Druid & Paladin Survey Launch | Expert Class Survey Results | Unearthed Arcana | D&D
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июн 2024
- Visit dndbeyond.link/yt_UAPaladin and help shape the future of the next generation of Dungeons & Dragons. New playtest survey goes live March 20th.
Jeremy Crawford and @ToddKenreck discuss the Unearthed Arcana survey results so far and the future of Unearthed Arcana.
UNEARTHED ARCANA
The document on February 23rd is the fourth in a series of Unearthed Arcana articles that present material designed for the next version of the Player’s Handbook. The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player’s Handbook, except where noted. Providing feedback on this document is one way you can help shape the next generation of D&D!
#dnd #dungeonsanddragons #unearthedarcana 
Развлечения
Visit dndbeyond.link/yt_UAPaladin and help shape the future of the next generation of Dungeons & Dragons. New playtest survey goes live March 20th!
As long as druids can wildshape into an owlbear. 😊
These two give me no confidence in the IP, none.
BRING PSIONICS BACK . MAKE A WHOLE BOOK AND CLASSES ON IN AND GEAR AND WEAPONS. ive been a dm for 20 years now . these sub classes useing psionics are cool but full fledged classes and do more things with articifers they are underated
@@monsterrex8929 i still play d and d every week ime 46 years old . yes they are turning d and d into a video game becouse peaple have short attention spans now . but you can always flavor a game or add more role playing elaments to it. but your wright
Please, as a bard player, I beg you, do something to a adress how onednd bards feels flavourless!
Bardic inspiration shouldn't be the only feature the class have reinforcing its core fantasy of being an "inspiring performer"! The bard is bleeding in class identity for the sake of group identity! Being a "Jack of all trades" and a "spell thief" shouldn't take precedence over the class's identity of being a inspiring performer!
I feel like the "fragile scout" aspect of Wildshape is iconic to the class, and definitely something that feels bad to lose with the new playtest rules.
It seems like the "find familiar" channel nature option is meant to replace that. YMMV
@@sarahIcommented yeah but you lose those moments of being caught in the room and being forced to wildshape out of it. Which to me is one of the most fun parts of the scout type.
Yeah, I had lots of fun with that when I played a druid. Since I wasn't Circle of the Moon and my forms weren't really combat-viable, I felt more free to have fun with Wild Shape for such exploratory shenanigans. I get what Jeremy is saying regarding it being an issue in combat, but if that's the reason then just have a clause that says if the form you take is a tiny creature then you get knocked out of Wild Shape if you take any damage. Instead, they'd rather let druids become a mouse the size of a horse, or wait until 11th level to become a tiny tyranosaurus that can climb walls. It's ridiculous.
@@michaeltucker7129 When you follow the bandit captain to his private quarters only to discover he has two cats.
Maybe they could keep it as is 2014 style for early levels and have the option of more tanky small creature shape at the later levels, to give people the antman ability
I really do appreciate the transparency of JC here. He's so thoughtful and I appreciate his line of thinking.
ok Jay Caspian, I see through your veil of lies, youre actually JEREMY CRAWFORD, could've chosen different initials smh :^)
@@CamONEILL lol
Was just thinking the same thing. My initial anger aside, now I get it.
Bot
@@NYJFlybyKnight bot?
Thank you for your work dev team! Your transparency and willingness to acknowledge and respond to feedback is very reassuring.
I love Air/ Land/ Sea framework- blank slate. But! As Monty from Dungeon Dudes suggested. There should be several groups/ types of animals you could shape into. Like: Arachnids ( spiders ), Instects ( wasp ), Canine+Lupine ( wolves, dogs ), Ursine ( bears ), Feline ( lynxes, cats ) etcetc. You get his/ my point. Also I think wild shaping into a monstrosity and not a standard animal/ beast SHOULD demand a feat pickup or on a decently high level. Owlbears are mages experminetations let loose NOT natural! So it makes sense to work for being able to shape into Owlbears and similar chimeras etc.
And wild shapes MUST get a hit point buffer if of larger size than you or un general a large beast. A 12, 16 hp bear, warus.. C'mon! You can compensate with having larger beasts a bit slower unless using a feat that belongs to a certain animals like rage etc so a 20/ 25 ftpT can get up 30 in a short time burst. And in reverse if you shape into a animal smaller than your humanoid size, of course it makes sense to have lower hit point, BUT compensated by higher ac/ high dex saving throws. Also let us use our stats while in wild shape aswell. Because as it were in first iteration in recent playtest. Wild Shape were a NO GO
I totally agree, it adds more complexity keeping it from being too simplistic and just basic overall
If you're creating 'templates' for different types of bugs you might as well do statblocks
It already exists, it's called re-skin
It still doesn't fix the problem that a Sea Elf or Triton or Water Genasi (etc.) in a low-level Underwater campaign instantly drowns if they wild shape. I wish they would focus on fixing things like that instead of all the rebalancing.
Adding those categories and maybe some temp hp based on level would be my middle ground. I will always prefer the CR system but I also want it to work well with the back and forth transformation
I think the Dungeon Dudes gave a good middle ground between the 5e wildshape and the current UA. So they came up with just making more wildshape statblocks. Many are angry because the 3 statblocks aren’t flexible enough, they don’t allow for much creativity
As a DM who plays on VTT. I enjoy the thought of only having 3 stat blocks, however, I think it adds the option to just have your DM "Yes and" a little more. I wildshape into an Ape. Ok, here's your land block. Oh btw, you can climb and throw a rock.
The variety of wildshapes was always awesome, but I think making it more streamlined may actually help out in the long run for more player and gm customization.
@@matt.oconnor oh yeah I agree but that would just make it very DM dependent so playing Druid would just be as fun as the DM allows. It’s streamlined and practical, but it’s not a good enough solution imo
One thing they could do is give us the stat blocks, but also include the option to choose a beast at the expense of half the time. That way you gain a ton of flexibility, but also simplify it for when you just need a form.
Have the druid choose a number of wildshapes they can choose as semi permanent forms. At 2nd level, they can choose three from a list of pre approved wildshapes, which can expand upon and gain more wildshapes as they reach certain levels giving them all the flexibility of flavor with the overall feeling of the druid being a shapeshifter while making it easier to understand and use rather than throwing them into the deep end you walk the in from the shallow side to the deep ended as they level up and get more experience with the druid. You can even have the moon druid have the ability at the beginning of the day be able to switch out their wildshapes as well as boost their combat effectiveness by allowing them to use special traits of the beasts they turn into
This is a very intriguing thought.
This is what I been suggesting my players for years. A Druid doesnt know ALL animals, so the players should choose accordingly to where their druid its from. As the game progress they discover new forms (not attached to their levels, just to roleplay/what animals they encounter)
@@heyyou193 Thats theoretically how Wild Shape is generally recognized in 5e. It's done in a basis of what creatures you have seen, observed in the wild, etc. Actually making the option of having rhe player choose, similar to like a Rangers favored terrain, would be a great simple way to engage a new player and their backstory.
@Matthew O'Connor yes I know, the problem is that some people forget about that and think they must have all beast statblock avalibles. Of course that's can be overwhelming for the player and that's how later the class is classified as difficult to play
@@heyyou193 If only we had a list of possible wildshapes depending in the knowledge or place of origin for the druid. Wait, we have Xanathar(I think, if not tashas). I mostly talk that with my DMs, if they limit my options, it is always usefull the list, with the adittion to some like common beast like wolf, hawk, snakes, horses etc
I kind of wish you guys addressed the issue of tiny wildshape being only 10 minutes effecting out of combat use. You guys keep talking about in-combat shenanigans but what about the fact we want to use a tiny wildshape for scouting or other things, like crawling in a pipe? That’s gonna last more than 10 minutes
Exactly this. The fact they are looking at it for combat (and ignoring attacks of opportunity) is incredibly strange to me since it was always an exploration option
The DnD Next sorcerer getting scrapped was so frustrating. It was such a fascinating idea, and was completely unique next to something like wizard.
I am going to have to look at that.
DnD Next had plenty of better rules that didn't make it into the 2014 PHB
Does anyone have a link to the D&D Next Sorcerer and Warlock version Jeremy Crawford and Frumpkin here are talking about?
I mean the gunsmith artificer was a good subclass, it could've been tweaked and used but they didn't want to deal with firearms to the degree we are now wanting to have more options for.
@@drakkonusfrostburn4038 I'm not sure if the content is allowed be officially publicly shared. Technically I think it still isn't.
Happy that they’re getting the right takeaways about Ranger feedback. Would love to see the Hunter have a feature system that sort of works like Warlock Invocations; a large set of hunting techniques that the Hunter can choose from and really carve out their methods of hunting their prey
I really love this idea of midway between 2 UAs, right before the survey launches, to have a video clarifying certain issues with the current UA to allow for better survey results, along with the results of the prior survey that the team has had enough time to fully look through. Though I do feel like they need to speed up these time frames to be able to get through everything in time for their print deadline.
I think my biggest issue with the playtest druid is that it leans the entire class more into wildshaping. I think moon should be the wildshape druid, and other subclasses get other uses for the wildshape charge. It seemed like they were leaning into this direction with wildfire
Yeah, keep wildshape available to base druid, but give more features and progression to moon druid.
That being said I would like for there to be subclasses that get a unique wildshape transformation; such as elementals, plants, dragons, aberrations, etc. It always seemed weird to me that moon druid gets elementals. Really I think the name should be changed as well.
@Arbitrary Thoughts yes this is exactly what I want. I want there to be druids that the fantasy is wildshape, and druids based solely on a nature witch kind of fantasy, and druids that just do really weird stuff. There's so much room for druids to be more than just the people who turn into animals.
I do like the idea of using Wild Shape for other uses, like the Spore Druid or Wildfire.
I'm sorry how does the new wimpy bare bones Wildshape we got make it seem like the class is being leaned more towards Wildshaping when they included new abilities under the Channel Nature resource that Wildshape now has to compete with?
@@jukesdtj656 most of the base druid abilities focus just on wild shape.
I’m glad that Crawford offered an explanation for the intention behind the changes to sneak attack.
That left folks scratching their heads and knowing the “why” behind the change is nice.
My hope is that we can see more of the reasoning behind changes before we take the surveys. Still super glad to hear the overview of responses.
I can see why Druid is going this way, yet
Resilient? 15 max AC, D8 hit dice, and no other survival option until lv 9 is never resilient especially in frontline.
BTW, does my charater keep saving throw proficiency when I wildshape? By RAW, all I can keep during Wildshape are personality, memories and wildshape which does not includes such thing as saving throw proficiency.
I am sorry to point this out, but with such poor defensive features, being able to cast Abjuration Spells (mostly healing spells) at least until 9 is nothing more than fire magnet.
Not to mention the previous Moon Druid could heal as a bonus action. Healing as an action isn't worth it and now you can use Healing Word as a bonus action, which is a horrible buff spell (only good for bringing people back) and good way to burn through your spell slots. I'm a druid main and never really used my healing ability in wild shape. Forcing players to burn through spells slots just to stay in melee combat makes no sense.
Thank you. I really like this format, discussing the UA pre-Survey launch, and addressing the community's discussions and concerns online. It is really appreciated. And may help with those of us who have concerns, prior to filling out the survey, knowing that you are aware of the most prominent sticking points.
I think that making a point based wildshape based on the level should be the main idea. Something like having for example 4 points at level 5, having pack tactics costs 2 points, flight costs 3, one ranged option costs 4 points, a additional hit die costs 2 points... having a point buy system makes it very unique, but also easier than knowing all beasts in 5e, just knowing 10 or 12 abilities that can be bought.
The tacit admittance that the DMG didn't go through any kind of playtesting is super interesting (around 33:00). It was pretty clear that 5E didn't put much care or attention to DMs - I hope that changes this time around, because I don't think I'll stick around for another edition of D&D that doesn't care about DMs.
Hello yes ding ding ding i'm here to double down on this hill to die on
I interpreted it as an acknowledgement that the Epic Boons weren't playtested. You're probably right that the whole DMG was pretty untested though. As a forever DM I find it unnecessarily obtuse.
@@hoid9407 Yeah that's definitely what was *explicitly* said, and I realize I'm probably being unfair, but if the Epic Boons wasn't playtested, what else wasn't playtested?
I just expect way more from the TTRPG studio that says they produce "the greatest roleplaying game".
@@zacharytaylor5172 I don't disagree. There are a lot of tools that a DM needs that aren't in the 2014 DMG and a lot of real vague spots that could use clarification.
Yeah, they really need to make DMing less miserable or nobody is going to play
13:35
"A chonky armor class."
The idea that the playtest Wild Shapes have a chonky armor class, or a chonky anything at all, is ludicrous.
THIS. literally none of the forms have any business being in combat. Especially with with no extra hp!
@@plainwelltoadut then if you want to be a circle of the moon druid fighting in melee you can just bump your CON along with your WIS, you will not be the tankiest as you only have a d8 hit dice but you wouldn't be necessarily flimsy, plus you can still cast your abjuration spells while transformed.
You will not be outdoing the barbarian/monk/fighter in a melee situation probably, nor should you, the druid is after all a full caster.
@Agustin Aquino "you will not be the tankiest" is an understatement, in my opinion. The proposed rule would allow me to change my shape (no mechanical benefit) and decrease my already mediocre AC. In exchange I get a modest boost to my offense (I think you can get a bonus action unarmed strike or something? ) and better movement. The situations where that will seem worth it are vanishingly rare. You might get to use that meager extra offense once before your opponents gut you.
The wildshape extra hp are one of the best things about the current wildshape because now it's worth it as a tradeoff. I gain (in some cases) a bunch of hp. In exchange, my ac plummets and I can't cast spells. But again, it's worth it because you aren't a massive liability for your healer to deal with after combat.
Maybe on paper the current wildshape rules lets druids occasionally outshine warrior classes, but in my experience it just doesn't play out that way.
To go back to what they keep mentioning in the videos: they want to enhance druids for people who love druids. Making wildshape no longer feasible for melee makes it very un-fun.
@@plainwelltoad i do firmly believe that having the wildshape form have a separate HP is ridiculous, even in media when you see a druid be forced out of their transformed form they go down, i could see a buff to ac or some extra hp on the land form as to make it more viable on higher levels, on the low levels depending on what equipment they use you may be behind a melee martial in terms of AC and you are surely behind in HP but you do have spells and spell slots on top of that and your wildshape melee damage is about the same maybe higher with bonus action unarmed wich does 1+wis on a hit, or you can choose to grapple/shove with it, as the game advances a martial will naturally become stronger as they should.
AC and hp can also be boosted with items such as tough or bracers of defense or griffons saddlebag ironleaf shield.
All in all i fell that druids should get the means to be decent melees in their wildshape forms IF they choose to build and gear for it.
Absolutely love getting insight on these results and seeing where the satisfaction scores lie both on their individual abilities and the whole sub/classes as a whole!
I think something important to point out is having a highly complex class for students of the game doesn't have to be a bad thing. We have plenty of options for new players.
Streamlining is always good, but streamlining at the expense of customization and several other things is unfortunate.
11:51 A possible solution to Tiny Critter is making the stat blocks for Wild Shape size-based, not travel method based, i.e., fly speed, swim speed, or just plain speed. To do that you'd have a Tiny Size stat block with the appropriately lower stats for all Druids at 1st level. Additionally, this would mean all Druids getting a Small Size and Medium Size stat block at 1st level. I imagine the Small and Medium Sizes would be a cut and paste of the Land stat block in the UA. At the 10th level, Druids would get a large Size stat block, replacing the Tiny Critter feature. Moon Druids could receive at 14th level with Thousand forms, the addition of a Huge Size stat block.
This makes an astounding amount of sense. Hire this man(?)!
@@Khailward no it doesn't. Problem with tiny creatures isn't their stats, they are already balanced. It's the fact that they are tiny. So if we were to make a stat block for tiny creature we would need 3 statblocks for each travel type. And they would still need to ve level and time locked because it is too op
I mean it would work but it wouldn't be better than the way they did it
@@forgot-to-log-out Thank you for pointing that out. Here is my solution. I figured it was too long for a RUclips post orinally, but it should alleviate some of your concerns.
So in that vein, each size-based stat block could come with its own method of determining THP too. So Tiny Size would be your Druid level times 1, and they could even have it so that only Tiny Size ends once those THP are lost. The other sizes would still use your HP but also grant THP on top of that. Small Size could be 2 times your Druid level. Medium Size could be 3 times your Druid level. Large Size could be 4 times your Druid level. Huge Size since it would be only for Moon Druids could be higher at 5 or 6 times your Druid level. The THP math would need to be playtested to find a balance.
Considering what Jeremy Crawford said about the customization options for stat blocks I’d also like a menu of features, like Pounce, Gore, and Pack Tactics as examples, that you can add to your Wild Shape form to customize it. The menu would start small at 1st level with only a few options, and you could only take one option, but would grow as you level up in Druid. Every five levels or so more options would be added to the menu, like Spider Climb with Web Sense and Web Walker altogether as one option. Perhaps making your attack deal poison damage could be an option.
With this in mind, at 7th level Aquatic Form would now give Amphibious with a swim speed as an option on the menu. At 9th level, Aerial Form would give Flyby with a fly speed as an option on the menu and you could now take two options from the menu at once. At 18th level, as part of Archdruid, you could now take three options from the menu at once and by this level, you’d have maybe a couple of dozen or more options on the menu to customize your Wild Shape.
@@drakkonusfrostburn4038 out of all the ideas I have seen this one intrigues me the most, have stat blocks for each sized creature and when you lvl up you can pick things like features and you get a different movement speed with a millstone. This way they become like more like invocations, meta magic or infusions, a system they already have and know how to use, and the druid becomes it's own thing and not a worse cleric that it is now in the UA.
Why not just a second option? You get land beast, and scout land beast. Sea beast and scout sea beast. And finally air beast and scout air beast. It lets you be a tiny mouse with tiny stats or a medium bear and they have two different stat types.
I have not played a druid basically just because I haven't got to it, kinda new player here, but I've seen the conversations about these last changes and I really liked how you addressed it here, great job :D this is my first "process" of changing between one DnD edition and another, and up to now I've been liking this play-test/feedback process
They are definitely keeping this playtest process as transparent as possible. I don't believe the 3e and 4e playtests were anything like this.
This reminds me a lot of the transition from 1e to 2e in the late 1980s. They didn't have the internet to keep us informed, but they did have regular updates in Dragon magazine. Also, much like the transition from 5e to One D&D, the differences between 1e and 2e were not too drastic; they were nominally striving for backward compatibility.
This new pre-survey discussion feels like it would be very helpful as they add to the notes in the document themselves.
Now I understand this comes from not being a player of Paladins or Druids (I like both, just not top), but could we get a more detailed coverage on the Expert feedback? Part of the Expert Classes had content that could use a bit more clarification or explanation. Also, while I would like everyone to be their best selves, I would have to admit the Ranger UA were more enticing than it feels now seeing treatment of classes since that UA (namely the Paladin, obviously). I'd need to ponder on this longer, but this might be referring to the turf encroaching concept. I felt pretty happy with most of the core Ranger (didn't really like the Hunter, but I always felt like it was lacking). With that said, if the glass felt mostly full back then, it now feels like that was cuz I didn't know there were just bigger glasses being handed out, so I'd need to revise moving forward.
I love the pre-built stat blocks. But they definitely need some love.
I'd like to see something similar to invocations for wild shape. Where you can pick a number of special abilities based on your druid level when you wild shape.
Also, at least for moon druids, the wild shapes are *way* too squishy
That’s a great idea!!
The bit about tiny creatures being able to run under larger creatures being game breaking was frustrating to hear. Even if you can run through an enemy, wouldn't you still provoke an opportunity attack? You'd be taking a huge risk that way. And if they manage to never get hit and get away, it's a huge reward for a huge risk.
Just keep the Druid as it is! They literally said "If we stick with Monster Blocks, the problem goes away." The problem is actively coming up from a change you're making that doesn't need to be made, it's fine as it is. If the new way causes more problems than the old way, why would you ever not go with the old way?
Thank you for sharing and for keeping us in the loop!!
Honestly, even with a sneak attack off turn, rogue is just kinda weak and has a poorly specific niche over encroached by other experts. I think these surveys would benefit immensely if you asked for satisfaction and opinions on balance separately. For example. War caster as a half feat is very satisfying, but that might be a bit powerful even if it is satisfying. Rogue getting sneak attacks twice per turn is also balanced. But it's not satisfying if fair and balance game balance is hidden behind secret tech.
I think the rogue off turn sneak seems to complete the rogue.
Somewhat solidifies the damage as an asset if necessary.
Expertise in various social skills has much more utility in the game now that there are clearly defined DCs for influence, perhaps also in combat if damage isn’t the answer.
@@Ahglock Mr Crawford did say they were looking into those types of options as well as just straight up increasing sneak damage.
@@Ahglock Wait, how is a ranger attacking 3 times at 5th level?
@@binolombardi The ranger literally makes the rogue look like a joke per the skills argument
@@Ahglock yeah the problem also arises as the ranger gets damage bonuses per each attack unlike the rogue's sneak attack and the rogue can normally make one attack per turn so realistically they will get two attacks if they had a two weapon fighting. Also spells such as pass without a trace make rangers better at stealth.
About Ranger another thing that wasn't addressed is how the Hunter only gets one feature at 3rd level and an underwhelming feature next, I would move both those features to 3rd level and think about something else for the next feature.
Paladin thrown weapon smite walks the right line - give some ranged smite, while not longbow smite walking over other classes - in my opinion. Could make it normal range only. Thanks for the explanation!
I personally think ranged smites are one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while, but if they have to exist, I could live with this. Good compromise.
How is a ranged smite walking over other classes? Rangers and Fighters are ALSO supposed to be excellent in melee.
There is no niche protection needed here
15:01 why not just make a statblock for tiny creatures. That way you can balance it directly and make it available as early as you want
A lot of rogue subclasses focus on giving the rogue alternate ways to trigger sneak attack, as opposed to additional ways to use it. Maybe new UA subclasses could try out having sneak attack augments built in? (Phantom is a great example, dealing extra damage to another nearby creature) Inquisitive could have an information-gathering utility, similar to a cobalt soul monk or the new hunter knowing stuff when they drop hunter’s mark. Maybe the arcane trickster can do something with their spells (triggering a cantrip, perhaps? Not too sure about this one but still, it’s an idea).
I would really enjoy each subclass having a unique version of sneak attack that plays into the fantasy of that archetype.
Several classes out damage the 2014 paladin. Key to the class identity is the "clutch" nature. Which holds true to the origins of Paladins.
Lay on hands, not strong, but clutch.
Auras, not better than bardic inspiration, but clutch.
Smites, not the most damage, but clutch damage.
Love you guys, you are the best. I would like to point out that when I play a druid wild shape is huge. I use it for exploration and spying constantly. It's awesome. As a Moon Druid, I think I am less apt use it in that manner because I'll need that bag of hp. But the flexibility to change your shape and fly, or burrow past a door, or to use the senses of a bat, or the ability to swim and breath underwater. That is huge. Some people don't like going through the monster manual for forms, I love it. But I can see providing those options by using stat blocks. I just want those options. And if you are going to have the Moon Druid be the up front brute, I think they need more HP. Either that or a significant boost to their AC. Even with the new and improved Barkskin giving temp hp, you still have to make concentration checks everytime you get hit. That's no bueno when you are rocking a sub 18 AC as a frontliner. I do believe it is necessary to overhaul the HP of the combat forms but instead of using the Nerf Bat if feels like ya'll dropped a nerf nuke.
Imma be honest. I don’t think ranged vs melee should be any specific class’s turf. All classes, especially non-full casters should have options for both of somewhat comparable viability. It should either be on the choices within those classes to separate speciality in them (such as fighting styles), or in the overall way melee is different from ranged. My ranged smiting paladin, my heavy crossbow gunner barbarian, and my kunai specialist monk should be on par with my strength Ranger with a longsword. Maybe the same Paladin shouldn’t be able to smite melee and ranged equally well, but two paladins of equal specialty should be able to smite on par with each other.
16:20 but I don’t want to cast abjuration spells while wildshaped as a Moon Druid. I want to become fantastical beasts and tear into my foes with primal ferocity. If I wanted to cast spells I’d play literally any other spellcaster. Would much rather have something like AC equal to spell save DC and X amount (4 or 5) temp hit points per Druid level while transformed than the ability to cast spells while wildshaped. Or even the option to spend hit dice/spell slots as part of the transformation to get some temp hp. There are countless ways to make this better.
As a side note: nobody likes Thousand Forms. It was bad in 2014, has only grown more useless by comparison since then, and it stinks here too. Let Moon Druids become Huge creatures or be able to transform their Wild Companion/willing allies with them or something more thematic along those lines.
Prebuilt stat blocks are fine. They just need to be good and not ruin the attributes of animals.
I think the new wildshape could be an optional class feature but the harsh change from being able to wildshape into cool animals into 3 premade statblocks is a little bit too much.
But to have the option to choose this as an optional class feature could be nice
I like the direction on the new wild shape mechanics, I think default statblocks is the way to go, simpler and easier to balance, but they need more flexibility and customization! Can't wait to fill the survey
Exactly! I love Air/ Land/ Sea framework- blank slate. But! As Monty from Dungeon Dudes suggested. There should be several groups/ types of animals you could shape into. Like: Arachnids ( spiders ), Instects ( wasp ), Canine+Lupine ( wolves, dogs ), Ursine ( bears ), Feline ( lynxes, cats ). You get his/ my point. Also I think wild shaping into a monstrosity and not a standard animal/ beast SHOULD demand a feat pickup or on a decently high level. Owlbears are mages experminetations let loose NOT natural! So it makes sense to work for being able to shape into Owlbears and similar chimeras etc.
Im with you bro, this is the way to go
This.
Framework is solid, desperately needs features in each block
I disagree completely, generic statblocks make you feel not like the creature you are turning into, but some kind weird approximation illusion of the creature. You can't run as fast as other horses, or burrow under ground like other badgers. It just feels really not great.
About sneak attack. Yes sneak attacking when it is not your turn is awesome, but the real problem is the rogue is struggling to keep up in combat with the other martial classes, and taking this away without giving them something in return just hurts. A large section of players are just way more concerned with balance than the designers are, and a lot of these players (myself included) are the types who go answer the survey.
First and foremost... THANK YOU!
This was a very clear explanation of how the process works and what you guys intend and how you are going forward.
Jeremy has very eloquently soothed my worries for the new druid! I'm on board for the new simplified stat blocking, but I was worried about the loss of versability, but is seems I was not alone and that this collective outcry has been heard!
My faith has been restored :p Keep it up!
Comment updated as I go but I'm glad the feedback is well understood on the wild shape side. I stand with statblocks with customization but I'm excited to check what happens.
As a professional game dev and DMsGuild writer, I must say that listening to Jeremy Crawford explaining the design process is always captivating.
Pre-built stat blocks for wildshape is fine. But they need to have some modicum of flexibility, maybe like how you can modify sorcerer spells with metamagic or warlock invocations.
I really hope ranged smite stays specifically for thrown weapons! Bows always felt odd for smiting, but throwing a hammer has the OOMF that screams smite. Plus its far more balanced as far as range goes.
I really like bowsmiting ... in my headcanon it is a bit like Buddha's hand in Kung Fu Hustle (or like a heatseeking missile...) my fallen paladin (aka Warlock) fires an arrow and his patreon just flattens you with their divine/eldritch might
I want ranged smite to stay. Rangers and Fighters are ALSO supposed to be good in melee, so there isn't any real niche protection here
I like the idea of default statblocks because it solves one of the issues the druid sometimes presents: a player who really understands the beast stat blocks can have a one-person solution for almost any challenge, even solutions the DM may never have considered, and it can sometimes disrupt the planned difficulty of certain encounters or situations. And unless the DM is very strict about what qualifies as 'seeing an animal' the player gets a load of solutions right off the bat. Giving flat stat blocks helps keep the druid dynamic but much more predictable for the DM, which is always very important for swiss army knife characters like these.
Regarding the tiny form balancing issues. Why not just change the rules for how tiny shapes work? Don't give them the buffed stats and AC if you choose a tiny form.
Super glad lore bard will get magical secrets back somehow. That is why I want to play lore bard. The other stuff was always icing not the cake
Please consider that a low rating for a package with high ratings for all individual items but one can also mean low satisfaction with the number of things in the package, rather than that the one thing is bringing the package down. A lot of people are talking about Rogues just not having enough stuff, or not having their stuff early enough. It needs to compete with the other experts in some way other than off-turn damage
These videos are good because I'm a relatively new DM with really new players, and hearing directly from the devs as to how they think the intent for classes and options relay is very useful. It feels like I'm catching up into what the game is about and I understand better when rules seem ambiguous because I see the transparency in their choices
Its great to see the Dev team is still working hard despite all the upper company problems. Keep improving the game for a brighter future of D&D.
On the note of Druids & wildshape: My vote is a singular template, with a substantial list of modifications to choose between, not unlike Infusions or Invocations. This way things like Amphibious with a swim speed & Flyby with a fly speed can be level-locked more smoothly. And, things like Spider Climb, Pack Tactics, Web Walker/Sense, a web attack, pounce, charge, a climb or burrow speed, etc. can be something like "pick x number of these to apply each time you wildshape".
On the note of Paladins & ranged smite: My vote is to make it work with "attacks with melee weapons" in addition to unarmed strikes. The intent being Ranged weapons? No. Thrown weapons? Yes.
How about "attacks with melee weapons, thrown weapons, and unarmed strikes"? The features need to say what they mean and mean what they say.
@@RagingGolo The extra clarity wouldn't hurt. Though, the only weapons with the Thrown property that aren't melee weapons are darts and nets. Nets don't deal damage, so Smite can't add to it. Darts would have similar concerns as any other true ranged weapon like bows.
@@MatthewDragonHammer That's the idea, I think extra clarity never hurts. Smiting with a net would be silly (so I kinda love it), but I did forget about them, to be honest. I don't mind if it includes darts, as the range and damage are still pretty low, but the intent is to also include improvised thrown weapons.
I'm not even against it being attached to proper ranged weapons, I just want it to say what it includes and what rules it interacts with (mostly critical hit rules in this specific instance).
I find the insights into past surveys to be especially fascinating! Thank you for sharing those.
Making it so the sneak attack does things besides dealing damage might be interesting to pack into rogue subclasses. So like, the assassin doubles down on damage; the thief can do things like manipulate items that the target has equipped (especially useful against archers and mages); Arcane Trickster could do different damage types with their sneak attack.
I really hope we continue on this path of making DnD the best it can be. Please keep these updates coming I love the transparency!
Glad you guys took the time to do this video and explain every little detail on how decisions are being made. Keep the good work!
Awesome! Thanks for focusing on some of the touchy questions, it is nice hearing the reasons behind stuff, would it be out of the question to make a "this is why" video on whole documents? This does help a lot.
That clears up all my fears of Paladin (can't wait for Punchadin, am ambilavent about Shootadin, and am glad crit smites are still real). I appreciate the nuanced take and explanation on Druid as well as someone who really doesn't like the approach in the playtest packet. I didn't think about how much sturdier the tiny forms are now so it makes sense they'd consider delaying it. I think scouting is 99% of the joy and fun of Wildshape for all my druid players so I think that has to come online sooner, and possibly with just dimished HP/AC compared to the other forms if they keep the "set" statblocks instead of the "crawl through the book" approach.
I HATE losing the separate health pool for Wild Shape. Without that, there is no reason to ever wild shape. Why wild shape if you are more likely to get hit, don’t get much more health, and also can’t cast spells? There is absolutely no benefit other than out of combat scouting.
THIS!
Agreed
The changes to Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are fantastic and will allow other classes like MOnks/Rogues to shine where before they couldnt because of these feats.
However the lack of changes to War Caster and Sentinel make them REQUIRED feats for casters and rogues respectively. Every single rogue will want sentinel and every single caster will want war caster, that shouldnt be the case.
Few feedback bullet points from me:
- I really like the idea of simplifying the Druid Wildshape process. But it's not quite there yet. I think maybe giving them the ability to expend an additional resource if they want to choose a specific stat block over the premade, might scratch that itch for some people, of having the options, but also maintaining simplicity where necessary.
- I REALLY love that a lot of the Expert Class UA Feats have ability score increases built into them. I never really liked having to choose between a feat or a stat bonus. Especially if you are trying to do something with a particular amount of flavor, like dual wielding, those feats become necessary to even be at the table, and then you are just at the mercy of the one-time dice roll at the beginning of the game for stats. Having the ability to reliably progress your character growth throughout the game helps deter the desire to fudge initial rolls and/or meticulously min/max during character creation.
- As we inch towards the inevitable Wizard UA: ADD MORE ICE SPELLS! I really want to convince my Cryomancer-ly-Inclined friend to play with me, but there's definitely not enough Ice spells to focus a build around.
just a big thank you - we can see how much heart you pour into all of this and THAT makes it gonna be great, i have no doubt!
Fast Hands and the use an object action are great examples of things in the game that would greatly benefit from a tag system.
One option that might solve the level requirements for tiny wildshapes and the lack of extra wildshape hp would be to give the wildshape templates hp proportial to their size. So a medium size creature would have something like 1*(druid_level + wisdom_mod), a tiny (1/4) * (druid_level + wisdom_mod), and a large 2*(druid_level+wisdom_mod). Obviously the formula for this would need serious thought and balancing, as well as refinement to make it easy to use.
Am I the only person who hate the new Divine smites and thinks that it restricts paladin so much that they literally can't be played the same way as they used to. I love the Idea of character that can hit like a truck but doesn't have a lot of fuel. The dopamine boost of doing divine smite + any smite + critical hit is amazing. Now Paladins are just worse clerics. That just has some aura + more hp.
I really appreciate the clarifications here - there were a lot of points that were a bit ambiguous in the document
Suggestion for the thief rouge. Fast hands. You could define the object that can be used with the feature... call them utility items... these items could include ball bearings, caltrops, grappling hooks, thieves tools, etc. Then make it where they can use these items. Plus it you add more items in the future. You give an item the utility tag and don't have to go back with an errata to fix.
Hey, I just want to say that I really appreciate this whole playtest process you are doing. There are things about the UAs I would change (like the new spell preparation system) but on the whole I really appreciate the transparency and willingness to listen to feedback.
As is. The only reason a martial should ever want to be a melee build is if they are a monk barbarian or paladin that confine you to melee. Or if your team already has one and you might as well flank. If you're taking classes off that list. You need to buff melee as a whole since range is stronger than melee in isolation
Seeing so much talk about the feedback on Druids and Paladins BEFORE THE SURVEY is very reassuring.
You could have a "unique traits" list for wildshape modifiers. Druids can pick new traits from the list every few levels or so. Like similar to meta magic options/infusions/Invocations. As some ideas:
- Tiny creature size
- 10ft melee reach
- Ranged attacks (30/120)
- +10ft natural speed bonus
- the ability to cast a specified spell
- the ability to speak the language of the creature you shaped into
- limited teleport (30ft?)
- et cetera
If this is too powerful, say maybe you can only use two traits at once when wild shaped.
I love this. Thank you for having these Development updates. Please keep doing these, even AFTER 6E releases.
Making Surveys to ask people what the next books should be would also be great. I think it would REALLY help with morale as you would be able to release books that you KNOW people are going to want.
On the druid, I really think templates are they way to go, but with modifiers. Eg. pick 2 of the following and apply to the land template.
- Pack tactics
- Brute (+2 str)
- Tiny (do half damage)
- Dark vision
- Climbing
- Pounce
- Shell (+2 AC)
...
Moon druid picks an extra one, and maybe at a high level every druid picks an extra one. Drop the flying and swimming templates, and just make it modifiers you can only access at appropriate levels.
The balance of the current templates are way out of whack, you are probably better in melee with a shield and staff than in animal form, but the scouting forms are gone from low levels.
I feel instead of having Aquatic and Flier be things you get at certain levels. What you could do is have a large selection of animal traits, including things like swim speed and fly speed. When you wild shape at lk level 1, you can have 2 animal traits for your wild shape. Meaning if you choose flying or swimming, you only get 1 other trait while land creatures can often have 2. At higher levels, you increase the number of traits you can select when you wild shape. Maybe moon druid also gets an extra animal trait as part of combat wild shape. Some more powerful animal traits could be locked til later levels
Some example traits could be
Aquatic (swim speed + waterbreathing)
Flier
Flyby
Pack tactics
Climber
Huge (huge sized)
Burrower
Venomous/Poisonous
Constrictor
Keen smell
Keen hearing
Keen sight
Tiny (tiny size and halves damage)
Webs
Mauler (extra melee damage)
Fleet (bonus to all speeds)
Natural defense (bonus AC from shell, hide, speed, etc)
Mount
Charge
Pounce
Blind sight
Powerful build
Web walker/web sense
You get the picture.
Its not true that wildshape is not used because of its complexity - that complexity is only true for Moon Druids who have the hundreds of statblocks to choose from. For other druids, wildshape is mostly an untouched feature except for the occasional turning into a small animal to scout ahead.
I feel like the whole druids being all the animals/general stat blocks can be so easily solved by just having the general stat blocks as an option. Include them in the class description for people who want an easy quick option, but then also allow the option to go looking for specific animal stats as well if you feel like it.
If you want to avoid all the complexity of having infinite animals to choose from that surprises the DM just require the druid to actual see and study an animal in the game (maybe make a nature check while looking at an animal) in order to have the option to wild shape into it.
I dont see why circle of the moon is elemental based, I think it should be able to grow into even larger beasts and get temp hp when they shift and then make an elemental subclass separately
New ranger is great, but FOE SLAYER needs a total rework. The improvement of hunter's mark from 1d6 to 1d10 at 18th level is really irrelevant. You can bake that improvement right into favoured enemy like "At 18th level this bonus increases to 1d10". Foe slayer, should be something else really cool and impactful. Other than that big misstep though, the new ranger is essentially perfect.
As a game designer, I love this videos, really interesting why some decisions were made
Very glad to hear you guys talk about some ways the current version of wildshape could be preserved and improved upon. I've seen many online who act like the feature is unsalvageable, when it always seemed to me that all it needs is a more approachable and available list of statblocks.
Druid Wild Shape should grant some amount of temporary hit points while transformed in your Wild Shape.
It doesn't even have to be a lot. Even temp HP equal to your current max (Or even half) would work.
@@Khailward I agree
I don't envy them having to balance all of this after everyone gets everything in the candy store.
I feel like they should call it unarmed attack or unarmed action because its more than just a strike now.
I would love to hear discussion about feedback on the new spell preparation rules. It's been great to see how open you are in this process and that's an area I've found super frustrating. Playing a lvl 7 character where I can only a single 4th level spell but have to prep multiple 1st level spells that I can't use really hurts.
are you referring to number of spell slots or prepared spells? because, currently, you can prepare all 4th level spells and no 1st level spells if you wanted.
@@alexwynn89 I'm referring to the number spells of each spell level. In today's playtest rules, the number of spells you prep for a level must match the number of slots you have for that level. So at lvl 7 you must prep four 1st level spells, three 2nd level spells, 3 third level spells, and exactly one 4th level spell.
After like 5th level I typically don't need a bunch of different 1st level spells prepped, but appreciate being able to prep more mid-level spells to have options. And it is very frustrating to have to pick exactly one spell for my highest level slot, it makes it very hard to pick a more niche spell. Typically I would prefer to have an option or two even if I can only use that slot once
The issues with current Wildshape is that a few beasts are more useful than others by a wide enough margin that you’re left with a choice between being effective or flavorful. The CR system is bad, but making creatures which are strong enough to deal with degenerate levels of PC power creep would go a long way, and then having them live up to the numbers they’re given could fix it.
Default stat blocks are fine for reflavoring, but there are certain abilities animals are expected to have which the formless land, water, and air blocks don’t. You could just provide one default stat block and abilities to apply to it, like special senses, movement types, attacks, and defenses. The Druid should get the base and some number of adjustments based on their class level, and the abilities could include extending the size range. You’d probably need to bring back sizes diminutive, fine, and colossal, but that was already true because you were overzealous in stripping out details like those. Then the Druid could eventually learn to shrink to the size of a fly, but not immediately.
It seems like the easiest solution to the druid is allow people to change into any beast while ALSO having a generic "beast" statblock that you can reflavour as necessary. So you have the quick, generic option that is really good numerically but lacks the bells and whistles but the freedom for advanced players to hunt down beasts that do different things and are faster or tougher or can burrow.
I’m glad they aren’t straight up ignoring or lying about the wildshape feedback.
I feel that wild shaping into a tiny creature should be available when you gain wild shape using the stat blocks they are proposing, but until you reach lvl 11 your HP is set to 1, Damage is set to 1, and AC is set to 10.
Thank you JC! I'm glad that the designing team is listening to players and making ideas as the players would like.❤❤
I'd also like about that JC said that Sneak Attack would be reverted back to what it was before, and it's going to get maybe more damge or utility stuffs. But I hope the designing team could also notice that Rogue isn't the best Skill Class as it should be.
Rogue is the only Expert in this class who cannot cast, while other Experts all have spells and cantrips to help them advance their skill checks, especially the Bard not only a full-caster but also "Jack of All Trades".
This awkward situation for being definitely not the best skill user lasts until Rogue leveled to 11, when they get Reliable Talent.
Reliable Talent is so great that indeed make Rogue the best skill user, but it only comes too late and most of the campaigns won't reach that high. According to the survey result published by DnDBeyond, most of the campaigns are around 3~9, which makes Rogue the weakest skill user for most of the time.
I think it would be a great idea to have the Rogue get their Reliable Talent earlier like level 3 or 5, but with a lower number as the starting number and grows as they leveled.❤
When you fill out the survey you need to fill out the number fields even if it is about a feature you don't fully care about or deeply understand so often you get more of a "it's fine" answer when the people passionate about the feature have to use the explanation field to clearly show the problem.
The issue with wild shape isn’t that you can stay as a beast for longer with using your health pool, it’s that your health buffer as a larger creature is no longer there… it’s like they don’t realize how people actually USE wild shape(in battle)
wish they would address our concerns with spell list changed and classes losing fitting spells, like bards losing faerie fire, thunder wave, HEROISM, enhance ability, light, mage hand, etc.
Technically they keep Thunderwave as it became a transmutation spell, but I fully agree!
Also, I don’t like Bardic being a reaction, takes away Counterspell and Silvery Barbs options, Cutting Words for my Lore and Oppurtunity attacks for my melee bards. Just overwhelmed with reactions.
@@Castlattice bardic is a reaction? I missed that and oh man i hate it.
@@Castlattice like bardic inspiration being a reaction takes away the flavor of the ability. Your inspiring someone to do something, your not quickly inspiring them in the spur of the moment, that makes no sense
29:15
I'm not a big fan of that.
I really love Reactions, as they keep players engaged during everyone else's turns.
For example, a Wizard with Silvery Barbs will be looking for an opportunity to mess up an enemy's turn or help an ally land their spell.
I love playing and DMing druids. I love the pre-gen stat blocks, for both roles, and I figure, for any animal specific flavor, like a Charge feature, that can be at DM discretion.
I think my gut reaction to moving away from the monster manual for wildshape was too reactionary and I see the benefits of it. But to have the best of balance and customization, it is a challenge to design. Taking away non-somatic/verbal class abilities from wild shape is also a detriment, considering the druid retains their intelligence and best skills. A druid ranger multiclass not being able to use favored foe/enemy, or something like the monster slayer's prey ability punishes a minority of people who are trying to explore synergies
You've created the Tiny creature problem yourself by removing the ability to drop a creature out of wild shape, which is itself a loss of a wonderful dramatic mechanic. Make wild shape dependent on the remaining temp hp and it'll be fixed.
I like Tiny Wild Shape where it is now. To me it makes sense that a tiny creature will be more tactically powerful, as that's how it plays out in shows and movies, and also that it will take more expertise for a druid to hold such a precise form.
New Ranger definitely deserves the high satisfaction score. A genuine improvement over the original without making it overpowered, all while keeping the theme and feel for the class. If something like that can be achieved for the rest of the classes, One D&D will be something to behold.
This is awesome! Ranger from 5e Player's Handbook was often regarded as the worst class. I love this. I was a huge fan of the Playtest Ranger.
Playtest was such a huge turnaround. Next step is for them to get Beastmaster functional
Absolutly
@@highspeedstrongstyle9061 Tashas...
This version is way to reliant on using limited spellslots to access core features. i played one and it feels terrible, but the expertise is cool i suppose.
Ranger was never the worst class. Very little changed about ranger before the community perception did.
Even if features like natural explorer are lack luster and leave for a class entry painful to read, the combination of
a half caster for the most potent form of magic. Crowd control with healing options plus utility
And a specialist in the most powerful type of martial, an archer.
and the universal application of "Every subclass provides a zero resource DPR improvement at level 3"
Made for a very powerful class if you just built them more similarly to how you build fighter archers with CBE instead of trying to use huntersmark. Imagine being a fighter that instead of action surge did an extra d8 every single turn, instead of second wind, had goodberry and cure wounds, and instead of maneuvers had entangle, and you are imagining something of similar or greater strength
The community perception of ranger has been steadily improving since before Tasha's. No changes necessary.
I did not notice it being addressed here, and I am not sure I addressed it directly in my responses to the Expert Survey, but one reason the Rogue as an overall class might be rated lower than it's individual features is that it seems to be getting comparatively weaker than other classes, even though most of the changes to the individual Rogue features were buffs.
For example, with the Scholar Holy Order option that came out in the Clerics UA, a level 2 Cleric with that option, and the guidance cantrip would likely be as good, or better as a "Skill Expert" that the Rogue at early levels.
One thing that I'm still not sold on with the Divine Smite proposed is that you can't use more than one Divine Smite in the same round, even if both attacks (once you hit 5th level) connect.
Ok, good! I'm not only one who upset about the lack of choices in each feature of the Hunter subclass. The Hunter was my first character for 5e as a beginner player, & I LOVED all the choices I had to determine my go-to playstyle. It was gratifying to NOT be locked into a single combat style.