I wasn’t surprised about the Dragonborn. They had made massive improvements to it and the breath weapon in Fizban’s, then completely nerfed it in this UA
No yeah definetly it’s like giving you amazing tools to do a job but then tell you that while on the actual job you have to use the work tools who are rusty and faulty. Definitely hope they just make Fizban’s Dragonborn the official one. Literally have seen NO ONE say they want the old Dragonborn to be the PHB one for 2024
Agreed. At first when JC began talking I thought he was entirely dense to not realise that the whole problem with the new Dragonborn was that it was so inferior to the extremely refined Fizban's dragonborn. However, I'm glad that he clarified that the new Dragonborn race doesn't replace the Fizban's version and is rather expected to work alongside it. That fact alone will probably make people go easier on the new Dragonborn in the future.
@@envytee9659 I think they’ll just adjust the breath weapon to align better with Fizban’s and that would honestly fix the issue most have with it. I’m mostly just glad someone finally raised their hand and asked “why don’t Dragonborn have Darkvision?” Before the first UA.
Why create Dragonborn to "work alongside" the Fizban's Dragonborn? Why not just make the Fizban's Dragonborn the new PHB race, tweaking if needed? Why reinvent the wheel?
Yeah even understanding that they were going back through the PHB and would likely touch up on upgrades later still didn't help me stop thinking they should've just kept the Fizban version
The fact that they specifically mentioned GWM/SS damage, Eldritch Blast, the Dragonborn breath weapon being a straight downgrade from Fizban’s, and Ardling being Aasimar’s bestial cousin tells me they’re seriously listening to our written comments and not just paying lip service. It’s really reassuring
And fizbans Breath weapon was already nerfed PHB one compensated by feat level power 5th level unlock option (when run RAW). I really hope the dragonborn breath weapon gets to be cantrip+, but with recharge like dragon breath (or even return of 2 and 3e cooldown roll) with option to buff it by expending hit dice (the constitution tied aspect of the character sheet).
The talk about moving away from “mother may I” mechanics makes me really hopeful for a GOOD overhaul of the wild magic sorceror, because that is the biggest problem with the subclass RAW imo Edit: they addressed that explicitly less than one minute after I typed out this comment lmao
That's the problem with the ranger' original favored foe, and a few other mechanics. A small tweak to remove the DM part in those would put everything back in line and give back the agency that was removed from the player.
I don’t know how so many people have an issue with the wild mage, it sounds like DMs just don’t like the random chaos that the class is supposed to bring. I both run a game with a wild mage and play one ; wild magic goes off fairly often because the player uses their tides of chaos and I always have wild magic go off the next time they cast a spell. You know… how the class is supposed to work. I even have threw in the countdown homebrew rule that was used in Dimension 20, in that when the wild mage casts a spell and rolls the d20 and does not get a 1, the threshold for wild magic to go off increases by 1. So then the chance of it going off is 1 to 2, then 1 to 3, etc.
@@JustinTotino the homebrew rule in D20 is a great one! I use it too. As you say, when DM and player cooperate and have the same goals for the flavour in mind, it can be a really fun subclass! But what people take issue with is that the subclass kind of requires that you and the DM cooperate and have the same goals for flavour in mind, and if you don’t, it can be really unsatisfying So it’s less an issue of “wild magic sorceror is bad” and more “wild magic sorceror CAN be bad under certain circumstances that other classes are much less affected by due to being less reliant on DM fiat” It’s a criticism of design philosophy rather than the class itself; done well, it’s actually one of my fav 5E classes! 🙂
@@jeffdietz630 I'm not particularly expecting a change, but it's probably a subject that most people have encountered who entertain the idea of playing either an illusionist of whatever flavor they want or the Arcane Trickster subclass. It would just be neat if those pain points would be addressed in a more community-at-large sense.
The illusionist situation usually comes back to players thinking minor illusion and silent image works like major image or programmed illusion. Also the interpetation of how an enemy interacts with an illusion compared to the player can be an issue.
@@arandomcheese I do agree - there's a lot of DM leeway between the "intended reaction" of an illusion by the player's target vs. The "Actual reaction" that takes place. "I want to scare target" vs. "The target is nonplussed" or some other reaction from the many available. The illusion spells are sone of the more concisely written spells, but they still somehow falter in the actual play situations in terms of players ability to trust they will work how they think it will work.
Pure illusions are kinda always going to be unfortunately, because illusions don't create things, they create flavor text. And whether your DM has NPCs react to flavor text or not is always going to be something that's DM dependent. Honestly with illusionists you really have to look at your GM and how they react to what you do. When you walk into a cultured social scene with a hidebound barbarian carrying a bloody axe, do NPCs react differently than a well-dressed nobleman doing the same? Has the GM ever had NPCs react to your characters race? If the answer is no, I'd advise against trying to use illusions.
Thank gods, I am dual wielding war fans and I had to take two-weapon fighting and the dual wielder feat in order to be even mildly effective. It works now, but it ate through my options for any other things. Also, LOVE not having to use my bonus action to make my second strike. Thanks Jer!!!
I'm excited to hear about the bastion system. My players completely cleared out the Death House, and broke the curse. As a show of gratitude, Ismark's first official act as the new burgomaster signed the deed over to them.
@@JKSSubstandard They didnt, fizbans is a nerf in all ways but the level 5 options to base dragonborn, and pinning the viability of a race on 1 option is bad design.
@@AwesomeWookiee it's really not. Just make it as effective as a cantrip (other races get free cantrips which can do damage) or make it more effective and provide a scaling recharge. Something based on proficiency bonus per rest or a recharge roll like an actual dragon that scales with level (on a 6, then on a 5 and 6, then on a 4, 5, and 6) It's literally the only feature anyone actually cares about when they see "dragon person" as a player option. They want to breath fire (or ice, or whatever)
@@jonathanrose5490 Thing is it is even less effective than cantrips due to being limited to Proficiency per Long Rest and replacing an attack. Imagine if a Species were like, "Hey you get a 1d10 cantrip... but you can only use it twice a day until you reach level 5." And then when you finally reach level 5 it is like, "Cool now you can do 2d10 damage, but still only once per turn even if you have extra attack, and you still can only do it three times a day."
@@StriderZessei optimal bladesingers never touched GWM, but I've been playing a hexblade without GWM PAM CBE or SS just to see how it'd feel, and their still such a loaded class with so much utility
@@azrazelhananto For sure! I'm just saying that I hope whatever changes they make to the 'Warrior' stuff those classes use, they make sure to review how they interact.
I appreciate the idea of giving Warrior group more specialized weapon features since currently weapon distinctions inherently are lacking. But I do hope there is some plan to deal with all the Warriors scattered around outside the Warrior group now. Rogue and Ranger despite being mostly weapon wielders obviously didn't get anything (other than ranger fighting styles) from the Warrior group in the last UA. Paladin is in Priest, Artificer is in Expert, Monk doesn't even use weapons mostly. All martials need cool and rewarding uses of their weapons. Not just the ones in the Warrior group.
I'm gonna slightly disagree here. From my understanding Barbarian, Fighter and Monk are the Warrior Classes in this One D&D update, so it's inaccurate to consider the like of Ranger, Paladin and Rogue shouldn't get the same attention imo. Those classes having other things going for them such as spells and skills. Warriors should be allowed to have something unique to them and if that comes in the form of weapon abilities then so be it.
@@nojusticenetwork9309 I kind of fundamentally disagree. Weapons need distinguishing features so there is some reason to pick a longsword vs a spear vs a poleaxe. This remains true for being a choice for Paladin, Ranger or Rogue (but not for Monk since they don't even use the things other than Kensei). Fighter Barbarian and Monk as rather weak base classes in 5e do need some unique stuff to give them a boost, but that should NOT be unique weapon usage. Otherwise you get this stupid situation where Paladin still doesn't care at all if they are holding a polearm or a longsword and has plain repetitive combat options while their contemporary fighter suddenly does even though they are generally seen as equivalent martial front liners. Weapons should have more inherent distinctions and uses in combat and Fighter, Barbarian and Monk should have good features on top of that to complement better weapon use.
@@TheEmperorGulcasa i feel like you both are wanting the same thing like as he said yes rangers,rogues,etc have other things going for them so warriors should get there own thing to really show case that they are the best at what they do and that can come from specfic abilites in how they use their weapons however i also agree that weapons themselves could use features that rangers/rogues etc would that benefit from.
Rangers got a huge buff in the last UA. Prepared spells, Hunter’s Mark at 1st level that doesn’t cost concentration or a spell slot. Low level play, that base Ranger can now stack Hex (free lvl 1 feet) and Hunter’s Mark. 2nd level add archery and that’s a lot of bonus damage at level 2.
@@adamjohnson182 Rangers are definitely a lot better. If the power level of other martials is comparable to 5e or the current rogue, they are fine (although that's bad since most martials suck). But if Warrior group is brought up significantly (which it should, since again, they sucked in 5e mostly) then it's still possible that with those buffs Ranger is again behind or lackluster.
you hit the nail on the head with the chromatic/metallic/gem dragonborn options in fizban’s! they were practically perfect! please don’t go back to the drawing board when you’ve already MADE a really good solution everyone likes
I think they have to though, possibly because of consumer protection laws in some areas. But I'm cautiously optimistic about it if they did fully read the feedback.
I think the one problem with Fizban's Dragonborn is that spellcasters are discouraged from choosing them, since only Martials advantage from replacing their extra attacks
I’m really excited for the “Martials don’t need a specific feat” thing. I’m also hoping they fix the sneak attack thing, since they seem to understand the Martial damage issues
I’m liking what I’m hearing about why they changed warrior feats. If they have more built in abilities for risk reward damage output, that will help bridge that gap of power level. I hope they can figure the martial balance out.
the big issue isn't just damage, which I agree needs to be addressed. Casters just DO MORE THINGS than martials and until a barbarian gets a useful AoE fear or the fighter can hit a spell caster in the throat to stop him from using verbal components or being grappled stops somatic and maybe material components casters are just going to have the edge. They have access to a rules system (spells and spell slots) that martials just don't and both have access to skills so unless they just start giving martials flat bonuses to them (unlikely) then casters will be able to compete with them there too.
I'm glad they explained how they consider responses that fall within certain percentage ranges too, but.....this is *not* meant to be fan-voting. Whether it turns out to be just that is up to WoTC.
i cant tell if you are being sarcastic. personally, i like hearing how and why the designers make the decisions they do. it gives us players some insight, which is always nice
Simple fix to balance great weapon master: you may choose to add your proficiency bonus to the damage roll instead of the attack roll. It's less drastic of a damage increase, and scales more consistently as you level up.
I think that actually makes the attack do less damage on average unless your target has a very low ac, at which point the extra damage is superfluous anyway
@@jackdiddles4304 that's what makes it more of a strategic choice. Swing extra hard at the naked kobold, or strike a little more precisely at the knight in full plate? And if we're talking superfluous, I'd argue that the extra damage in the current UA is completely negligible with extra PB damage only once per turn regardless of the number of attacks. At least this way, it scales as you level and get more attacks.
It's an uninteresting tactical choice. Attack and damage feed into the same pool, and the output is only ever DPR. Being able to shuffle them around just means you'll use the damage bonus on low-AC enemies and your regular attack on high-AC enemies - a no brainer that doesn't merit any tactical consideration, other than guessing enemy AC in the first turn or so. The way they did GWM in the Expert Classes UA is fine - you have to choose one attack per turn to apply your PB to your damage. In terms of balance, it does not compare well to the 2014 GWM, but I should hope it wouldn't! The previous version dictated buildcraft way too strictly. I really like that WotC is doing away with "build-defining" feats, and folding core effectiveness into the classes themselves.
Somehow for my group the "roll a 20 get inspiration" generated far less inspiration than the "roll a 1 get inspiration", that made so much inspiration that the player started to give inspiration to passing animals, plants and at times enemies
Generally, players roll a fair bit more 20s than 1s, since it's always their prerogative to gain advantage and avoid disadvantage, and their characters give them plenty of tools to do so. I'm led to conclude that your group has been bewitched; did you check under the game table for hex-bags?
@@matthewkondziela6733 inspiration being proactive rather than reactive sucks. It should be either a reroll or a flat +5 bonus where you spend the resource in response to failing a roll you care about. The problem with the current design is that there isn't a clear moment to use inspiration, so people horde it or forget about it.
@@bonzwah1 in the first UA, that's correct. But in the second one they corrected that. Now you can use it after you roll, rather than having to use it before the roll.
I like the changes! But monsters will need to be much more powerful to still pose a challenge, I hope we can get some upgrades or new options for monsters :)
Well, the thief's "use an object as bonus action" option on cunning action was really great, and I don't think they gave us anything as interesting as that in return. In fact, when they talked about the rogue, they specifically said that it was a beloved class and they should be careful with it, and they slayed it! On the other hand, if they take out the use the object action and an item by item approach, maybe we can finally see those ball bearings, acid flasks and potions be used.
It adds an extra step of complexity for new players tho. Better to have more people able to access the game and get comfortable before piling on extra decisions.
@@Andrewc87563 Then have suggested first levels or something. By your logic a new player should never be a caster or anything outside of a champion fighter. If they are really struggling already then make a character for them. This goes outside of the 1st level feat thing.
@@Andrewc87563 We want to say 'a little complexity never hurt anyone', but that's not necessarily true. However, we do firmly believe players should be given enough options and choices to make fairly complex and unique characters, and this is something we've found vanilla 5e to be sorely, sorely lacking. There's a reason we went back to Pathfinder 1e. The kind of characters we enjoy there are simply not possible in 5e, even with the normal classes.
@@user-le7mk6dx5p How long ago since you introduced teenager not great at maths or a great reader? The survey group will all be existing and experienced players not new people. The survey is one thing testing with key target groups is another.
@@ChristopherLaHaise Houserule away but too much at 1st level is a problem. Besides its often n9t until you get into a campaign with others that you figure out the style you really wanted.
I love the idea of each weapon having something unique, like an ability that only that weapon gives. I'd also love to see either a) slashing/bludgeoning/piercing actually meaning something or b) just swapping them all for "physical damage"
Maybe physical attacks have a bonus crit effect by default instead of needing a feat? Bludgeoning is easy, but slashing and piercing damage can be fun to throw ideas around for
@@iselreads2908 ez, bludgeoning can be knocking them prone/knocking them into someone, slashing can be bleeding damage on subsequent turns/cleaving to another enemy beside them, piercing can be pinning someone to an object/piercing through to another enemy
Honestly the biggest issue I have with the OneDnD playtest is how..."ill defined" isn't quite the right phrase but it's close. It's hard to judge rules in a vacuum. Yes I know we're slotting these into the old rules, but my opinion might change drastically once I see all the new rule ideas together. And what even is this? What degree of update to overhaul are we looking at? Because hearing that the dragonborn of Fizban are INTENDED to be used alongside the ones presented raises more questions than it answers. I'm...hestitantly glad about the "may I" features. And I say that as a DM, who feels the same way about inspiration. I think I remembered to give inspiration once. I have enough on my plate without more buy in features. I told my last Wild Magic sorcerer to just roll for it whenever they wanted (with me still having the option to force it) to make sure I didn't forget to ask for it. I don't understand how using an item is included as once of those types of actions, but I suppose I'll wait until you release your new item rules.
This has been my biggest complaint. I get they want to do iterated design, but depending on how much they are shaking up classes and subclasses, we have no idea how any given rule change will actually affect the game.
As a dm I just have the sorcerer roll the d20 every time they cast (including cantrips) instead of having to wait for me to ask. It’s only a 5% chance to actually roll on the wild magic table.
They've said all along, they're replacing the core 3 books, and they're intended to be compatible with all the old 5e supplements and adventures. MotM was designed with One D&D in mind.
You know it really is impressive how much ground Jeremy Crawford was able to cover pretty much off-book. I think it really shows how much time and effort has gone into reviewing the results when he can speak about them in this much detail in a Q&A format.
The light weapon change really helps the fantasy of the melee rogue in particular, because it always felt bad to dual-wield as a rogue because Cunning Action is such a great feature that also feels pivotal to the fantasy, and now you don't have to choose between them on a turn. Love that the Wild Magic Sorcerer was brought up during the "Mother May I" section because I've experienced first hand a DM who hard restricted it's features because it's so dependent on DM approval in the very wording of the subclass. Due to it being so DM dependent, and due to Wild Surge itself being a neutral feature(the list has about equal amounts good, bad, and neutral possibilities), I considered Wild Magic Sorcerer to be down there as the worst subclass in the game alongside Beast Master Ranger despite how amazing the flavor was.
My feelings about the dragonborn is they were more or less perfected in Fizban's. I thought they'd just carry that design forward. Instead were getting a sort of general vs specific ruling for race and I just think that's daft to bury the better design choice outside the (new) phb, why not make the phb better? I'm glad they're listening to the feedback about the Aardling (basically: what about the aasimar as divine counterpart to the tiefling, and beast folk are cool but we're not sure about this divine dimension) which about sums up how I felt. Frankly I'm surprised the Critical Hit rules scored that highly. That was a real shocker. I wonder, seeing as they made sure to frame a technique as Try A then B. If the Cleric UA is going to be an A VARIENT - bit more "out there" in terms of design choices, more daring and there's a chance the community won't like it (or they will) and that will feed into the iteration of the B comparisson: "The rest of the priestly classes." Since I've played several clerics in 5e, this is a UA I am greatly looking forward to.
So many encouraging things happening here. Knowing how much care and consideration you and the team put into pouring over 40,000 surveys gives me a lot of hope for the future of D&D. We can all build this together.
If they are actually doing a big martial change then I will be very interested to see how that works out. My biggest concern though, will be how far Rogue falls behind mechanically, because it's already been slightly nerfed on top of it's subpar performance in general
True They also removed the niche of the rogue being the somewhat martial "expert class" by making Ranger's effectively objectively better than them in most situations. Regardless Bards were already better. I am heavily disappointed with the development of the rogue. Rogue's simplicity may seem like a good thing but it is incredible restrictive. Cunning action is great but with few choices and being treated and being mechanically grounded means you character will always be behind the fantastical classes and in terms of build, you have very little customization. The direction they went with the rogue is likely even worse as they made decision making even weaker. :/
D&D: "hey, everyone, we are playtesting a new edition! pls interact with this new thing, so you'll have an even better D&D!" Hasbro: "why is no one buying D&D 5E stuff?!"
@@GZilla311 Crawford says in the video tomorrow’s UA will be shorter than the previous two; containing the new Cleric, and that Druid and Paladin will come later
Man. These game designers are messing around. I love how they use player feedback to make these incremental changes, test it, and keep optimizing it. Honestly, this systematic approach and FOCUS ON PLAYER FEEDBACK are what drive the ridiculously high survey participation. I love how they are rolling this "new" D&D and I'm looking forward to it :)
Has anyone stopped to think that the exceptionally high response rate includes most probably 3 to 4 times the number of players, to DM's. This skews the responses significantly into a player-dominant experience where characters get to be Gods at Level 1 and the DM isn't supposed to say, "Um...no." Some might think, "Democracy!" - again, no - the DM runs the world, if you don't like a DM's world and rules interpretations, you can walk off to another table. Don't expect DM's to shape their game to players needs - that's backwards talk!
@@Giby86You have a point, but as WoTC is choosing which elements of the game they adapt and change in OneD&D, they're leaning heavily into new player mechanics. At least those have been the subjects in the playtest so far. This focus makes the essential role of DM more complex, but less fun IMHO.
The DMG needs to mainly be about encounter, adventure, and campaign design. What makes up each of these aspects and how to design them. Encounters being the building blocks of adventures and adventures being the building blocks of campaigns. Encounter designs need to be much more then just trying to balance combat encounters. It need to mainly focus on how to set up encounters, how can players overcome an encounter without just fighting something.
My biggest hope is that sorcerers get to choose primal arcane or divine as their list which would make them extremely distinct from wizards, separate from their sub class. Because if I want to be divine chaos or divine dragon sorcerer that sounds cool, if I want to be primal and shadow that’s also really cool. Because sorcerers are weird let me mix and match. That’s why the divine soul sorcerer is so cool, and that still works with the system!
Oi, why do people insist that "more options" is always the answer? There's already a subclass that gives you the full cleric list, and beyond that I want the different casters to play differently, which is hardly going to happen if everyone is using the same spells the same way.
I realy like the attitude towards "must have" feats and warrior classes. I hope that some of the other feats get better balanced too. Magic initiate and lucky seem to be so much more powerful than some of the other lvl 1 feats for example.
I was about to say that JC and the others had to be extremely dense to not realise that all the dissatisfaction with the playtest Dragonborn came from it being so much worse than the Fizban's Dragonborn (which was near perfect imo). I'm so glad that he clarified that new versions of races are very much not intended to outright replace versions in other supplements. This also means that the MotM races also are meant to function alongside older versions of those races, as opposed to outright replacing them.
One D&D is intended to work with 5e supplements. MotM was designed with One D&D in mind. One D&D versions replace 5e PHB versions. MotM versions replace VGtM/MToF versions.
@@envytee9659 Take a look at D&D Beyond, the official online rules resource. VGtM & MToF can no longer be bought (pretty sure they're out-of-print physically too). If you've bought them, you can still access those versions of the races, but they're marked as "(Legacy)", while the MotM version is just the race name. Come 2024, you can expect to see the old 5e core races marked as "(Legacy)", and the One D&D versions as the unmarked defaults. MotM (& Fizban, etc) races will stay unmarked, until/unless a later supplement makes them obsolete.
@@ProperDave The official DnD Wizards site lists numerous links to buy both VGtM and MToF, including Amazon links to buy directly from Wizards RPG Team. The only place they can't be bought is D&D Beyond and the reasoning is completely unknown. However, prior to this interview with JC, DnD Beyond was the only place to officially say that Monsters of the Multiverse content does not replace older content but is meant to work alongside it. Not to mention that the entire ordeal with MotM and whether it was replacing old content went down before Wizards ever acquired DnD Beyond, so you really can't use that and say it was an official WotC decision, as none of those decisions from pre-WotC ownership were ever adjusted or changed by WotC.
It might just be me, but I think using the "Arcane", "Divine", and "Primal" lists with class restrictions on certain spell schools would work really well with a minor tweak to the way spells are organized, like organizing the lists by Spell School, then Spell Level, then Spell Name, instead of the current ordering of Spell Level, and then Spell Name, this could also help increase in importance of spell schools in various other ways. With an added focus on spell schools, it might be interesting to play around with having a single spell be associated with multiple schools, like Cure Wounds could be a Necromancy, Abjuration, or Evocation spell based on who/what performed the spell.
I don't think anyone thought the breath weapon for Dragonborn in the UA was replacing the Fizban's Dragonborn breath weapon. We were dissatisfied because the mechanics of the Fizban's breath weapon should just be universally how breath weapons work. There's literally no reason to play the PHB Dragonborn when Fizban's are just better, and the UA failed to change that.
I’m so impressed and encourage by this video! I am surprised at how open about the process JC is being, and I’m grateful that Todd asked so many of our burning questions. More than ever, I feel optimistic that this game is in good hands, and that the next version will be an improvement over 5e. 👍👍
All of this feels really exciting but I'm really disappointed Artificer will not be included in the book. Having all the classes in a single book would make it much easier
Wait, did they just basically say "If we didnt add terms like Use an Object its because we still want to use the 2014 version" followed by "The 2014 version of Use Object was written badly" and then they claim to have solved that problem in Thief by deleting that part of the Fast Hands feature? HUH? I'm gonna need some follow up questions asked there.
When they were talking about Sharpshooter and them wanting it to not feel like you have to take a fear, I would like for them to do that with warcaster. I feel like presently it is a feat that every spell caster needs to make their builds work. I feel like advantage in concentration should be a feature of most spell casters. Especially those support casters
I would love it if they were to bring back Stone Sorcerer for one of the subclasses for sorcerer. it was really well received by the community and never got to be released in a official book.
I'm pleased to hear that work is being done on encounter design. The thing I loved about 4E was encounter design. It made being a DM so much easier once you understood the system.
Crossbow Expert/Gunner are must-haves because the reloading property otherwise makes those weapons a pointless hindrance. For the Ardling, was that needed? We have Tabaxi, Aarakocra, Kenku, and so forth for the furry kinksters.
I cannot stress enough how excited I am for those weapon options in the Warrior group. I realize it’s not gonna be this UA or the next one, but I’m really hoping it’s the one after that
A feat at 1st level is essential at this point. Almost every campaign I play in house-rules character creation boosts because PCs are just so vanilla and fragile at L1. The two things I've most frequently encountered were the 1st Level Feat, and the other is base HP being increased. I've seen 10 + 1st Level Max HP, and I've also seen 1st Level Class HP + CON Score at Level 1. The latter two played especially well in campaigns like the Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Lost Mine of Phandelver in which there are "gauntlet" style events where rest is impossible at low levels and invariably leads to characters dying, or players getting frustrated.
I'm sure this is something they thought about, and I doubt anyone from the team is going to see this, but I wonder if it's worth considering that the very high across-the-board satisfaction ratings might be skewed somewhat by "ooh, shiny!" enthusiasm for new and potential content, and that the extremely high (it sounds like uncommonly so) engagement rate might actually be an indicator that that is happening. Again, these are smart people, and I imagine they've accounted for it. But it's probably worth thinking about.
I found 5e to be extremely satisfying. My only complaint was the ease of encounters (easy to correct by “upgrading” monsters and with supplementary material), and being locking to specific subclasses. Tashas and Xanathars made them more interesting. 5e got me closer to 2nd my fav edition and i dont intend on dropping extra money on new rules. Expansions, options i can port, yes. New rules? Thats it for me.
Really good info given here. I've very anxious for the UA that addresses warlock, and how they plan on revamping it, considering how it's my favorite class from an RP standpoint, but the spell slots limitation is so aggravating that it's just a basic meme now. Keep up the good work, WOTC, and I'll be watching with great excitement!
The concept is great but I find it weird that a patrons main gift to a warlock seems to be basically blasting things. The mechanics do not match the concept. Warlocks should be about rituals and powerful magics that other magic users would not risk.
I think even just giving Warlock a number of spell slots equal to their Proficiency Bonus would go a long way to making them feel less "one and done" while keeping the thing of only casting at the highest level. They'd still have the least amount of spell slots for any class, but would actually be able to cast more than 2 spells a day without specific Invocations.
If some sorcerers get additional spells, give them to all the sorcerers. Just make them all thematic. Example, for Wild Magic Sorcerer: Expanded spell list: 1st lvl - chaos bolt, earth tremor 3rd - counterspell, blink 5th - far step, synaptic static 7th - prismatic spray, teleport 9th - time stop, prismatic wall - all thematic spells, and none with material components (again fitting the theme of a magic surge).
Absolutely, but a little nitpick: the numbers in the tables for subclass spells indicate the level in the class, not the level of the spell. so they'd be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th-level spells
Still find the interviews cringy, but Jeremy really knocked it out with answering some player side questions. Glad to see them address “mother may I’s” those were obnoxious as a player and GM. Look forward to weapon options, hope they aren’t fluff and can also be used by trained npcs/monsters. Overall, good video.
Thank god you guys are making this kind of video where you discuss the survey results and some of your visions for the next releases. I do still have some concerns that I would like Jeremy to see, but I am definitely excited to see the next UA soon and super excited to see the Warrior UA when it eventually comes out. As for some concerns: I am still a bit worried about the Use an Object action, and I don't like how it was intentionally removed from the Thief, although I understand why you want to move away from "mother may I" abilities. I still believe that the Thief should be able to use their Cunning Action to use magic items, something that I have always house ruled in terms of the Fast Hands feature and Haste, and something that all new players complain about when they find out that using magic items aren't part of the Use an Object feature. The other concern I have is that while I am glad that you are open to creating class spell lists, I think it would just be easier for every class to have a spell list, less confusing to new players. This will especially be true if you decide to leave some spells out for classes that you claim will get the entire spell list for lore reasons (like how Warlocks get access to forbidden and/or forgotten spells that Wizard schools don't cover like Arms/Hunger of Hadar, or how Paladins and Rangers can shape Divine/Primal magic differently than Clerics and Druids, thus resulting in different spell lists for the different classes, each with their own unique spells).
in the warlock case they could always do something similar to what they did for bards. healing spells were in their normal list but they were granted as part of the class. individual spell lists arent really needed especially for mages/divine casters and it makes it awkward when adding new spells
I really hope more people fill out these surveys. Because these numbers are lower than expected. Do keep in mind, if you don’t do these surveys they can’t read our minds in knowing what to update, remove, or rework. I’m also happy to see people actually doing their part in filling out these surveys.
I also hope people fill it out, but as far as I am aware these numbers are far above anything they have had before. Ever. There was not even this much feedback in the entirety of the D&D Next playtest.
** Disregard below, apparently they want everyone to answer surveys Original message: At the same time, you really shouldn't be filling out the survey's unless you actually PLAY with the new rules.
@@snipegrzywa in the video they do say just reading over the rules and giving feedback is also very useful to them. Getting 40,000 pairs of eyes just for comprehension testing alone is good. They want feedback from both camps, those who go over the material but aren't able to test, and those that try it out.
@@LandonTheDM do the surveys ask if you've played or just read? I haven't actually looked at surveys cause I haven't played the new rules and so didn't even bother to open the surveys. At that point its not a playtest, its just design by majority opinion.
I think having specific spell lists for each class is so much better just because it’s easier. Like what’s the point of having three big spell lists if classes can’t even pick from the whole thing anyway?
Bastions sound fun and weapon options will make melee and hopefully archery more then just "I hit." I would like to see more on tool use and crafting, possibly crafting drops with monsters to allow characters to customize their gear without 3rd party books or just paying gold.
How is it mother may I mechanics to use an object but not some of the other things you can do with the fast hands mechanics? Stealing things as a bonus action in combat takes a ton of DM buy in.
Dear Wizards of the Coast, I am a long time D&D player. I have been playing since the 1st edition. I have bought many source books (both yours and from third parties), I actively recruit people to play with me, I play with my children, and I love this game very much. That said however, this game is one of MANY things that clamor for my time and money, and I have no qualms cutting out something that goes against what I believe is right. (For example I was a huge fan of Evermore Park, a LARP park that was most excellent. But when they started disparaging my faith I ceased going entirely. They lost ALL my support, even though I was friends of many of the actors and creators, and had brought many to the park.) Wizards, I find your attitude as a company HIGHLY offensive. I could cite many small things that for the most part I could ignore, but the idea that D&D is "undermonitized" is ridiculous. D&D by far is the most expensive TTRPG out there. I could save a huge amount of money by dropping this hobby. If you begin to ratchet up the price you will be squeezing out not only me and other hobbyists, but likely all the school groups you are purportedly trying to support. We are hobbyists, not cash cows. Continue in this route of turning our beloved game into a mindless mobile app of microtransactions and we will go elsewhere. But this is not even the worst of it. Even if you ruined 6th edition by doing what I had mentioned I had hoped to be able to play the many other systems out there based on the OGL 1.0. However that hope has been shattered by the leaked OGL 1.1. The leaked OGL 1.1 is not an open game licence, it is legalized theft of third party creators, and effectively destroys hundreds of other game systems. Wizards, 3rd party content has created the environment that has allowed your game to flourish. Period. End of line. You are succeeding as a company BECAUSE there is competition. That is how capitalism works. Monopolies cause stagnation, diversity causes abundance. Your sales flourish because other people want to play your system in their games. But if you scare off content creators by threatening to steal their works that goes away. You will absolutely destroy this hobby for millions. In D&D's history, when D&D was the monopoly, the TTRPG hobby floundered and so did D&D. When there was diversity in systems and content, everyone flourished. Furthermore, Your efforts to gain royalties from creators that are barely getting by will simply shut them down. Perhaps this is your goal and you think this will cause others to come to you, but it wont. It will simply kill you along with them. Already there are rumblings of creating separate systems that completely abandon the OGL. In your greed for cash you are driving customers away, not towards you. I know you want to increase revenue. That is understandable and good, but this is the wrong way to do this. If you want revenue, create good content! To be frank, your content Wizards has been sub-par compared to the content created by other 3rd party creators. These amazing kickstarters like "The Seeker's Guide to Twisted Taverns", "Alcamers Almanac of All Things", and "An Unexpected Wedding Invitation" have done far more to benefit my table than MoM, Spelljammer or Witchlight ever have. If you create great content, the money will come. Simple as that. Now I was excited to begin Shadow of the Dragon Queen (and have already bought my copy), and was excited for the D&D movie. Heck, I even began looking at buying the Dragonlance novels since I was enjoying them so much. However, I cannot and will not support bullying and theft. Thus: Be it known Wizards of the Coast, you are on warning from me. If you persist in seeking to steal from creative artists and to further increase prices on your already expensive game in a vain attempt to appease investors, I will terminate my relationship with you. You will not see another cent from me or my friends, and I know that there are others who feel the same. I will cancel my subscriptions, return my books, not play another game, boycott your movie and merchandise, use my voice against you on every platform, and encourage my friends to do the same. (Perhaps I will play Avatar Legends, they aren't in your OGL empire and I have been meaning to pick it up.) However, If you do by some miracle turn this around and drop these horrid ideas, I would be happy to stay, for I do enjoy this game. I await to see what happens, hoping that you make the right choice. Do note that as I am a Father and local youth game club leader, your choice also impacts the next generation of gamers. Sincerely, Stuart A. Harper DM, Player, Creator, & Father
Hopefully the Thief change to Cunning action means that they'll make the current rules on "hands"/Object Interaction no longer feel like a Great Old One patron. If a spell has Somatic components, but not Material, you can’t use the Spellcasting Focus. You need a free hand to make a gesture, and now the Focus hand is full. You need to put the focus down/away to cast the spell. Clerics can use their Shield hand for a Focus and Somatic. (But not for spells that are only Somatic. Now they'd have to put either the shield or sword away.) Removing or dropping the shield costs you an Action. Sheathing a sword costs an Object Interaction (and you only have one Object Interaction per turn.) The rules say you can unsheathe a sword as part of your attack, but in a way that implies it costs an Object Interaction (maybe?). So, no matter how many Actions or Attacks you could make, casting Somatic spells may mean putting a sword away, which means you can't attack with that sheathed weapon. One workaround is to drop the weapon, then use only one Object Interaction to pick it up, rather than the two it would take the Sheathe and Unsheathe it. These rules are confusing when you know about them, (and hard to know about in the first place because they are spread into three or four places in the PHB), and when they're enforced they prevent you from doing things that you'd expect to be able to do. I hope this is one of the things that One D&D makes more clear.
A new system that utilizes Bastions and ally NPC's? I see some people in the office read Stronghold and Followers by MCDM and came to the conclusion that they need to kill competition.
Regarding GWM/SS: I did the math. And PB damage once per round is doing about the same on average as -5/+10 per attack (when accounting for how often you will miss due to the -5). This applies across all tiers of play, across all classes that can benefit from these feats, across most contested AC, and generally with or without advantage/disadvantage. In the UA the accuracy penalty for these feats have been removed, while the damage has been relatively unchanged. And more ways to deal damage through weapon use is apparently coming down the line. This is the buff that martials need!
Wait, you were surprised that reverting to the old dragonborn from the PhB that sure everyone love thematically, but everyone hated mechanically, after presenting us a version much more interesting would give you bad feedback???? Here how to fix the PhB dragon born if you really want a "generalist" version simpler to use then the Fizban version: Keep the Fizban version, Remove the special ability gained base on their color (metallic breath, gem flight and telepathie, and chromatic immunity) and replace them by a cantrip (let us choose any arcane or primal cantrip) (we are dragon born can we have innate dragon magic?) and darkvision and why is it so bad to have a particular dragnborn color (chromatic, gem and metallic) why do you have te revert back to a blend all dragonborn are the same. Fizban dragon born was great. give dragon born 4 choice (just like ardling, elf or teifling have 3) Chromatic (exactly like in Fizaban), Gem (exactly like in Fizban), Metallic (exactly like in Fizban) and Generalist (gaining a cantrip from primal or arcane list and darkvision)
Home bases and Party NPCs was in the AcqInc Book and it was fantastic! Upgrading your base, stats and complication for succedding and failing to maintain your HQ... good stuff, but also more accessible than someone like MCDMs "Strongholds and Followers" which is a HUGE tomb with a lot of complex stuff... but... light on "fun". The AcqInc Book is hands down the most useful content released by wotc for 5e, thank you Penny Arcade. You should all pick it up.
I think Pathfinder 2E had a really cool idea with the versatile heritage mechanic, and I really think Aasimar, Tiefling and possibly even Ardling could be used on multiple different races (a goblin/orc Ardling might have a wolf's head). Plus, you could incorporate other planetouched/undead/lycanthropic/other templates.
I really want to see more downtime mechanical options for crafting, enchanting, etc. I dropped the feat variant rule and created a system where you learn feats and new skills during downtime by training with specific NPCs and rolling a D20 on 8 hours of training and adding related skill modifiers and now my players look forward to down time. Systems like this in place would be great because creating entire systems is hard when you're also trying to keep up with writing a campaign.
The thing I missed the most in 5e was druid not having an animal. They added it in tasha but at the cost of their best feature and only for a time, that sounded weird. Especially because mage and warlock, even arcan trickster and eldritch knight, have easier to get a pet and use it than the druid...
I think the Sharpshooter change made sense for another reason that he didn't mention: The 5e version made it so a hand* crossbow suddenly dealt more damage per round than a heavy crossbow when combined with crossbow expert. The extra damage provided by the feat was so large in comparison with the weapon dice that the weapon dice became irrelevant.
I'm cautiously optimistic about the warrior group, martials have had it rough since the game's inception and the latest subclasses has done what they could to tighten the gap but it still wasn't enough, hope they don't go overboard with it
NGL I’m a little salty about the generalization of half-races. The PHB description of half-elf so accurately described my experience as a biracial person that it’s why I ended getting into D&D. I’ll miss the 5e half-elf 😢
The one thread to hold on to is that it might maybe come back in an Eberron supplement, given half-elves there had a strong, established subculture as their own race separate from their human and elf ancestors. It's not Eberron without the Lyrandar tie to the Khoravar.
The feedback on the feat is very understandable. Backgrounds have kind of done nothing in 5e, so adding a thing that flavours your character around it mechanically works so well
Will dnd beyond be keeping legacy mechanics for 5e giving us a choice what rules are campaigns use for pc creation. I think answering what will happen to the books we purchased and like using would be nice. Commenting as I'm watching
Realistically, I don’t think that the physical books or any of those 5e materials will be obsolete for a long while, in any sense. From my understanding, These new rules are supposed to give you an easier time running and playing a game, but if you’re more comfortable with the rules you’re already using, you shouldn’t miss anything that isn’t optional anyway.
@@Callum07 my only concern honestly is that dnd beyond will change the website so I can't use 5e anymore. I definitely don't like most of one dnd. (Some but not all.) I just don't want nice online feture I have spent money on to be changed. I bought a product, and I love using it in the 5 games I dm. So I want the option to not be forced to use them online.
@@heroofRaven Based on the way they are handling some of the stuff that has recently come out that updates old stuff, it will still be there, but it will be a pain to use the original stuff.
Keep in mind that they're just reworking a core book right now. Nailing down a smaller array (which will still be pretty expansive) with proper design is better than trying to cram everything in. There will definitely be a plethora of additional books later on, though hopefully they will go back to a slightly slower rate of release for them.
One D&D tried the Gurps critical result rules and, surprise, it was not liked, yet its worked from day one in Gurps. That is fascinating. It shows that there is something fundamentally different to both the systems and the audience in both cases.
My current DM had created a custom two-weapon fighting rule that was easy to run and remember… a month later you guys wrote essentially the same thing in your playtest. I can say with play test then and now that I thoroughly enjoy those rules.
I would love to see the Find Familiar spell be more clear as to what the familiar can do and have just three or four familiar types that they then could be changed cosmetically... I want a clockwork owl to officially be possible.
One of the only reasons I didn't do the survey was because I didn't get a chance to play tested. I'm glad that even if I've never played it, my opinion is valued. I will definitely fill out the next survey
Yeah, I wasn't surprised that the dragonborn was low. Their breath weapon sucks. You guys were going in the right direction in Fizban's but then went backwards in the One beta.
So is artificer going to be a core class or not? I'm hoping that they are holding him back because they are doing a lot of work on the question of letting them invent or build stuff
The Artificer isn't from the core 3 books; PHB, MM, or DMG. So it's not being included in any of these UAs, except for it being stated that the Artificer falls into the Expert Class group with the Rogue, Ranger and Bard.
@@bladetytan9025 you're right that it isn't a core class in 5e but they still haven't actually said it isn't going to be in the new edition, unless I missed something. The way they have treated it since Eberon came out makes me think it will be a core class in the end.
@@L337P1R4735 I'm pretty sure it was explicitly stated in the Expert Class UA. "* The Artificer is also an Expert. That Class appears in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything and Eberron: Rising from the Last War, not the Player’s Handbook."
I’m most interested in the warrior play test. I want to see what kinda utility and damage baseline. One small thing I’d like to see is having the monks unarmed martial arts attacks acts light a light weapon, or an additional attack, not clogging up you bonus action, maybe even changing flurry of blows to be part of an attack action as well. So they have more options an design space for their bonus action.
I wasn’t surprised about the Dragonborn. They had made massive improvements to it and the breath weapon in Fizban’s, then completely nerfed it in this UA
No yeah definetly it’s like giving you amazing tools to do a job but then tell you that while on the actual job you have to use the work tools who are rusty and faulty. Definitely hope they just make Fizban’s Dragonborn the official one. Literally have seen NO ONE say they want the old Dragonborn to be the PHB one for 2024
Agreed. At first when JC began talking I thought he was entirely dense to not realise that the whole problem with the new Dragonborn was that it was so inferior to the extremely refined Fizban's dragonborn.
However, I'm glad that he clarified that the new Dragonborn race doesn't replace the Fizban's version and is rather expected to work alongside it.
That fact alone will probably make people go easier on the new Dragonborn in the future.
@@envytee9659 I think they’ll just adjust the breath weapon to align better with Fizban’s and that would honestly fix the issue most have with it. I’m mostly just glad someone finally raised their hand and asked “why don’t Dragonborn have Darkvision?” Before the first UA.
Why create Dragonborn to "work alongside" the Fizban's Dragonborn? Why not just make the Fizban's Dragonborn the new PHB race, tweaking if needed?
Why reinvent the wheel?
Yeah even understanding that they were going back through the PHB and would likely touch up on upgrades later still didn't help me stop thinking they should've just kept the Fizban version
The fact that they specifically mentioned GWM/SS damage, Eldritch Blast, the Dragonborn breath weapon being a straight downgrade from Fizban’s, and Ardling being Aasimar’s bestial cousin tells me they’re seriously listening to our written comments and not just paying lip service. It’s really reassuring
And fizbans Breath weapon was already nerfed PHB one compensated by feat level power 5th level unlock option (when run RAW).
I really hope the dragonborn breath weapon gets to be cantrip+, but with recharge like dragon breath (or even return of 2 and 3e cooldown roll) with option to buff it by expending hit dice (the constitution tied aspect of the character sheet).
@@ANDELE3025 it won’t. Realistically the breath weapon will be you can trade an attack as part of the attack action
I love that you actually talk about the results I hope you will do that for every survey.
The talk about moving away from “mother may I” mechanics makes me really hopeful for a GOOD overhaul of the wild magic sorceror, because that is the biggest problem with the subclass RAW imo
Edit: they addressed that explicitly less than one minute after I typed out this comment lmao
That's the problem with the ranger' original favored foe, and a few other mechanics. A small tweak to remove the DM part in those would put everything back in line and give back the agency that was removed from the player.
I know right
I instantly thought of the Wild Magic Sorcerer when ‘Mother May I’ was brought up
I don’t know how so many people have an issue with the wild mage, it sounds like DMs just don’t like the random chaos that the class is supposed to bring.
I both run a game with a wild mage and play one ; wild magic goes off fairly often because the player uses their tides of chaos and I always have wild magic go off the next time they cast a spell. You know… how the class is supposed to work.
I even have threw in the countdown homebrew rule that was used in Dimension 20, in that when the wild mage casts a spell and rolls the d20 and does not get a 1, the threshold for wild magic to go off increases by 1. So then the chance of it going off is 1 to 2, then 1 to 3, etc.
@@JustinTotino the homebrew rule in D20 is a great one! I use it too.
As you say, when DM and player cooperate and have the same goals for the flavour in mind, it can be a really fun subclass!
But what people take issue with is that the subclass kind of requires that you and the DM cooperate and have the same goals for flavour in mind, and if you don’t, it can be really unsatisfying
So it’s less an issue of “wild magic sorceror is bad” and more “wild magic sorceror CAN be bad under certain circumstances that other classes are much less affected by due to being less reliant on DM fiat”
It’s a criticism of design philosophy rather than the class itself; done well, it’s actually one of my fav 5E classes! 🙂
AD&D did the Wild Mage so much better, but you can't do that with the 5E spell system! A Lightning Bolt from a wild mage was truly scary!
"Mother May I" usually translates to the entire school of Illusion in my experience
Yup but guaranteed they won't nuke that class/subclass because caster. Far easier to justify incredible illusions than a thief deploying caltrops.
@@jeffdietz630 I'm not particularly expecting a change, but it's probably a subject that most people have encountered who entertain the idea of playing either an illusionist of whatever flavor they want or the Arcane Trickster subclass.
It would just be neat if those pain points would be addressed in a more community-at-large sense.
The illusionist situation usually comes back to players thinking minor illusion and silent image works like major image or programmed illusion. Also the interpetation of how an enemy interacts with an illusion compared to the player can be an issue.
@@arandomcheese I do agree - there's a lot of DM leeway between the "intended reaction" of an illusion by the player's target vs. The "Actual reaction" that takes place.
"I want to scare target" vs. "The target is nonplussed" or some other reaction from the many available. The illusion spells are sone of the more concisely written spells, but they still somehow falter in the actual play situations in terms of players ability to trust they will work how they think it will work.
Pure illusions are kinda always going to be unfortunately, because illusions don't create things, they create flavor text. And whether your DM has NPCs react to flavor text or not is always going to be something that's DM dependent. Honestly with illusionists you really have to look at your GM and how they react to what you do.
When you walk into a cultured social scene with a hidebound barbarian carrying a bloody axe, do NPCs react differently than a well-dressed nobleman doing the same? Has the GM ever had NPCs react to your characters race? If the answer is no, I'd advise against trying to use illusions.
Thank gods, I am dual wielding war fans and I had to take two-weapon fighting and the dual wielder feat in order to be even mildly effective. It works now, but it ate through my options for any other things. Also, LOVE not having to use my bonus action to make my second strike. Thanks Jer!!!
Totally agree!
I love how they are sharing the results of the survey. I can't wait for the next One Dnd play test material!
Agreed, it’s great to know that they care to extent on what the community wants and needs for the future.
I'm excited to hear about the bastion system. My players completely cleared out the Death House, and broke the curse. As a show of gratitude, Ismark's first official act as the new burgomaster signed the deed over to them.
I feel like the Dragonborn is a face palm moment. People have been complaining about the breath weapon sucking since pretty much day 1.
The issue is, they actually somewhat fixed it in fizbans, but then immediately nerfed it again. Just make the fizban chromatic the phb standard
Yeah, but the playtest one is completely different to the original phb one.
I think it's actually quite hard to balance a race-based damage option.
@@JKSSubstandard They didnt, fizbans is a nerf in all ways but the level 5 options to base dragonborn, and pinning the viability of a race on 1 option is bad design.
@@AwesomeWookiee it's really not. Just make it as effective as a cantrip (other races get free cantrips which can do damage) or make it more effective and provide a scaling recharge.
Something based on proficiency bonus per rest or a recharge roll like an actual dragon that scales with level (on a 6, then on a 5 and 6, then on a 4, 5, and 6)
It's literally the only feature anyone actually cares about when they see "dragon person" as a player option. They want to breath fire (or ice, or whatever)
@@jonathanrose5490 Thing is it is even less effective than cantrips due to being limited to Proficiency per Long Rest and replacing an attack. Imagine if a Species were like, "Hey you get a 1d10 cantrip... but you can only use it twice a day until you reach level 5." And then when you finally reach level 5 it is like, "Cool now you can do 2d10 damage, but still only once per turn even if you have extra attack, and you still can only do it three times a day."
The way he addressed GWM and SS makes me really hopeful for some powerful buffs to the Warrior test group.
hope paladin (even though it's already a great class) gets some of the love too
I just hope this doesn't ruin martial-focused casters (Hexblades, Bladesingers)
Inb4 it's just battlemaster mainlined for the warrior group.
@@StriderZessei optimal bladesingers never touched GWM, but I've been playing a hexblade without GWM PAM CBE or SS just to see how it'd feel, and their still such a loaded class with so much utility
@@azrazelhananto For sure! I'm just saying that I hope whatever changes they make to the 'Warrior' stuff those classes use, they make sure to review how they interact.
I appreciate the idea of giving Warrior group more specialized weapon features since currently weapon distinctions inherently are lacking. But I do hope there is some plan to deal with all the Warriors scattered around outside the Warrior group now. Rogue and Ranger despite being mostly weapon wielders obviously didn't get anything (other than ranger fighting styles) from the Warrior group in the last UA. Paladin is in Priest, Artificer is in Expert, Monk doesn't even use weapons mostly. All martials need cool and rewarding uses of their weapons. Not just the ones in the Warrior group.
I'm gonna slightly disagree here. From my understanding Barbarian, Fighter and Monk are the Warrior Classes in this One D&D update, so it's inaccurate to consider the like of Ranger, Paladin and Rogue shouldn't get the same attention imo. Those classes having other things going for them such as spells and skills.
Warriors should be allowed to have something unique to them and if that comes in the form of weapon abilities then so be it.
@@nojusticenetwork9309 I kind of fundamentally disagree. Weapons need distinguishing features so there is some reason to pick a longsword vs a spear vs a poleaxe. This remains true for being a choice for Paladin, Ranger or Rogue (but not for Monk since they don't even use the things other than Kensei). Fighter Barbarian and Monk as rather weak base classes in 5e do need some unique stuff to give them a boost, but that should NOT be unique weapon usage. Otherwise you get this stupid situation where Paladin still doesn't care at all if they are holding a polearm or a longsword and has plain repetitive combat options while their contemporary fighter suddenly does even though they are generally seen as equivalent martial front liners. Weapons should have more inherent distinctions and uses in combat and Fighter, Barbarian and Monk should have good features on top of that to complement better weapon use.
@@TheEmperorGulcasa i feel like you both are wanting the same thing
like as he said yes rangers,rogues,etc have other things going for them so warriors should get there own thing to really show case that they are the best at what they do and that can come from specfic abilites in how they use their weapons
however i also agree that weapons themselves could use features that rangers/rogues etc would that benefit from.
Rangers got a huge buff in the last UA. Prepared spells, Hunter’s Mark at 1st level that doesn’t cost concentration or a spell slot. Low level play, that base Ranger can now stack Hex (free lvl 1 feet) and Hunter’s Mark. 2nd level add archery and that’s a lot of bonus damage at level 2.
@@adamjohnson182 Rangers are definitely a lot better. If the power level of other martials is comparable to 5e or the current rogue, they are fine (although that's bad since most martials suck). But if Warrior group is brought up significantly (which it should, since again, they sucked in 5e mostly) then it's still possible that with those buffs Ranger is again behind or lackluster.
you hit the nail on the head with the chromatic/metallic/gem dragonborn options in fizban’s! they were practically perfect! please don’t go back to the drawing board when you’ve already MADE a really good solution everyone likes
I think they have to though, possibly because of consumer protection laws in some areas. But I'm cautiously optimistic about it if they did fully read the feedback.
I wouldn't say perfect, more like adequate as opposed to the utterly dismal PHB version.
@@evonthon which areas? Even in the EU, that doesn't at all seem like it'd be the case. It's a new product.
it makes me bad they forced them to be evil just because of their color
I think the one problem with Fizban's Dragonborn is that spellcasters are discouraged from choosing them, since only Martials advantage from replacing their extra attacks
I’m really excited for the “Martials don’t need a specific feat” thing. I’m also hoping they fix the sneak attack thing, since they seem to understand the Martial damage issues
I’m liking what I’m hearing about why they changed warrior feats. If they have more built in abilities for risk reward damage output, that will help bridge that gap of power level.
I hope they can figure the martial balance out.
the big issue isn't just damage, which I agree needs to be addressed. Casters just DO MORE THINGS than martials and until a barbarian gets a useful AoE fear or the fighter can hit a spell caster in the throat to stop him from using verbal components or being grappled stops somatic and maybe material components casters are just going to have the edge. They have access to a rules system (spells and spell slots) that martials just don't and both have access to skills so unless they just start giving martials flat bonuses to them (unlikely) then casters will be able to compete with them there too.
Taking actual time to explain how percentages work with fan voting... amazing stuff guys.. can't wait for more.
I'm glad they explained how they consider responses that fall within certain percentage ranges too, but.....this is *not* meant to be fan-voting. Whether it turns out to be just that is up to WoTC.
i cant tell if you are being sarcastic. personally, i like hearing how and why the designers make the decisions they do. it gives us players some insight, which is always nice
It's depressing, really.
Simple fix to balance great weapon master: you may choose to add your proficiency bonus to the damage roll instead of the attack roll.
It's less drastic of a damage increase, and scales more consistently as you level up.
I think the star wars 5e system does that, along with sharpshooter
I think that actually makes the attack do less damage on average unless your target has a very low ac, at which point the extra damage is superfluous anyway
@@jackdiddles4304 that's what makes it more of a strategic choice. Swing extra hard at the naked kobold, or strike a little more precisely at the knight in full plate? And if we're talking superfluous, I'd argue that the extra damage in the current UA is completely negligible with extra PB damage only once per turn regardless of the number of attacks. At least this way, it scales as you level and get more attacks.
maybe give it 2x prof bonus to damage instead of bonus to hit
It's an uninteresting tactical choice. Attack and damage feed into the same pool, and the output is only ever DPR. Being able to shuffle them around just means you'll use the damage bonus on low-AC enemies and your regular attack on high-AC enemies - a no brainer that doesn't merit any tactical consideration, other than guessing enemy AC in the first turn or so.
The way they did GWM in the Expert Classes UA is fine - you have to choose one attack per turn to apply your PB to your damage. In terms of balance, it does not compare well to the 2014 GWM, but I should hope it wouldn't! The previous version dictated buildcraft way too strictly. I really like that WotC is doing away with "build-defining" feats, and folding core effectiveness into the classes themselves.
Somehow for my group the "roll a 20 get inspiration" generated far less inspiration than the "roll a 1 get inspiration", that made so much inspiration that the player started to give inspiration to passing animals, plants and at times enemies
Generally, players roll a fair bit more 20s than 1s, since it's always their prerogative to gain advantage and avoid disadvantage, and their characters give them plenty of tools to do so. I'm led to conclude that your group has been bewitched; did you check under the game table for hex-bags?
my players would get inspiration and forget they had it until they got more then never used that. very frustrating
@@matthewkondziela6733 inspiration being proactive rather than reactive sucks. It should be either a reroll or a flat +5 bonus where you spend the resource in response to failing a roll you care about. The problem with the current design is that there isn't a clear moment to use inspiration, so people horde it or forget about it.
Do you play with Wil Wheaton?
@@bonzwah1 in the first UA, that's correct. But in the second one they corrected that. Now you can use it after you roll, rather than having to use it before the roll.
Weapon options are good. Can't wait to see it
I’m with you there
I really hope they scale weapon damage die like cantrips scale
@@fasterpet interesting idea. Single target damage should be martial territory and I'm all for giving it back to them
@@fasterpet Well martial classes get more attacks per round. That's your scaling..
@@wingedhussar2909 It scales way worse than Wizard damage
I like the changes! But monsters will need to be much more powerful to still pose a challenge, I hope we can get some upgrades or new options for monsters :)
Well, the thief's "use an object as bonus action" option on cunning action was really great, and I don't think they gave us anything as interesting as that in return. In fact, when they talked about the rogue, they specifically said that it was a beloved class and they should be careful with it, and they slayed it!
On the other hand, if they take out the use the object action and an item by item approach, maybe we can finally see those ball bearings, acid flasks and potions be used.
They CAREFULLY dissected the Rogue, no lies there, uhm uhm.
@@fiethsing9988 dissected/ vivisected tomatoe/ tomahto
I like the sound of the bastion system a comprehensive ruleset sounds good.
This kind’ve makes me want to drop a resume off at WOTC… I love how they analyze and evaluate experiences
I always gave a Feat at 1st level for everyone. It helped players make their characters a bit more unique.
It adds an extra step of complexity for new players tho. Better to have more people able to access the game and get comfortable before piling on extra decisions.
@@Andrewc87563 Then have suggested first levels or something. By your logic a new player should never be a caster or anything outside of a champion fighter. If they are really struggling already then make a character for them. This goes outside of the 1st level feat thing.
@@Andrewc87563 We want to say 'a little complexity never hurt anyone', but that's not necessarily true.
However, we do firmly believe players should be given enough options and choices to make fairly complex and unique characters, and this is something we've found vanilla 5e to be sorely, sorely lacking.
There's a reason we went back to Pathfinder 1e. The kind of characters we enjoy there are simply not possible in 5e, even with the normal classes.
@@user-le7mk6dx5p How long ago since you introduced teenager not great at maths or a great reader?
The survey group will all be existing and experienced players not new people. The survey is one thing testing with key target groups is another.
@@ChristopherLaHaise Houserule away but too much at 1st level is a problem. Besides its often n9t until you get into a campaign with others that you figure out the style you really wanted.
I love the idea of each weapon having something unique, like an ability that only that weapon gives. I'd also love to see either a) slashing/bludgeoning/piercing actually meaning something or b) just swapping them all for "physical damage"
Maybe physical attacks have a bonus crit effect by default instead of needing a feat? Bludgeoning is easy, but slashing and piercing damage can be fun to throw ideas around for
@@iselreads2908 ez, bludgeoning can be knocking them prone/knocking them into someone, slashing can be bleeding damage on subsequent turns/cleaving to another enemy beside them, piercing can be pinning someone to an object/piercing through to another enemy
Honestly the biggest issue I have with the OneDnD playtest is how..."ill defined" isn't quite the right phrase but it's close. It's hard to judge rules in a vacuum. Yes I know we're slotting these into the old rules, but my opinion might change drastically once I see all the new rule ideas together. And what even is this? What degree of update to overhaul are we looking at? Because hearing that the dragonborn of Fizban are INTENDED to be used alongside the ones presented raises more questions than it answers.
I'm...hestitantly glad about the "may I" features. And I say that as a DM, who feels the same way about inspiration. I think I remembered to give inspiration once. I have enough on my plate without more buy in features. I told my last Wild Magic sorcerer to just roll for it whenever they wanted (with me still having the option to force it) to make sure I didn't forget to ask for it. I don't understand how using an item is included as once of those types of actions, but I suppose I'll wait until you release your new item rules.
This has been my biggest complaint. I get they want to do iterated design, but depending on how much they are shaking up classes and subclasses, we have no idea how any given rule change will actually affect the game.
As a dm I just have the sorcerer roll the d20 every time they cast (including cantrips) instead of having to wait for me to ask. It’s only a 5% chance to actually roll on the wild magic table.
They've said all along, they're replacing the core 3 books, and they're intended to be compatible with all the old 5e supplements and adventures. MotM was designed with One D&D in mind.
"Don't worry martials, we're baking in your buffs into the base class instead of feats!"
Rogues: "Am I dead to you?"
Lol, yeah I’m expecting rogue changes to be below 40% in the next feedback review. Once those are in we should be good on the rogue front
Paladin stuck in Priest. Am I not a warrior anymore?
WotC: "Yes, actually."
Maybe the new weapons could help out rogue!? I hope they show some love to rogues
@@lexas1234 I don't believe the solution is a buff to weapons. That's just too easy to multiclass dip into.
You know it really is impressive how much ground Jeremy Crawford was able to cover pretty much off-book.
I think it really shows how much time and effort has gone into reviewing the results when he can speak about them in this much detail in a Q&A format.
Todd doesn't ask any questions. This is scripted and there's definitely a tele prompter in the background.
The light weapon change really helps the fantasy of the melee rogue in particular, because it always felt bad to dual-wield as a rogue because Cunning Action is such a great feature that also feels pivotal to the fantasy, and now you don't have to choose between them on a turn.
Love that the Wild Magic Sorcerer was brought up during the "Mother May I" section because I've experienced first hand a DM who hard restricted it's features because it's so dependent on DM approval in the very wording of the subclass. Due to it being so DM dependent, and due to Wild Surge itself being a neutral feature(the list has about equal amounts good, bad, and neutral possibilities), I considered Wild Magic Sorcerer to be down there as the worst subclass in the game alongside Beast Master Ranger despite how amazing the flavor was.
My feelings about the dragonborn is they were more or less perfected in Fizban's. I thought they'd just carry that design forward. Instead were getting a sort of general vs specific ruling for race and I just think that's daft to bury the better design choice outside the (new) phb, why not make the phb better?
I'm glad they're listening to the feedback about the Aardling (basically: what about the aasimar as divine counterpart to the tiefling, and beast folk are cool but we're not sure about this divine dimension) which about sums up how I felt. Frankly I'm surprised the Critical Hit rules scored that highly. That was a real shocker.
I wonder, seeing as they made sure to frame a technique as Try A then B. If the Cleric UA is going to be an A VARIENT - bit more "out there" in terms of design choices, more daring and there's a chance the community won't like it (or they will) and that will feed into the iteration of the B comparisson: "The rest of the priestly classes."
Since I've played several clerics in 5e, this is a UA I am greatly looking forward to.
Damn. Too bad the Ardling didn't get "dusted". 😒 Hopefully, they'll at least be made subtypes of the Aasimar. Guardinal ancestry?
So many encouraging things happening here. Knowing how much care and consideration you and the team put into pouring over 40,000 surveys gives me a lot of hope for the future of D&D. We can all build this together.
If they are actually doing a big martial change then I will be very interested to see how that works out.
My biggest concern though, will be how far Rogue falls behind mechanically, because it's already been slightly nerfed on top of it's subpar performance in general
True
They also removed the niche of the rogue being the somewhat martial "expert class" by making Ranger's effectively objectively better than them in most situations. Regardless Bards were already better. I am heavily disappointed with the development of the rogue. Rogue's simplicity may seem like a good thing but it is incredible restrictive. Cunning action is great but with few choices and being treated and being mechanically grounded means you character will always be behind the fantastical classes and in terms of build, you have very little customization. The direction they went with the rogue is likely even worse as they made decision making even weaker. :/
D&D: "hey, everyone, we are playtesting a new edition! pls interact with this new thing, so you'll have an even better D&D!"
Hasbro: "why is no one buying D&D 5E stuff?!"
New Cleric. Revised Dragonborn. Revised Ardling.
Cleric is probably going to be in the Priests entry, alongside Druid and Paladin.
@@GZilla311 Crawford says in the video tomorrow’s UA will be shorter than the previous two; containing the new Cleric, and that Druid and Paladin will come later
@@teknogothyk Amen
Man. These game designers are messing around. I love how they use player feedback to make these incremental changes, test it, and keep optimizing it. Honestly, this systematic approach and FOCUS ON PLAYER FEEDBACK are what drive the ridiculously high survey participation.
I love how they are rolling this "new" D&D and I'm looking forward to it :)
Has anyone stopped to think that the exceptionally high response rate includes most probably 3 to 4 times the number of players, to DM's. This skews the responses significantly into a player-dominant experience where characters get to be Gods at Level 1 and the DM isn't supposed to say, "Um...no." Some might think, "Democracy!" - again, no - the DM runs the world, if you don't like a DM's world and rules interpretations, you can walk off to another table. Don't expect DM's to shape their game to players needs - that's backwards talk!
@@TheK5K Yeah. Recently I've noticed a heavy player-pampering tendency from WOTC. I hope they REALLY balance things around.
What
@@Giby86You have a point, but as WoTC is choosing which elements of the game they adapt and change in OneD&D, they're leaning heavily into new player mechanics. At least those have been the subjects in the playtest so far. This focus makes the essential role of DM more complex, but less fun IMHO.
@@Giby86 Fair enough, I live in hope but am always prepared to be disappointed. Let's see what the rest of the playtest brings.
The DMG needs to mainly be about encounter, adventure, and campaign design. What makes up each of these aspects and how to design them. Encounters being the building blocks of adventures and adventures being the building blocks of campaigns. Encounter designs need to be much more then just trying to balance combat encounters. It need to mainly focus on how to set up encounters, how can players overcome an encounter without just fighting something.
My biggest hope is that sorcerers get to choose primal arcane or divine as their list which would make them extremely distinct from wizards, separate from their sub class. Because if I want to be divine chaos or divine dragon sorcerer that sounds cool, if I want to be primal and shadow that’s also really cool. Because sorcerers are weird let me mix and match. That’s why the divine soul sorcerer is so cool, and that still works with the system!
Oi, why do people insist that "more options" is always the answer? There's already a subclass that gives you the full cleric list, and beyond that I want the different casters to play differently, which is hardly going to happen if everyone is using the same spells the same way.
I realy like the attitude towards "must have" feats and warrior classes. I hope that some of the other feats get better balanced too. Magic initiate and lucky seem to be so much more powerful than some of the other lvl 1 feats for example.
I was about to say that JC and the others had to be extremely dense to not realise that all the dissatisfaction with the playtest Dragonborn came from it being so much worse than the Fizban's Dragonborn (which was near perfect imo). I'm so glad that he clarified that new versions of races are very much not intended to outright replace versions in other supplements. This also means that the MotM races also are meant to function alongside older versions of those races, as opposed to outright replacing them.
One D&D is intended to work with 5e supplements. MotM was designed with One D&D in mind.
One D&D versions replace 5e PHB versions.
MotM versions replace VGtM/MToF versions.
@@ProperDave Nope. MotM does not replace any version. It's there as a 2nd option to be used alongside other versions of races.
@@envytee9659 Take a look at D&D Beyond, the official online rules resource. VGtM & MToF can no longer be bought (pretty sure they're out-of-print physically too). If you've bought them, you can still access those versions of the races, but they're marked as "(Legacy)", while the MotM version is just the race name.
Come 2024, you can expect to see the old 5e core races marked as "(Legacy)", and the One D&D versions as the unmarked defaults. MotM (& Fizban, etc) races will stay unmarked, until/unless a later supplement makes them obsolete.
@@ProperDave The official DnD Wizards site lists numerous links to buy both VGtM and MToF, including Amazon links to buy directly from Wizards RPG Team.
The only place they can't be bought is D&D Beyond and the reasoning is completely unknown. However, prior to this interview with JC, DnD Beyond was the only place to officially say that Monsters of the Multiverse content does not replace older content but is meant to work alongside it.
Not to mention that the entire ordeal with MotM and whether it was replacing old content went down before Wizards ever acquired DnD Beyond, so you really can't use that and say it was an official WotC decision, as none of those decisions from pre-WotC ownership were ever adjusted or changed by WotC.
It might just be me, but I think using the "Arcane", "Divine", and "Primal" lists with class restrictions on certain spell schools would work really well with a minor tweak to the way spells are organized, like organizing the lists by Spell School, then Spell Level, then Spell Name, instead of the current ordering of Spell Level, and then Spell Name, this could also help increase in importance of spell schools in various other ways. With an added focus on spell schools, it might be interesting to play around with having a single spell be associated with multiple schools, like Cure Wounds could be a Necromancy, Abjuration, or Evocation spell based on who/what performed the spell.
I don't think anyone thought the breath weapon for Dragonborn in the UA was replacing the Fizban's Dragonborn breath weapon. We were dissatisfied because the mechanics of the Fizban's breath weapon should just be universally how breath weapons work. There's literally no reason to play the PHB Dragonborn when Fizban's are just better, and the UA failed to change that.
A confirmation on 4 subclasses for each class is not only a big deal but also something I bet a lot of people will be happy to hear.
thanks for the openess and transparency on the process...really helped understand what your trying to make for us!
I'm bummed I completely forgot about the Expert class survey. But I'm excited to see that thousands of people are still partaking in this update.
I hope to god one of the new weapon options is a martial spear.
I need that Spear and shield fighter in my life.
I'm still hope versatile/one hand fighting style of weapon won't get forgotten again..
I’m so impressed and encourage by this video! I am surprised at how open about the process JC is being, and I’m grateful that Todd asked so many of our burning questions. More than ever, I feel optimistic that this game is in good hands, and that the next version will be an improvement over 5e. 👍👍
All of this feels really exciting but I'm really disappointed Artificer will not be included in the book. Having all the classes in a single book would make it much easier
Wait, did they just basically say "If we didnt add terms like Use an Object its because we still want to use the 2014 version" followed by "The 2014 version of Use Object was written badly" and then they claim to have solved that problem in Thief by deleting that part of the Fast Hands feature? HUH? I'm gonna need some follow up questions asked there.
While indicating they are considering dumping use object entirely as an action. Smdh
This makes me v happy.
Glad to see theyre listening even if a lot of the community can be super reactive.
When they were talking about Sharpshooter and them wanting it to not feel like you have to take a fear, I would like for them to do that with warcaster. I feel like presently it is a feat that every spell caster needs to make their builds work. I feel like advantage in concentration should be a feature of most spell casters. Especially those support casters
I would love it if they were to bring back Stone Sorcerer for one of the subclasses for sorcerer. it was really well received by the community and never got to be released in a official book.
I'm pleased to hear that work is being done on encounter design. The thing I loved about 4E was encounter design. It made being a DM so much easier once you understood the system.
Thank you for the transparent discussion about survey results and how that translates to design decisions.
Crossbow Expert/Gunner are must-haves because the reloading property otherwise makes those weapons a pointless hindrance.
For the Ardling, was that needed? We have Tabaxi, Aarakocra, Kenku, and so forth for the furry kinksters.
Just hazarding a guess regarding Eldritch Blast: to keep it warlock unique, it’ll be a class feature instead of a spell
Like it was in 3.5e
I cannot stress enough how excited I am for those weapon options in the Warrior group. I realize it’s not gonna be this UA or the next one, but I’m really hoping it’s the one after that
Bastion system sounds neat. Reminds me of Birthright or Kingmaker
I am guessing that perhaps the $2mm Kickstarter for Stongholds and Followers influenced them a bit on including those mechanics…
A feat at 1st level is essential at this point. Almost every campaign I play in house-rules character creation boosts because PCs are just so vanilla and fragile at L1. The two things I've most frequently encountered were the 1st Level Feat, and the other is base HP being increased. I've seen 10 + 1st Level Max HP, and I've also seen 1st Level Class HP + CON Score at Level 1. The latter two played especially well in campaigns like the Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Lost Mine of Phandelver in which there are "gauntlet" style events where rest is impossible at low levels and invariably leads to characters dying, or players getting frustrated.
I'm sure this is something they thought about, and I doubt anyone from the team is going to see this, but I wonder if it's worth considering that the very high across-the-board satisfaction ratings might be skewed somewhat by "ooh, shiny!" enthusiasm for new and potential content, and that the extremely high (it sounds like uncommonly so) engagement rate might actually be an indicator that that is happening. Again, these are smart people, and I imagine they've accounted for it. But it's probably worth thinking about.
I found 5e to be extremely satisfying. My only complaint was the ease of encounters (easy to correct by “upgrading” monsters and with supplementary material), and being locking to specific subclasses. Tashas and Xanathars made them more interesting. 5e got me closer to 2nd my fav edition and i dont intend on dropping extra money on new rules. Expansions, options i can port, yes. New rules?
Thats it for me.
Really good info given here. I've very anxious for the UA that addresses warlock, and how they plan on revamping it, considering how it's my favorite class from an RP standpoint, but the spell slots limitation is so aggravating that it's just a basic meme now. Keep up the good work, WOTC, and I'll be watching with great excitement!
The concept is great but I find it weird that a patrons main gift to a warlock seems to be basically blasting things. The mechanics do not match the concept. Warlocks should be about rituals and powerful magics that other magic users would not risk.
I think even just giving Warlock a number of spell slots equal to their Proficiency Bonus would go a long way to making them feel less "one and done" while keeping the thing of only casting at the highest level. They'd still have the least amount of spell slots for any class, but would actually be able to cast more than 2 spells a day without specific Invocations.
@@Hey-Its-Dingo They're the only class that regains spells on a short rest. They CAN cast more than 2 spells a day.
If some sorcerers get additional spells, give them to all the sorcerers. Just make them all thematic.
Example, for Wild Magic Sorcerer:
Expanded spell list:
1st lvl - chaos bolt, earth tremor
3rd - counterspell, blink
5th - far step, synaptic static
7th - prismatic spray, teleport
9th - time stop, prismatic wall
- all thematic spells, and none with material components (again fitting the theme of a magic surge).
Absolutely, but a little nitpick: the numbers in the tables for subclass spells indicate the level in the class, not the level of the spell. so they'd be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th-level spells
@@bonnkansan7346 yeah, for sure.
Cautiously optimistic for D&D One.
Still find the interviews cringy, but Jeremy really knocked it out with answering some player side questions. Glad to see them address “mother may I’s” those were obnoxious as a player and GM. Look forward to weapon options, hope they aren’t fluff and can also be used by trained npcs/monsters. Overall, good video.
Thank god you guys are making this kind of video where you discuss the survey results and some of your visions for the next releases. I do still have some concerns that I would like Jeremy to see, but I am definitely excited to see the next UA soon and super excited to see the Warrior UA when it eventually comes out.
As for some concerns:
I am still a bit worried about the Use an Object action, and I don't like how it was intentionally removed from the Thief, although I understand why you want to move away from "mother may I" abilities. I still believe that the Thief should be able to use their Cunning Action to use magic items, something that I have always house ruled in terms of the Fast Hands feature and Haste, and something that all new players complain about when they find out that using magic items aren't part of the Use an Object feature.
The other concern I have is that while I am glad that you are open to creating class spell lists, I think it would just be easier for every class to have a spell list, less confusing to new players. This will especially be true if you decide to leave some spells out for classes that you claim will get the entire spell list for lore reasons (like how Warlocks get access to forbidden and/or forgotten spells that Wizard schools don't cover like Arms/Hunger of Hadar, or how Paladins and Rangers can shape Divine/Primal magic differently than Clerics and Druids, thus resulting in different spell lists for the different classes, each with their own unique spells).
in the warlock case they could always do something similar to what they did for bards. healing spells were in their normal list but they were granted as part of the class.
individual spell lists arent really needed especially for mages/divine casters and it makes it awkward when adding new spells
I love the new "light weapon property" so much that I'm using that going forward on all my campaigns.
I really hope more people fill out these surveys. Because these numbers are lower than expected. Do keep in mind, if you don’t do these surveys they can’t read our minds in knowing what to update, remove, or rework. I’m also happy to see people actually doing their part in filling out these surveys.
I also hope people fill it out, but as far as I am aware these numbers are far above anything they have had before. Ever. There was not even this much feedback in the entirety of the D&D Next playtest.
** Disregard below, apparently they want everyone to answer surveys
Original message:
At the same time, you really shouldn't be filling out the survey's unless you actually PLAY with the new rules.
@@snipegrzywa In this video Crawford actually encourages people who have only read the UA to also fill out the survey.
@@snipegrzywa in the video they do say just reading over the rules and giving feedback is also very useful to them. Getting 40,000 pairs of eyes just for comprehension testing alone is good. They want feedback from both camps, those who go over the material but aren't able to test, and those that try it out.
@@LandonTheDM do the surveys ask if you've played or just read? I haven't actually looked at surveys cause I haven't played the new rules and so didn't even bother to open the surveys.
At that point its not a playtest, its just design by majority opinion.
I think having specific spell lists for each class is so much better just because it’s easier. Like what’s the point of having three big spell lists if classes can’t even pick from the whole thing anyway?
The Ardling should have been the Assimiar as the reflection to the tefflings. Ardlings are fine but should be something different
Bastions sound fun and weapon options will make melee and hopefully archery more then just "I hit." I would like to see more on tool use and crafting, possibly crafting drops with monsters to allow characters to customize their gear without 3rd party books or just paying gold.
How is it mother may I mechanics to use an object but not some of the other things you can do with the fast hands mechanics? Stealing things as a bonus action in combat takes a ton of DM buy in.
Or getting an extra attunement slot in a game where magic items "aren't necessary"
Thanks for answering Chris' letter
Dear Wizards of the Coast,
I am a long time D&D player. I have been playing since the 1st edition. I have bought many source books (both yours and from third parties), I actively recruit people to play with me, I play with my children, and I love this game very much.
That said however, this game is one of MANY things that clamor for my time and money, and I have no qualms cutting out something that goes against what I believe is right. (For example I was a huge fan of Evermore Park, a LARP park that was most excellent. But when they started disparaging my faith I ceased going entirely. They lost ALL my support, even though I was friends of many of the actors and creators, and had brought many to the park.)
Wizards, I find your attitude as a company HIGHLY offensive. I could cite many small things that for the most part I could ignore, but the idea that D&D is "undermonitized" is ridiculous. D&D by far is the most expensive TTRPG out there. I could save a huge amount of money by dropping this hobby. If you begin to ratchet up the price you will be squeezing out not only me and other hobbyists, but likely all the school groups you are purportedly trying to support. We are hobbyists, not cash cows. Continue in this route of turning our beloved game into a mindless mobile app of microtransactions and we will go elsewhere.
But this is not even the worst of it. Even if you ruined 6th edition by doing what I had mentioned I had hoped to be able to play the many other systems out there based on the OGL 1.0. However that hope has been shattered by the leaked OGL 1.1.
The leaked OGL 1.1 is not an open game licence, it is legalized theft of third party creators, and effectively destroys hundreds of other game systems. Wizards, 3rd party content has created the environment that has allowed your game to flourish. Period. End of line. You are succeeding as a company BECAUSE there is competition. That is how capitalism works. Monopolies cause stagnation, diversity causes abundance. Your sales flourish because other people want to play your system in their games. But if you scare off content creators by threatening to steal their works that goes away. You will absolutely destroy this hobby for millions. In D&D's history, when D&D was the monopoly, the TTRPG hobby floundered and so did D&D. When there was diversity in systems and content, everyone flourished.
Furthermore, Your efforts to gain royalties from creators that are barely getting by will simply shut them down. Perhaps this is your goal and you think this will cause others to come to you, but it wont. It will simply kill you along with them. Already there are rumblings of creating separate systems that completely abandon the OGL. In your greed for cash you are driving customers away, not towards you.
I know you want to increase revenue. That is understandable and good, but this is the wrong way to do this. If you want revenue, create good content! To be frank, your content Wizards has been sub-par compared to the content created by other 3rd party creators. These amazing kickstarters like "The Seeker's Guide to Twisted Taverns", "Alcamers Almanac of All Things", and "An Unexpected Wedding Invitation" have done far more to benefit my table than MoM, Spelljammer or Witchlight ever have. If you create great content, the money will come. Simple as that.
Now I was excited to begin Shadow of the Dragon Queen (and have already bought my copy), and was excited for the D&D movie. Heck, I even began looking at buying the Dragonlance novels since I was enjoying them so much. However, I cannot and will not support bullying and theft. Thus:
Be it known Wizards of the Coast, you are on warning from me. If you persist in seeking to steal from creative artists and to further increase prices on your already expensive game in a vain attempt to appease investors, I will terminate my relationship with you. You will not see another cent from me or my friends, and I know that there are others who feel the same. I will cancel my subscriptions, return my books, not play another game, boycott your movie and merchandise, use my voice against you on every platform, and encourage my friends to do the same. (Perhaps I will play Avatar Legends, they aren't in your OGL empire and I have been meaning to pick it up.)
However, If you do by some miracle turn this around and drop these horrid ideas, I would be happy to stay, for I do enjoy this game.
I await to see what happens, hoping that you make the right choice. Do note that as I am a Father and local youth game club leader, your choice also impacts the next generation of gamers.
Sincerely,
Stuart A. Harper
DM, Player, Creator, & Father
Hopefully the Thief change to Cunning action means that they'll make the current rules on "hands"/Object Interaction no longer feel like a Great Old One patron.
If a spell has Somatic components, but not Material, you can’t use the Spellcasting Focus. You need a free hand to make a gesture, and now the Focus hand is full. You need to put the focus down/away to cast the spell.
Clerics can use their Shield hand for a Focus and Somatic. (But not for spells that are only Somatic. Now they'd have to put either the shield or sword away.)
Removing or dropping the shield costs you an Action. Sheathing a sword costs an Object Interaction (and you only have one Object Interaction per turn.) The rules say you can unsheathe a sword as part of your attack, but in a way that implies it costs an Object Interaction (maybe?).
So, no matter how many Actions or Attacks you could make, casting Somatic spells may mean putting a sword away, which means you can't attack with that sheathed weapon. One workaround is to drop the weapon, then use only one Object Interaction to pick it up, rather than the two it would take the Sheathe and Unsheathe it.
These rules are confusing when you know about them, (and hard to know about in the first place because they are spread into three or four places in the PHB), and when they're enforced they prevent you from doing things that you'd expect to be able to do.
I hope this is one of the things that One D&D makes more clear.
A new system that utilizes Bastions and ally NPC's?
I see some people in the office read Stronghold and Followers by MCDM and came to the conclusion that they need to kill competition.
Regarding GWM/SS:
I did the math. And PB damage once per round is doing about the same on average as -5/+10 per attack (when accounting for how often you will miss due to the -5). This applies across all tiers of play, across all classes that can benefit from these feats, across most contested AC, and generally with or without advantage/disadvantage.
In the UA the accuracy penalty for these feats have been removed, while the damage has been relatively unchanged. And more ways to deal damage through weapon use is apparently coming down the line. This is the buff that martials need!
Wait, you were surprised that reverting to the old dragonborn from the PhB that sure everyone love thematically, but everyone hated mechanically, after presenting us a version much more interesting would give you bad feedback????
Here how to fix the PhB dragon born if you really want a "generalist" version simpler to use then the Fizban version: Keep the Fizban version, Remove the special ability gained base on their color (metallic breath, gem flight and telepathie, and chromatic immunity) and replace them by a cantrip (let us choose any arcane or primal cantrip) (we are dragon born can we have innate dragon magic?) and darkvision
and why is it so bad to have a particular dragnborn color (chromatic, gem and metallic) why do you have te revert back to a blend all dragonborn are the same. Fizban dragon born was great. give dragon born 4 choice (just like ardling, elf or teifling have 3) Chromatic (exactly like in Fizaban), Gem (exactly like in Fizban), Metallic (exactly like in Fizban) and Generalist (gaining a cantrip from primal or arcane list and darkvision)
Home bases and Party NPCs was in the AcqInc Book and it was fantastic! Upgrading your base, stats and complication for succedding and failing to maintain your HQ... good stuff, but also more accessible than someone like MCDMs "Strongholds and Followers" which is a HUGE tomb with a lot of complex stuff... but... light on "fun". The AcqInc Book is hands down the most useful content released by wotc for 5e, thank you Penny Arcade. You should all pick it up.
I think Pathfinder 2E had a really cool idea with the versatile heritage mechanic, and I really think Aasimar, Tiefling and possibly even Ardling could be used on multiple different races (a goblin/orc Ardling might have a wolf's head). Plus, you could incorporate other planetouched/undead/lycanthropic/other templates.
Perhaps those could use the subrace and background slots.
I really want to see more downtime mechanical options for crafting, enchanting, etc. I dropped the feat variant rule and created a system where you learn feats and new skills during downtime by training with specific NPCs and rolling a D20 on 8 hours of training and adding related skill modifiers and now my players look forward to down time. Systems like this in place would be great because creating entire systems is hard when you're also trying to keep up with writing a campaign.
The thing I missed the most in 5e was druid not having an animal. They added it in tasha but at the cost of their best feature and only for a time, that sounded weird.
Especially because mage and warlock, even arcan trickster and eldritch knight, have easier to get a pet and use it than the druid...
Which edition did they add pets to druids? Was that 3.5e?
@@kingofcoinjock 3 and 3.5, you can also have one in pathfinder
I think the Sharpshooter change made sense for another reason that he didn't mention: The 5e version made it so a hand* crossbow suddenly dealt more damage per round than a heavy crossbow when combined with crossbow expert. The extra damage provided by the feat was so large in comparison with the weapon dice that the weapon dice became irrelevant.
u mean hand crosbow?
@@arealgoodJoe Yes, thank you, I corrected it
I hope classes can still get *some* exclusive spells, like vicious mockery or chaos bolt, but otherwise the spell lists seem like a great change
I'm cautiously optimistic about the warrior group, martials have had it rough since the game's inception and the latest subclasses has done what they could to tighten the gap but it still wasn't enough, hope they don't go overboard with it
NGL I’m a little salty about the generalization of half-races. The PHB description of half-elf so accurately described my experience as a biracial person that it’s why I ended getting into D&D. I’ll miss the 5e half-elf 😢
The one thread to hold on to is that it might maybe come back in an Eberron supplement, given half-elves there had a strong, established subculture as their own race separate from their human and elf ancestors. It's not Eberron without the Lyrandar tie to the Khoravar.
The feedback on the feat is very understandable. Backgrounds have kind of done nothing in 5e, so adding a thing that flavours your character around it mechanically works so well
Will dnd beyond be keeping legacy mechanics for 5e giving us a choice what rules are campaigns use for pc creation. I think answering what will happen to the books we purchased and like using would be nice.
Commenting as I'm watching
Realistically, I don’t think that the physical books or any of those 5e materials will be obsolete for a long while, in any sense. From my understanding, These new rules are supposed to give you an easier time running and playing a game, but if you’re more comfortable with the rules you’re already using, you shouldn’t miss anything that isn’t optional anyway.
@@Callum07 my only concern honestly is that dnd beyond will change the website so I can't use 5e anymore. I definitely don't like most of one dnd. (Some but not all.) I just don't want nice online feture I have spent money on to be changed. I bought a product, and I love using it in the 5 games I dm. So I want the option to not be forced to use them online.
@@heroofRaven Based on the way they are handling some of the stuff that has recently come out that updates old stuff, it will still be there, but it will be a pain to use the original stuff.
@@snipegrzywa sorrow.
I did a ice cream taste test for my 3 year old. REMARKABLY almost every flavor ranked over 80%! Only one dipped into the 60's, but she ate it anyway.
I'm not a fan of this way of throwing things out the window if the response is not good, like Mystic is a great concept, it just needed balancing.
Keep in mind that they're just reworking a core book right now. Nailing down a smaller array (which will still be pretty expansive) with proper design is better than trying to cram everything in. There will definitely be a plethora of additional books later on, though hopefully they will go back to a slightly slower rate of release for them.
One D&D tried the Gurps critical result rules and, surprise, it was not liked, yet its worked from day one in Gurps. That is fascinating. It shows that there is something fundamentally different to both the systems and the audience in both cases.
The new warrior system going to mimic the weapon skills from BG3? Or something similar?
My current DM had created a custom two-weapon fighting rule that was easy to run and remember… a month later you guys wrote essentially the same thing in your playtest. I can say with play test then and now that I thoroughly enjoy those rules.
I would love to see the Find Familiar spell be more clear as to what the familiar can do and have just three or four familiar types that they then could be changed cosmetically... I want a clockwork owl to officially be possible.
Homunculus, my guy. Also, in my experience, find familiar is pretty clear as to what it can or cannot do.
One of the only reasons I didn't do the survey was because I didn't get a chance to play tested. I'm glad that even if I've never played it, my opinion is valued. I will definitely fill out the next survey
The fact the d20 rule had higher than 60% approval rating says a lot about how little this survey can be taken seriously
Yeah, I wasn't surprised that the dragonborn was low. Their breath weapon sucks. You guys were going in the right direction in Fizban's but then went backwards in the One beta.
So is artificer going to be a core class or not? I'm hoping that they are holding him back because they are doing a lot of work on the question of letting them invent or build stuff
The Artificer isn't from the core 3 books; PHB, MM, or DMG. So it's not being included in any of these UAs, except for it being stated that the Artificer falls into the Expert Class group with the Rogue, Ranger and Bard.
@@bladetytan9025 you're right that it isn't a core class in 5e but they still haven't actually said it isn't going to be in the new edition, unless I missed something. The way they have treated it since Eberon came out makes me think it will be a core class in the end.
@@L337P1R4735 They said it in a video before, not in this. Also, it's in the Expert playtest pdf, the asterisk in page 2 describing groups
@@L337P1R4735 I'm pretty sure it was explicitly stated in the Expert Class UA.
"* The Artificer is also an Expert. That Class appears in
Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything and Eberron: Rising
from the Last War, not the Player’s Handbook."
I’m most interested in the warrior play test.
I want to see what kinda utility and damage baseline.
One small thing I’d like to see is having the monks unarmed martial arts attacks acts light a light weapon, or an additional attack, not clogging up you bonus action, maybe even changing flurry of blows to be part of an attack action as well. So they have more options an design space for their bonus action.
13.20 : who woul have thought? The community desires furries much more than it desires angels, oh wait, it's not surprising at all