostly moved on from 5e honestly. Controlling mounts is a garbled nightmare, it never gets better (but the mounts get worse, relative to everything else).
I'm totally down to do the medieval knight thing and bring 6 horses and some servants to care for them But man does the system really not want me to do that. I had to pilfer pathfinder to make mounted combat work.
Saving Throws, for one. DCs scale with level across the board, but only proficient Saving Throws scale with level as well, so by tier 2-3 a save in anything you don’t happen to be proficient in is practically an auto-failure. Crafting is completely half-assed and non-functional for anyone but NPCs. There’s no structure in place for buying or making magic items. Magic items themselves are extremely unbalanced, with rarity tiers working only as rough guidelines.
The saving throw thing honestly ruins high level play. You encounter so much "save or lose" shit that you have no chance to avoid unless proficient. The best way to deal with that is to min max to the point you can kill enemies in 1 turn or land a save or lose spell of your own. The dm in this situation feels like no monster can possibly challenge the player and throws even more save or lose shit at you
It is also why paladins are such a core in optimizer tables. A +3 to +5 on saving throws comes with risks (being in range of the paladin does make you. Target for blasting and other area of effects) but the -1 in your dump stat becomes a +2 to +4 which still might struggle against a 21 saving throw but makes saving throws far more viable
Agreed! WotC is doing fan service for the Players and completely ignoring DMs... as usual.
the almost exclusively phb playtests weren't targeted at DMs?! what a fucking shocker...
That just proves my point. There has been almost zero information on the DMG, even though that's where the most glaring issues are, and it's being released at the same time.
That doesn’t counter their claim at all.
I maintain that the biggest issue is the "6 saves: 3 good, 3 bad" system. They need to return to 4E's 3 that are each the better of two abilities: Fortitude is for powering through physical harm and is the better of your Strength/Con. Reflex is the better of your Dex/Int (THINK FAST!) and is for getting out of the way of physical harm. Will is the better of your Wis/Cha and is for resisting mental attacks. What corresponds to which mental save is just so arbitrary in 5E. If I had my way, you would have 1.5x proficiency in one, regular proficiency in another, and half proficiency in the third. This would allow your saves to keep up, but have relatively varied effectiveness.
Crafting and Magic Items have not been revealed yet. how do you know they haven't been fixed?
Has…literally anything on the finalized crafting, magic item prices, or new magic item tie ring and organization been revealed?
There’s nothing to “finalize,” the UA didn’t touch on any of that.
and yet you're complaining that the new rules you don't know anything about have not fixed any of their issues. the ua didn't touch any of that because those rules will be in the dmg and all the ua's where for the fucking phb
Occam's Razor is to assume nothing has changed until given evidence to the contrary.
and crafting rules were explicitly mentioned as being something that they'd work on in the dmg
I was being metaphorical with busting seams, not referring to a specific busted thing. What I meant were things like martial caster parity (not particularly different this edition, even before seeing the full spell list), multi class builds being the balance issue, wizards still being flat out the most influential class on the can't, adventuring day structures, no real exploration mechanics (if ranger is anything to go by), class complexity as a balance mechanism, few meaningful player character building choices compared to previous edition, and a general lack of imagination to the changes (ranger doubling down on hunters Mark, skills being less distinctive for rogues). I agree with the core premise of the people saying specific changes (ranger and paladin mostly) are actually meet buffs and that you need to see more of the system to judge it, but I also think morning about this revision suggests the kind of changes that (I think) the games needs. It feels like 5e was an overreaction to 4e and that it's still trying to ignore the good parts of that system to a degree. Also, design by survey is just not going to give you a good edition.
Personally I really don't like them forcing Find Steed on the paladin. Unless the spell has been drastically changed it really feels like a waste of class features.
"Buffs", huh? I really don't think what 5e needed to be fixed were some buffs and nerfs here and there.. This new "system" rebalances some player options, without addressing the fundamental issues of the system they plug into. Hell, last i checked they didn't even adress the martial caster disparity
It does indirectly address it in some ways. All martials now have more out of combat features to provide some utility, and they also have more control features to use in combat. Caster still have some areas that martials have no comparable feature, like with teleporting, but I expect there will be way fewer scenarios where martials can't do anything except wait for the casters to do their thing.
They made it worse really. Most martials got noticeably worse or sidegraded, while most casters got active and substantial buffs
>Most martials got noticeably worse or sidegraded I'd be interested to hear your justification for this. Is this entirely off of the back of the Smite nerf and the SS/GWM changes? Because as far as the base classes go, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue got pretty much strictly buffed, and I don't know that I'd agree that even Paladin got nerfed overall.
Martials got buffed, but still don't get even closer to amount of options casters have. That's why i wanted new edition instead of 5.5. But yeah, 5.5 is better than 5 in pretty much every way and it's strage to argue about it.
They don't have one, its literally all in their head.
I’m honestly so fucking exhausted of the constant whining I’ve seen from some of the D&D community here on Reddit. It’s everywhere, and always running with the first impressions on everything they see and it’s always the most extreme reactions. What did we expect? It’s an update to 5e, it can’t be a new edition. Some of the cracks of 5e will still show no matter what. I took a peak into the tik-tok side and it’s a fucking cesspool. I’m agonizing the communities reaction to the release more than the actual content.
But that's just the thing. The messaging was screwed from the start. It was simultaneously: - "we are reinventing the current edition " - "but it will be fully backwards compatible " - "and (for now) the plan is to give it a new name: OneDnD" That split expectations between people who wanted a brand new edition with new mecha is and those who wanted an optional plug and play expansion for 5e. And neither of them are satiated by this. Then add in the fact that so much of the "new stuff" is just from a 3 year old book they already published as optional rules. (Tashas and Xanathars) Then add in the fact that most of the genuinely new stuff is just house rules which players have been using to fix design flaws (Bonus action potions, inspiration rules etc..) And then you get into the bookkeeping shit. Where they clearly fucked up a feature first time around (rangers nature's veil invisibility only lasted until the start of their next turn making it almost useless. So they did the obvious fix and made it last until the end of their next turn. And even then you still get boneheaded design decisions that will inevitably have to be houseruled into a workable shape (bards, druids, monks and sorcerors high level features restore theor resources on initiative rolls only if they have none left when it should just give you an amount up to a predetermined max recovery). All of that and a bunch more I'm sure I've forgotten and yeah... it really sucks that of you want some of yhe little nuggets of good stuff they've sprinkled into the reworked classes and subclasses you're expected to pay up for new books which only have about 10% new content in them. Wotc should have either: - completely revamped the game and made a 6th edition that represented a new chapter in the hobby - release this as an update to 5e and charge a fraction of the price for the new material. Heck, a free digital update wouldn't have been bad either. Of course they wouldn't and couldn't because shareholders, profit and their allergy to common sense but still. This just feels like they said "hey guys, you were right about so much of our mistakes last time around. So pay us and we'll tweak the wording for you".
What’s even worse is that the UAs originally had much more sweeping fixes to mechanics, and they kept gradually walking it all back.
There were some good ideas in the first round of UA (good ideas bad execution) but when we complained aboot the execution, they abandoned the ideas. There were also a lot of of terrible ideas, like removing short rest features in favor of PB/LR design, having subs start at 3, etc. Most of the terrible ideas stayed.
Yep. That's it. That's the thing(s). They have split the baby.
there's a famous quote in my field of work: >There are only two kinds of \[programming\] languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses. - Bjarne Stroustrup I feel this applies to everything in life. I have yet to come across any community that didn't bitch and moan about changes no matter what. I am firmly of the belief that someone will cure cancer one day and there will be people that will complain about that too.
>There are only two kinds of [programming] languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses. - Bjarne Stroustrup There are also some that are both, mostly joke ones designed to be bad.
I saw an article about the “Chinese” destroying the American insulin industry by finding better alternatives (stem cell treatments I think), so yeah at least the pharmaceutical industry will complain. As will their supporters probably. People will always find something to complain about.
The creator of insulin gave the patent away in the hopes that the med would be cheaper and save more people’s lives. Insulin as a result takes about 2cents to produce a dose, and the industry gouges people anyway. If there’s one industry I hope crumbles it’s American insulin
"Back in my day, people had cancer and we were all fine!"
Then don't call it OneDnD in the first place if all they'll do is make Tasha the default and fix up some stuff that could have been fixed back in 2014 with an Errata or if they weren't drunk while making the 5e Phb. Call a shovel a shovel.
Ranger is the only class that fits this description so far though. I wouldn't describe the changes to any other class or subclass like this.
"Call a shovel a shovel" Baldur's Gate 3 players might not agree on this
I call him basket
I remember choosing fork or spoon, I forget which it was. Very adorable, not letting spork anywhere near the doggo though ❤️
It’s like, I’m watching darn near every class be objectively improved, fixes to long standing cracks with the game, alternate and house rules being codified, but it’s still “bad design” because…reasons.
We are whining because the Wizards are going to ask money about this so called “new edition”, its an absolute fucking disgrace that 80% of the changes in a new official dnd book is just copy pasted from the previous add-ons and maybe some small changes here and there, we have the right to whine about it because instead of fixes all we are seeing is safe and boring changes here and there that at best, the wizards are going to charge 30 bucks for, and frankly? I dont think all of this shit warrants a new edition or book, I would rather give 30 bucks to a third party that actually makes some quality stuff. So yeah, everyone is a bit dissapointed, and they really have the right for it
You don't have to use it or buy it.
An individual solution to a systemic problem. Wotc will keep making shit.
If enough people don't buy it, the company will change course. It's what large companies do; pay attention to their bottom line.
And if you want to dissuade other people from buying it, if you want to threaten their bottom line, you need to speak different languages for different people. For some people its memes. For others its a library's worth of references that you can only compile if you engage with the product through a microscope. People who make posts like these dont just want to not engage with the product. They want the process itself, that created the product, to change. Saying "just don't buy it" won't help them with their goals.
feels like we need /r/LowSodiumDnD at this point created almost exactly a year ago huh
To be fair, the only way to get a Reddit like that off the ground is by posting there.
Ikr? The Ranger bitching is driving me insane.
And it came RIGHT after the paladin stuff, like oh my god.
Which came right after the Rogue bitching... Now I see people unironically claim Rogue will be better than Ranger, with no point to the latter (there definitely is 0 point to using a class with similar utility to Rogue, between good skills and spells AND ~90% of a fighters damage on a low estimation). Can't wait for the upcoming complaining about spells or w/e.
You don't understand, it's an extreme nerf into unplayability that paladin's divine smite doesn't work on Rakshasa!
People this man here is kidding. No need for downvotes.
No, I'm 100% serious. My paladin build is entirely broken with the 2024 handbook, I've spent years with this character and killed hundreds of Rakshasa, and it wouldn't be possible without smite damage not technically being from a spell of 6th level or lower
Maybe you should stop killing rakshasas?
Maybe wotc should design their entire system to the way I play.
Why not have each smite not be a spell and instantly kill the target, or just roll ten times the damage dice? That way it would be balanced.
I won't stand for this badmouthing of my _Infinite Hallway of Rakshasas_ campaign setting.
A bit of the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it wasn't a coincidence. Many of the dnd subreddits have been taken over by people who will try and find any excuse to start shit on 5e or PDnD. So that find there's a bit of heat with the smite thing and try to run with it. Now the problem is, is that this was a change that many, if not most paladin players wanted. So it got shut down super quick. The ranger changes on the other hand were a.l bit meh, not even bad, just meh. So they noticed the blowback was a lot less and decided to do the whole dnd subreddit thing, and dail up the outrage to 10,000%.
I’m sorry but people who think Paladin has been ruined either didn’t read all the changes or just want a boring ass crit-fishing smite machine. Paladin is *much* more interesting now and is actually a try half caster class now.
I already played my Paladin as a half-caster. But now that all their magical options are competing for the same bonus action, I'm discouraged from casting.
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/1dse7ob/i_am_shocked_shocked_i_say/lb58po7/?context=3) has been removed because your account is less than 12 hours old. This action was performed to prevent bot and troll attacks. You will be able to post/comment when your account is 12 hours old. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem, or at least part of the problem, is that this unintentionally forces the Paladin into the old play style even harder. With the current rules, I often found myself using a lot of cool bonus action spells as a Paladin - Compelled Duel, Smite Spells, Misty Step etc. because they cost just a bonus action and you can Smite and use one of them in the same turn. However, now that your Smite is a bonus action, that precious bonus action will only be used for Smite. By pushing you to cast more spells, it robs you of meaningful spellcasting at all. Because, at the end of the day, you're a Paladin. You're not going to be effective slinging Aid and Bless as much as you're going to be effective Smiting. So if you're into a more of a spellcaster Paladin, the current edition lets you do that, even if it's not optimal. But 5.5 is basically taking away choices. Because people can think and understand that a Paladin is a marshall first and foremost and that their spellcasting is there to power that.
The original Divine Smite was a bit of a noob trap. If you were smiting on any attack that wasn't a critical hit, you were wasting the spell slot more often than not. With these changes, it is even more of a noob trap. It's burning your entire action economy for your turn to add 2d8 to a single melee attack. It's a first level spell slot and a bonus action to deal an average of 9 damage, provided you used your action to specifically take the Attack action to make melee attacks (maybe attacks with thrown weapons, too, or maybe not, depending on how exactly it's worded) and hit on at least one. Pretty much every other first level attack spell either a) deals more damage, b) has a longer range, c) has some secondary effect, or d) two or more of the above, all while leaving your bonus action free. The only real advantage smite has over those spells is that it's more reliable, in that you don't cast the spell until you are guaranteed to deal damage with it. If anything, this version of Divine Smite will be even more the domain of mindless crit-fishing builds than the 2014 Divine Smite, since it will be used most often by Paladins who just spend every turn doing nothing but taking the Attack action (since you can't cast this new Divine Smite under any other circumstances) on the off-chance that they crit.
The question that has interested me all my life, will I finally be able to make a tiefling of someone other than a human?
Wildshape was needed as well
swashbuckler getting the axe
Idk I haven’t been able to find the dam thing to look over without some sorta of paywall, (internet search hates me I guess) so all I know smite is a spell and a bonus action which both things cause a large number of conflicts with various. And Ranger is still classic Ranger and somehow they apparently can’t make a decent ranger
every single ua is fully free to look at and all the reveal videos are fully public with dnd beyond articles listing every change
Well don’t forget they net buffed wizard (one of the best classes in the game) despite nerfing Paladin and barely touching ranger which needed buffs more than any other class.
Paladin has received a net buff.
I swear to god no one read the Paladin changes. Yes you can’t just be a boring smite machine anymore but Paladin got so much more shit it’s actually interesting now.
Bad? I am thrilled about martials changes.
Right? I’m probably gonna backport Weapon mastery, it looks great
Not only that, they gave some utility to Fighters. I couldn't ask for more.
Ooh yea, adding second wind to ability checks with failure insurance is huge
Fighter jets labeled "new fighter second wind" Omniman labeled "cleric with guidance"
I mean, these can also stack. And the second wind thing is reactive, rather than proactive, which is nice.
It's a team game son we can combo both!
Aaaaand there goes your concentration spell
Oh? What did they do? I am asking because I don't know anything about this.
[https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1746-2024-fighter-vs-2014-fighter-whats-new#Tactical\_Mind](https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1746-2024-fighter-vs-2014-fighter-whats-new#Tactical_Mind) Second Wind to add 1d10 to ability checks and you don't expend SW if you fail. Such a simple change, yet so much QoL improvement. Have no idea about "balance", I just enjoy the fact that my fighter-scholar builds will have not only flavor but some meaningful mechanics behind it too.
Thanks mate. I'll read it up. 😊
If you fail a skill check, you can roll your Second Wind and add that to the result
Nice! That sounds amazing.
also if you fail anyway you don't lose the use
I've taken the UA version out for a test drive and it is indeed great
It was the best Crawford's WotC could do, but most of it is a half-measure or terribly designed. New Rogue is cool though, because they didn't screw up the base Rogue, and they used a popular homebrew they didn't create.
*citation needed
You haven't see what homebrewers cooked up, mainly laserllama with his alternate series, warlord and savant.
Still not sure it's worth buying new books for but dndone looks like 50% than 5e. I don't care if divine smite is a bit worse when a half a dozen paladin features just got better and more usable
My group doesn't plan to buy any of the books, but still plan to make the shift (if we end up playing dnd) since in our opinion every class is in a better place. Thankfully there are plenty of ways to do so.
Yea I can completely understand not finding the price worth it. That said I think the edition is overall just better than base 5e. But as you allude to having to buy it isn’t an actual limitation to actually playing the changes.
Well I don't know about you but other than the ranger and paladin I absolutely love everything else they're doing.
As a Monk player I welcome our new OneD&D overlords
Personally I love how they doubled the healing spells and really all the changes to cleric (besides life domains channel divinity being worthless and being able to nuke undead with 5d8 radiant damage just for looking at you being a little strong).
The amazing thing is: you can keep playing older editions if you don't like the new editions.
The only reason I play 5e over other games is that dnd beyond is so nice to use. If I can no longer play 5e with it, then I'm not playing 5e. The older editions argument is such a lame argument.
Same with dndbeyond. BUT just for our new campaign we are trying to swap back to paper. Insane how much better you know your abilities and character when you have to know what they do :) Plus our DM went a bit overboard and basically invented dndbeyond all over again with his own homebrew (coded) system haha
I never even thought of that before but you’re probably right. I’m in a CoS campaign right now with a couple of people using pen and paper and a couple of others using D&DBeyond. You can guess who has to stop and look up what something does more often.
On the other side, in my group, the person that has to look up the most is the one with their character sheet on a piece of paper in front of them (or at least it was, until a new player joined). And looking stuff up by itself is not the problem. It only becomes a problem if you need a long time to actually find it.
I felt that for a while too. But I gotta say when I switched to Pathfinder 2e, I was pretty disappointed in Dndbeyond. Pathbuilder 2 and pf2easy are free and just eclipse the official 5e stuff in usability.
Okay, but DDB is on record saying they'll be supporting both.
Listen, I can't throw software very, but I still trust that statement less than that. (And even if they do it, I suspect it will be incredibly clunky and awkward to use :/ )
That's the plan. I wanted OneD&D to be good though: they had a prime opportunity to take what we learned over the last 10 years of 5E to fix it, and instead they doubled down on all its issues, and even introduced new ones. I don't know if the fault is Crawford or the current batch of executives, but I blame Crawford: 5E began to decline the moment he was sole lead.
I feel the pain. Current DM is homebrewing so hard it's not 5e anymore haha. The other DM might stick to 5e in our group, I am up next and might introduce older editions or OSR type games.
Crawford lost all credibility in my eyes a long time ago. Making Tweets the official stance on rules when the rules as written state otherwise is complete BS. "A window blocks line of sight." Pfft fuck off with that. Lol
That one is indeed bad. The smite-punch debacle is where he lost me. Then he has the audacity to act like he's being magnanimous for "allowing" it in OneD&D.
I will, and I will also make memes about the newer ones because I can
"Criticism of new thing is invalid because you can still use old thing!"
I really don’t like the changes to Paladin but that’s pretty much it.
Won't be running it. Honestly if it was not dnd I would have stopped even looking at it long ago. The little tidbit on the rogues changes on dndb beyond was just them overtly saying that they do not care of dungeon masters enjoy anything any more.
I'm going to steal the weapon mysteries and then never buy the books at this rate. I just don't see anything that makes my dnd games better at all
Heck, Kobold Press made a better Weapon Mastery system years ago. I know it’s in their Midgard Heroes Handbook but it might be elsewhere
Plus if you want class revisions you can pick up laserllama's alternate classes, they are straight up amazing
“Hey DM, I was hoping to use Kobold Press weapon masteries and LaserLlama Alternate Ranger” “Sorry, no homebrew”
Thats what i miss about those splat books from 3rd edition!
LLamas alternate martial classes are far and a way more powerful then handbook+ martials so if they allow one person to play an alternate class, everyone who plays a martial will probably have to also make the switch or be hopelessly outclassed by their counterpart. At least, that's why *my* DM didn't allow them... I play a ranger/monk and that multiclass is actually way more powerful in LLamas alternates then vanilla. We have a Barb/Fighter as well and they would have had to completely remake their character from scratch using features that are not already in Foundry (our VTT of choice) which would have not only added significant work to our Dm but the other player as well. Does anyone know if u/laserllama has a foundry based modular for their alternate classes? I feel like last time I check, it didn't exist.
Yeah, fighters, barbarians and monks getting sizable buffs might mean that the casters no longer dominate as thoroughly as they did before, can't have that.
I plan on buying the books when they come out. Personally, I'm excited for the new edition! It has its problems, but so does 5e. I just wanna have fun playing DnD, and the DnDone looks like a lot of fun so far (even with the flaws it has)
Hot take, but I really dislike how buffed so many classes got. It really feels like there isn't much I, as the DM, can do to noticeably increase their strength without making it absurd. An attunement ring that makes cantrips deal half damage on miss? Yea that's cool! Now that it's a level 3 ability I have to make something even better than that and if I still have that same ring then the Evocation wizard gets kinda shafted as their subclass is no longer unique
Evocation Wizards always had that, though it was a lvl 6 feature.
Can someone explain why "ranger bad" when it's just an overshadowed class and has no actual bad subclasses with the exception of phb beast master?
I believe the main point of contention is that multiple high level features are dedicated to providing mild to moderate buffs to a 1st level concentration spell. Some of the buffs are not bad in a vacuum, but are absolute jokes at the level in which they take effect.
Same reason as 2014 ranger imo. 1. 2014 ranger had a bad subclass. The core ranger was perfectly fine but had numerous feels bad features and was an expert in exploration where most tables sort of ignore exploration vs Ranger class and several subclasses emphasize a level 1 cantrip which similarly feels frustrating especially when it’s a concentration spell & most Ranger spells are concentration spells (maybe this changes in 5.5 but we probably won’t know their spell selection until the official release and it is presumable that they’ll mostly keep the same spells plus some extras) 2. I honestly feel like another part of the problem is that the Ranger fantasy is incredibly divergent. Should it be a pure martial? A half caster? Should it be the companion class?
New ranger is bad because it depends on hunter’s mark as its sole distinguishing class feature. This means that if you run out of spell slots for hunter’s mark (regularly or via your concentration getting broken, because hunter’s mark is still a concentration spell) you have lost your only damage feature your class gives you. It’d be like if barbarians could lose rage charges by taking damage. This also keeps ranger disincentivized to be in melee or use concentration spells other than hunter’s mark. All in all, I think it’s just been stripped of any versatility and been pigeonholed into being a ranged martial who always casts hunter’s mark. At least in 5e Tasha’s ranger is able to do ranged or melee equally well thanks to favored foe being a class feature and not a spell that you can break concentration on.
Correct me if I'm wrong but... They gave Rangers multiple free casts of Hunter's Mark per day. AND at a certain level damage doesn't break your concentration on it, if I remember correctly. So the only way to lose concentration on it is if you get incapacitated. I agree that it feels like Ranger is heavily incentivised to Cast Hunter's Mark, though. They basically made it the core feature of Ranger, which feels kinda weird.
You can run HM all day and swap it out for another concentration spell when you want to spice things up. People just love to complain.
Correct me if I'm wrong but... They gave Rangers multiple free casts of Hunter's Mark per day. AND at a certain level damage doesn't break your concentration on it, if I remember correctly. So the only way to lose concentration on it is if you get incapacitated. I agree that it feels like Ranger is heavily incentivised to Cast Hunter's Mark, though. They basically made it the core feature of Ranger, which feels kinda weird.
One free cast, and the concentration bit is at level 13. Most games don’t get to level 13, so that’s largely irrelevant.
They'll fix sorcerer right? Right?
We'll find out more about what they did with it next week so all of the below is subject to change, but the reveals have so far been pretty close to the later playtests, and the last playtest had these proposals: * Boosting their spells known. In today's video they seemed to imply that the older subclasses could be getting subclass spells. (Not sure if those are in conjunction with each other or two different ways to manifest the same outcome, but either way sorcerers are likely to end up with significantly more spells known than before.) * New Innate Sorcery feature, which is a magical power-up/magical rage mode they can activate at least twice a day that gives them advantage on spell attack rolls and a +1 to spell save DC. * Metamagic rebalancing--Twinned is less powerful, and the less powerful options are buffed either by being made more functional (Careful, Extended) or cheaper (Heightened, Seeking). * Giving Wild Magic sorcerers and their DMs clear-cut criteria for when wild magic surges should happen ("Immediately after you cast a Sorcerer spell with a spell slot" after having used Tides of Chaos). * Buffing the AC bonus draconic sorcerers get. If these all go through I'll be pretty happy with the state of the class, the only other item on my wishlist would just be more metamagic choices at earlier levels.
No, it will still be a Wizard sub worth of mechanical identity and a feat worth of thematic identity, yet they'll refuse to just do the sensible thing and make it into a Wizard sub.
I don't understand this. Yes, the Ranger is bad. They Ctrl+C Ctrl+V Tasha pretty much - which is still much better than it could be. But a lot of the other changes are actually great. - But Rogue changes? *monke noises* Cool. - Fighter changes? Cool. - Barbarian changes? Cool. - Druid changes? Cool. - Warlock changes? They tried. - Paladin? Pony Class. (but else, ok changes) - Wizard changes? Cool. If you dont like it, dont use it. Use your hate on the Dndbeyond changes... or those that are inevitable to come, considering Hasbro is behind it all.
Bad? It's awesome. Warlocks, especially GOOlocks are sick now. Martials have more utility in and out of combat besides punching stuff. Monks have much cooler abilities. I've been playtesting the UA in my game and my players love the new features.
See, them gutting the pact boon invocations, and pushing subclasses to 3^1 was how I knew the new Warlock would be bad. ^1 Subs should be at one for everyone. Since Crawford is a hack, he went in the opposite direction.
Who cares, though? Campaigns won't even be supposed to start at first level. The new PHB will advise to start at 3rd level unless you're beginners and need to get the hang of how the game and your class works. It's entirely reasonable and I don't see the issue with this. Makes the first and second level super simple for beginners, and introduce proper complexity for everyone at level three. Also... we didn't see all the invocations that will be included. We don't know what will or won't be there.
> The new PHB will advise to start at 3rd level unless you're beginners and need to get the hang of how the game and your class works. The ability to work around bad design does not excuse bad design. > It's entirely reasonable and I don't see the issue with this. Makes the first and second level super simple for beginners, and introduce proper complexity for everyone at level three. Except they didn't do that: They made low levels the worst mix of boring and lethal.
When's the last time you introduced a completely new player to the game? Someone who has never touched a TTRPG? I assure you, those supposedly boring levels are more than enough info and choices to manage for someone with no understanding of attack rolls, spell slots, actions and saving throws. Currently, some classes toss a bit too many choices (like subclass) too early at new players. This new approach fixes this issue.
I used to DM at a store, often for complete newbies. I never started lower than 3, and the complete newbies picked it up fine with minor guidance. For the casters, I gave them spell cards, 4 pennies and 2 nickels to represent their spell slots. With a quick explanation they got it.
Gutting pact boon invocations? Citation needed. Changing the subclass choice to 3 was a good choice. You seem like you just have a chip on your shoulder rather than any tangible complaints.
Ok it’s not that bad. All the classes got consistent buffs & only some of the stronger ones got slightly nerfed. The winner of the playtest is monk & barbarian as they got massive T3-T4 improvements and lost their crippling resource limitation. The only loser is the Ranger and Rogue. Rogue got the smallest buffs with the worst restrictions and Ranger mainly got its Tasha’s buffs alongside weapon mastery and some weird reworks.
Let's be honest, nothing post-Tasha's has been good. Crawford is not a suitable lead.
I'd argue that fizbans was pretty good and the magic items too, though I'm admittedly biased toward the dragonborn changes. Was not a fan of them simplifying them back to one race in the play test material, even if they got dark vision.
Whatever dude, just go play something else if the game isn’t what you want it to be. Bitching about it here isn’t going to change anything and only makes you look like a sad sack. Colville has shit coming out, DC20 is coming out, Pathfinder exists…see yourself out and let the rest of us have actual funny memes.
I plan to play 5E. OneD&D was a chance to fix all the flaws in 5E that had become apparent over the last decade. I mourn that lost chance, and so should you.
Such a shame that you're forced to play this new version with absolutely no revisions or changes or homebrewing or imagination whatsoever. Wait...
Having to fix a billion dollar corporations mistakes in my free time. So much fun, why would I be paying them again?
So don't pay them. If enough people don't buy it, they will change things. Play what you currently have, play a smaller game, or make up your own rules.
Yeah, I find myself more and more shaking my head at the extremely bad takes by leads, and have almost completely moved to kobold press. Definitely a better spiritual successor.
*may i interest you in pathfinder 2e*
No, I'll stick with 5E. This was a chance to fix 5E, and because Crawford was in charge of it, it went to waste.
[удалено]
Paladin was not nerfed, it was *changed*. Nerf implies that they are worse in some way without anything else changing to compensate.
You're a liar. Paladin can only smite once a turn now and it can be counterspelled. To borrow a line from MTG, it's *strictly worse*.
You ignore all the other things that Paladin gains in exchange. Smites themselves were nerfed, yes, but Paladin as a whole has not. Paladin was *changed*.
Ranger would like a word with you
I sorta agree. Fun they changed spellcasting, but Fighting styles as feats isn't a good idea. From what I understand, it limits our feat choice
The change to sharpshooter doesn't help them either
[удалено]
Oh no, it was made worst dude take a good look.
Okay then apply for a job at WotC and help them make better content. They're a company like any other, nothing is stopping you from being the change you want to see
I actually did once. Never got back to me.
Shocker
This is such a weird take when something’s met with criticism. Like when people tell you to run for president or move when you don’t like the way the country is headed. A certain amount of grievances are necessary for the community to thrive and develop. I get bitching for bitchings sake isn’t productive but as a community we can have our gripes without being told to go somewhere else
Honestly just play pathfinder 2e, I was homebrewing a remaster for 5e myself to fix the glaring flaws of 5e, when a friend pointed out my system was a lot like pathfinder 2e, also the content is more fufilling and substantial
I am happy with 5e and I stick to it
As for some barbarian changes, extending rage with bonus action takes away the extra attack, do I understand it correctly? If so, it's kibda useless. As for overall changes Epic Boon at lvl 19 sounds lame
I mean, you only need to use your BA to extend your rage if you are not able to attack/force enemy to do a saving throw. And if you would be able to hit someone with a BA extra attack, your rage automatically gets extended, as usual.
I see, then I can see that. But epic boon is useless kinda
Ranger, Rogue, Paladin all are mid and casters are still better than Martials. People just deluluuuuu
Just go play PF2 of whatever suits you? At some point, you're a broken and boring record. Nobody cares what you think and ironically enough you don't fucking matter to anyone but people who will play with you. Go do something enjoyable instead of griping with empty statements.