Baselining the Thief would frankly be amazing. All rogues getting UMD, Fast Hands, Stealth Attack and Reflexes would be an amazing buff to the rogue without actually overpowering it as none of those features actually affect their damage. More and more I'm hoping this is the route they go!
Weird that they're all the martial classes, isn't it? I mean, many people say the base classes could use a buff so maybe this is why. Essential functions have been removed to create some sense of a particular subclass being the advanced form of the base subclass. I say, let the higher levels be the advanced form of the base subclass. It incentivizes staying single-class if they did. Subclasses should always elevate the base class, but in ways that add different flavors, not more of the same.
@@GlacialScion I think for most people it is tbf. The reason champion is there is to be the easy pickup and play subclass for new players. Most people probably think of battle master when they think fighter
I fixed psy warrior in my campaigns by folding battlemaster into fighter, giving them 2 extra superiority dice, and changing the psy warrior abilites that use the dice into special maneuvers only pay warriors can do; same way i fixed arcane archer. I really wish wizards would do the same. For soul knife they could fold its features into their new cunning strike as well if theyre worried about a busted multiclass dip.
I still don't understand why they make resources based on PB/A Stat outside of feats. The only place where PB should be is in feats and racial abilities. Even something that is based on a stat is not right IMO.
That defeats the point of it all though. People don't multiclass because its broken, they multiclass because straight classing martials is not viable and leaves you in the dust compared to casters. Making martials worse is not gonna solve this, its just gonna make people not play martials. If you wanted people to actually spend more levels in soul knife or psi warrior then give them good features at level 10+ that actually outvalue multiclassing into 2 different level 3 classes.
@@luminous3558 thays why at my table i fixed it the way i did in my reply. Tied it to fighter level but improved the base class so that you actually want to gain those levels.
That's true..once you get above a certain lvl casters,even half casters will out damage and have more rp options then martial classes,yes fighters can do 4 attacks a round but paladin with smite/with a few lvls will out damage a fighter
"Yeah but do you see that diamond the cleric is using to raise dead? Why, any professional jeweller can tell that is a cubic zirconia, so clearly the god only cares about the carbon structure, not the price!"
@@Idziemel1 Only problem is... Illustration can only explain some details unless WotC can actually apply it to the written rules. Pictures can be deceiving and not show the full rules.
Curious and worried about 'undesirable' multiclasses. I'm guessing small dips into Warlock for Eldritch Blast or Cha to weapons may be what they were talking about.
Eldritch blast is now tied to the warlock level so it's not worth dipping for it. But I agree that using Charisma for weapon attacks is a very good reason
If we look at the playtest for fighter, the prevented spells from being cast with action surge to make sure a fighter was the best user of action surge. My guess is the undesirable are what treantmonk listed in the video and ensuring the classes with a feature use that feature the best.
Yep. They basically seems to want multiclassing to only kick in, at levels where most tables stop playing. Making it completely suboptimal and boring to level. It will make for standardized characters, and tactical staleness. But I guess they hope to sell more subclasses that way, since that will be the only way to give your character variety. For me it, this might be a reason to not play the new dnd.
i imagine they want multiclasses to feel like you are sacrificing mastery of 1 niche for versatility or multiple niches rather than just stacking as many overpowered low level abilities for the mathematically biggest number
@@kongoaurius Eldritch Blast *was* tied to Warlock level, but that was from the Playtest 5 Warlock, which a ton of the community absolutely hated because they didn't like Warlocks having regular spell slots, even if it freed them from their extreme reliance on frequent short rests in order to keep up. When the Playtest 7 Warlock basically reverted almost all of the Playtest 5 changes, that included tying Eldritch Blast to Warlock level instead of total level (page 43 of the Playtest 7 document, under the Spell Update design notes: "Eldritch Blast and Hex reverted to their 2014 versions.")
Spell art is not only a supplementary thing, it gives a nice pointer to how the spell is cast, which gives you information how you can bend the rules in your favor, use it correctly, how apparent or obvious the spell looks and sounds for stealth and deception purposes.. And of course the roleplay purposes for them are great
@@KingMJAH Cubes in general are weird, how you can angle it however you want, so long as the origin is on an edge or corner, compared to spheres/circles/hemispheres where the origin is always the center or lines where the origin is always one end of the line
I thought Shield of Faith to, but once they said Spirit Guardians, I looked harder, and it looks like there's a dark shape, standing behind the character, that is holding the shield, with its face turned down in a dramatically moody manner like Batman.
It does look like one thing: though the game may be backwards compatible, its certainly going to be an examined option. If the new Spiritual Weapon is concentration, I'm not going to let a player "choose" to use the old one. If a tamed version of Peace or Twilight Cleric is released, I'm not going to allow the older ones. I'm thinking what's best will be a complete blank slate start, with no grandfathered in subclasses. not to be mean, but also, to lessen confusion over learning new features. I think backwards compatibility is way more important to me, as a DM, for adventures.
I guess it’s more of a backwards compatibility like with pathfinder 2e. They released a backwards compatible remastered version of the core books to remove the ogl from their material and the rule is pretty easy: if content is released under the same name, use the remastered version. If it has a new name, both versions are legal.
Bingo... Backward Compatibility was never for the Rules but only for the Module Books. Such is a marketing when they claimed it was, when it wasn't. Case in point... Jump is an Action in One DnD. Not as a part of your Move in 5e.
They better have visual examples of equipment and armor - like a Gambison - you know - to give some art to Martials! Perhaps a layer description of armor- what's under the plate? What is padding? Is Padded armor the same as Gambison? I don't know.
Shields... What Shields?... It's all +2 AC. Because you can literally have a cardboard badge as a Shield on your hand with a Paladin's sign on it, and by RAW, it gives you +2 AC. 3.5e had better ideas for weapons.
5e is a fantastic system and I’m hoping/expecting this new version to be significantly better. It’s so sad that much of the goodwill for DnD was eroded by Hasboro at least it feels that way to me. The momentum going into the 50th anniversary could have been so much greater.
For multiclassing, I hope they finally addressed the awkwardness of multiclassing into two classes with extra attack. I always felt like if you had two classes that get multiattack at 5 and you totaled 5 level of them, you should get extra attack, so you can have more freedom of going back and forth instead of always going 5 on one class first and then never going above 4 another.
I tried redundant extra attacks turning into feats. It worked ok, most of the time multi cladding that far was sub optimal because it meant a 5 dip in two different classes, which most often hinders a character who could be a single 10.
Hard to say whether a feat would even be good enough to compare to Extra Attack. With the possible exception of the Paladin's 6th level aura, Extra Attack is probably martials' most significant individual feature in the first 10 levels.
@@briang3598 Sad thing is... Fighter/Rogue (example) get Extra Attack Types but you can only choose one Type for your Action and they don't stack. By that level. A full caster out DPS and out Utility, a Fighter/Rogue.
My guess for the Rogue is also Swashbuckler. Dropping Thief instead doesn't seem likely since Thief is the other quintessentially iconic Rogue archetype alongside Assassin. Thief was literally the name of the Rogue class in 1st and 2nd edition. Dropping Thief would feel like dropping Life Cleric or Devotion Paladin. Plus, Thief fits a bit better into the paired themes people have been noticing about the planned subclasses. You've got Thief vs Assassin as one pair, to represent the Rogue dichotomy of burglar vs killer, and you've got Arcane Trickster and Soulknife as the supernatural Rogues wielding magical power vs psychic power. Swashbuckler, while also an iconic Rogue archetype, doesn't quite slot in as neatly thematically as those four do with each other.
honestly, Assassin could easily be replaced with Soul-knife. Soulknife gives you infiltrating abilities (teleporting and invisibility), you can kill without leaving marks on a body, and you dont need to carry weapons with you. The ultimate assassin!
Assassin needs a rework to meet their design goals of being table friendly. Thief needs a rework to make it more viable Arcane trickster needs a minor rework and mirrors the eldritch knight. Swashbuckler is probably the least likely to be revised because it needs revised the least. Imo of course
I hope not. Swashbuckler is the only pirate-themed subclass we have. It is very thematic. Thief and Assassin have the least character, and Thief in particular has features which just seem like all rogues should get. So that's what I'm hoping for. Merge Thief with the base class and maybe add a Thief feat for players who _really_ want to make theft their character's entire personality.
I would honestly hope for Swashbuckler staying and Assassin being split across Rogue Features and Feats. Keeping with the pairs idea, having Thief vs Swashbuckler representing subtly vs flamboyance. Thief has the classic Rogue energy, while Swashbuckler covers the ways to play a Rogue against type.
The art is probably the area I cared least about - it's cool, just not my personal focus. But you make a good point that having more art in the spell section could be really nice!
@@l33tninja1 Stop lying. They are putting the illustrator's name on all the art they publish, just type their name on Google and see their vast portfolio of years of experience. You try to criticize the brand with these false accusations, but you end up just being disrespectful towards the illustrators, like that time with the warrior dwarf art from the new phb
I see the playtest as a glimpse into their evolving design direction rather than a finalized product. The Monk adjustments seemed to signal a shift in approach. It's likely they've taken the lessons from the Monk and applied them to other areas and I'm eager to see how this approach shapes the upcoming changes to Psi subclasses.
The way you stop op multiclassing is to get rid of frontloading class abilities. However, if you do that people will then complain it takes forever to get to the cool stuff.
Lv3 sounds good enough. Because lv10 is where campaigns end. Lv11 to lv20?... Doesn't exist. If WotC made lv20 as the norm. Then lv5 is the proper limit of when multi class can go crazy. Instead of lv1 dips.
@@briang3598 Eldritch Blast was like that. Up front, EB is a solid DPR Cantrip per Character Level. But only Warlock Levels grant it unique Properties that fundamentally alter EB. Although, I hate that 5e Warlock is limited with its "per level up" rule just to change your Spells/Invocations. It's arbitrary and it doesn't fit in with the Fantasy Story Telling.
I believe the Assassin might be moved to the DMG to join other darker themed subclasses like the Death Domain Cleric and Oath Breaker Paladin. If they might add subclasses again in the DMG.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Oath breaker is in the DMG because it's meant to be one of the consequences for the roleplay of breaking your oath, not a choice the player is allowed to make as the oath they take. Death cleric is in the DMG because it doesn't fit the morally good image of a cleric I guess? Also Aasimar first appeared in the DMG as an example in how to thematically (bc two resistances is a totally mechanically balanced idea) make a race.
@@biodude15 Even so... Your can put "if and only if" rules into the PHB. It's not hard to make the books more orderly. 5e is a jumbled up mess compared to 3.5e. One DnD may follow that same disorderly design as 5e. If the players are going to use a Mechanic or Feature etc. Then put that in the PHB. Don't hide it away in the DMG. Example... If there are Monster Transformation Forms such as Vampire and Werewolves. Than put those into the PHB, not DMG. Players should be able read the instructions in their PHB without having to search it up in the DMG.
Video: "Playtesting and design have continued beyond the public playtests." Bard players who still don't have a UA Bard that's compatible with the playtest material: "Uh, yeah, I sure *hope* they did!"
It always felt a bit implied that they wouldn't just print the latest iteration of something from UA in the new books (since after all, when have they?), but hearing confirmation that improvements kept coming after those closed is neat. I was kind of glad about some of the Ranger stuff they presented, but by the time they said Rangers weren't going to get another go and a bunch of other classes just kept climbing, it felt like the balance would be off yet again.
i really dislike the UA where they did away with subclass spells for the sorcerer and just gave them 10 extra bas spells known. It took out all the flavor
8:34 My problem with this idea is that, yes, the extra spells from Clockwork and Aberrant did fix an issue with the base class, but it was done so well and added so much variety and flavor to the subclasses that most sorcerer players I know, myself included, see it as the gold standard going forward. The idea of gutting an interesting and long requested feature from Aberrant and Clockwork just to help prop up Draconic and Wild is not good design. What I want to see, and hope to see, is Draconic and Wild get their own lists and have a special way to use those spells just like how Aberrant can silently cast its spell list so long as it uses sorcery points. People can call me a worry wort or whatever, but Sorcerer has famously be considered just a worse Wizard for a long time. I just want one of my favorite classes to get the upgrades it needs. It would be wild for WotC to gut a fan favorite feature in favor of propping up weaker subclasses, but this is WotC and I just do not trust how they have handled the Sorcerer for a while now.
Good almost afternoon Chris! I've made it to the Disney Princess build ready to be my next video in my continued journey to watch EVERY build video you've put out! The session 0 last Saturday unfortunately got delayed until tomorrow, but hopefully things will go well tomorrow! Much love, have a great weekend! 💜 Thank you for being an amazing creator and awesome person! Until next time!
My guess on the Rogue is that it is the Thief, as the only options that don't seem bland or just basic enhancements to the base class of Rogue are UMD & Reflexes...which honestly just seem like they should be base rogue features.
Still salty about them not putting Artificer in. Overall, still optimistic. Kind of apprehensive about them publishing books with just 'reprints' but yeah, pretty optimistic.
@@PsyrenXY Honestly, I'd prefer them making magic items/effects unique to artificer like the boots of the winding path and gutting having to know a bunch of magic items in order to keep it in. I'm more worried that this means if artificer comes back, they won't support it with any new subclasses like before
My speculation it's the assassin that got the axe. Due to it being similar thematic to the soul knife. And soul knife is a better assassin than the assassin anyway.
@SNDKNG but the one dnd assassin rogue didn't do that. What it did was add the rogues level in damage and then with the 17th level ability required a saving throw to do the double damage. The soul knife has teleportation and invisibility which are way more useful for an assassin than anything the 2014 or UA assassin rogue can so.
Agreed. A Rogue who can kill without leaving wounds, teleport and turn invisible is a powerful assassin concept. Additionally, Assassin is weird thematically as a solo actor in a team game, while soul knife and their telepathy encourage team play
@@SNDKNG Yeah and everybody loves a player who forces the party into a particular playstyle because their character subclass becomes irrelevant without it. It's the same annoyance as the Warlock "can we take a short rest?" stereotype. GUYS PLZ LET'S SNEAK UP ON THEM SO I CAN DO THE BIG NUMBERS PLZ PLZ. Not everyone wants to do stealthy shit.
I can’t wait to only use this book and not worry about what my players are combining with a bunch of other books. I have wanted to run just phb for a while but Tasha’s and xanathars seemed like a must to give good player options to all the classes. Then things like fizbans, Scag, strixhaven, etc all add something that balance the game in some ways but break it in others. I guess i can’t wait to be surprised a bit less in my combat encounters
Don't allow campaign setting books like Strixhaven. Choose the OPTIONS you want to allow from Tasha's. For the most part it's a good book. Ban Peace and Twilight subclasses and Custom Lineage. Also from 2014 PHB, make sure players no variant human has always been OPTIONAL and ban it too. I only allow the spells from Fizban's.
@@tracymonthei6561 I’m a premed student with two kids working full-time so I don’t really have time to balance the game like that. You are correct that is the answer though.
I feel like they did a "vibe check" to see what the community would like ( and gave us some subclasses ) then presented the more deep mechanics of the game, and now they're adding stuff based on that "vibe". Also, it sounds like they'll be doing the dragontalk series again, which is awesome.
I think one thing that would be awesome are characters that represent the classes that are consistently seen throughout the new PHB. Pathfinder has this with their iconics, and I really enjoy it, it gives clear ideas for what each class can do, and it’s just fun seeing characters you gradually begin to recognize. It’s also very cool seeing the spell art with the iconics. I think one of my favorites in the PF2e Core Rulebook is one of a T-Rex with glowing runes on it (presumably the druid, Lini) fighting a red dragon. There’s a lot of cool art in the Pathfinder 2e books, period. I love the appearance of the alchemist, Fumbus. He repeatedly looks so deranged and it’s the perfect vibe for that kind of class, I feel. I’ve heard this was a thing in D&D 3e but I’m not sure, I’m unfamiliar with the system. If that’s the case, maybe they can bring them back or bring back some “iconics” from other editions… assuming there were any. Again, I don’t know.
@@gloryrod86last thing I personally saw about it was that they brought in a handful of content creators to test it out under a very specific and curated experience as a form of advertising it and showing its current state. It was kinda hard to see what it offered, really, and I got the impression that while it looked pretty, it lacked a lot of basic functions that I personally would want in a VTT, though that may change as it was just an alpha build.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they are looking at aberrant mind and clockwork soul and seeing them as so much more powerful than the rest because of their expanded spell lists and instead of rebalancing the remaining subclasses by giving them expanded spell lists they just remove the expanded spell lists from them and replace them with nothing.
I disagree - the reason why aberrant mind and clockwork gave those is without them sorcerer is just a worse wizard. I suspect the remaining subclasses will gain *some* free preppared spells. This being said, I wouldn't be surprised if it's notched down to 1 spell per spell level.
That could happen but I don't see them removing the tentacly spells from Aberrant Mind or Summon Construct from Clockwork. Rather, I expect they will trim the bloodline spells for each down from 10 to 5, add 5 each to the other two, and combine that to the increased base spells known (15->22) so we still come out ahead.
@@pacattack2586 don’t forget that when they first redesigned sorcerer they didn’t include expanded spell lists and instead tried to make them even worse wizards than they were by tying their subclass features to spells where wizard gets the same amount of spell losses but a regular subclass in addition to new features so broken that you could double haste a target.
One thing I'd like to see addressed with multiclassing is Warlocks being consistently used for 1 level dip power spikes. Things like Pacts being invocations now create this double edged sword. On one hand, you can have multiple pacts now but on the other, bards and paladins can just get the Eldritch Adept feat and grab a pact without messing up any of their class progression. Things like Pact of the Blade,Chain, and Tome should at the least require a warlock level (i'd actually like to see them re-swap the patron/pact features to requiring warlock levels 1 and 3 respectfully) and hopefully Eldritch Blast continues to only scale with warlock levels as opposed to character levels. At least this way, if you want your busted features, you have to commit at least a bit more than a spare feat for it.
What other Invocations are available for Non Warlocks with Eldritch Adept Feat in One DnD? In 5e, there are better options that isn't just Default Eldritch Blast. 5e Invocations are strong for the particular spell the Invocation has.
@absolstoryoffiction6615 as of right now, pact of the Blade, Chain, and Tome are all level 1 invocations so paladins and bards can use the Eldritch Adept feat to grab a huge power spike with pact of the blade and not even have to divert their class progression for it. Even with the latest UA, warlock continues to shine as a class you simply dip into or out of rather than dedicate several levels to. I'd like to see more long term reward for investing 15+ levels into warlock.
@@TheSko90 Warlock seems to be the class that picks a few spells but the Invocations heavily enhances/modifies it. While picking other spells over more Invocations are just to smooth out the specific build. But the "you may change your Invocation per level up" 5e rule is just terrible. I prefer Per Short or Long Rest. It's more in line to other casters.
Hey TM, I still enjoy and watch everyone one of your videos, but I'm one who left D&D after the WotC scandal last January. I 've checked out the Playtests that D&D released but I honestly felt most of the things were Meh. The company was smart to make 5e Open Source so they'd always be relevant. But, I truly want any new edition of D&D to blow me away and I felt like most of the tweaks weren't about bringing the old subclasses up to the power level of the new concepts. I felt too much old school Microsoft influence with minor tweaks to just Nerf everything. I'm glad to hear about them keeping Multiclass combos because that's always been fun for me. Rule #1: Make the game FUN. I understand that they have a herculean responsibility to make the game fun while maintaining balance... Not just for -Bar-passed-20 years-ago professional Rules Lawyers, Doctors, IT Pros, etc. But, for middle schoolers & any and all Creatives who fear the click-clack Math Dice. :) As someone who's been following your Guides since 3.5, you've done a great job of being one of the Champions of D&D in every edition and I appreciate you keeping us up to date about this new stuff coming out.
Totally understand your decision. I had a better reaction to the playtest stuff but I'm hopeful the published version will be superior to the playtests.
I dunno why, but the art for the wizard gives off more holy than arcane vibes. Well, I mean, I guess I know why - cause of the yellow/orange/whatever color. xD
My honest takeaways are the following: 1. I definitely like that they are attempting to clarify the rules, especially on Illusion spells, as they are areas where players would get into far too many arguments with DMs due to the inability to clarify what illusion spells do. 2. I'm a little nervous about new spells and features/feats, since each one is potentially a new way to break the game, but I'm a little optimistic that they've learned from the past 10 years of designing for 5e to prevent cheese when new features are added. 3. Pushing subclasses back to level 3, while simple and anti-flavorful, is actually really good for the game in regards to multiclassing. There are still problems with certain frontloaded features like Pact of the Blade being able to be taken through a feat, indeed they're more front loaded since you can now get Hexblade-lite at level 1 through Pact of the Blade, and providing almost the same benefits as Hexblade, and stupidly reverting the change that scaled Eldritich Blast out of Warlock levels than total levels, which still means a Warlock dip is stupidly good at 1 level. 4. On multiclassing itself, if I were advising them, I'd probably either junk multiclassing entirely, or clarify that it's a variant rule that the DM has to approve beforehand. At this point, despite 5e being better than most editions on not allowing people to make broken multiclass builds, it still occurs with frightening regularity, and the other outcome is being completely overshadowed. I don't believe they can redesign and fix multiclassing in time to release the PHB without pushing back on the release date, unfortunately.
I understand it may be giving sorcerers a big lunch, but id much rather see every subclass get a dedicated spell list with some having the option to swap some of them than have sorcerers with no expanded spell list and a new feature. If we're beinf honest it's much easier to balance spells than it is to balance class features, and having dedicated spell list does a lot of the heavy lifting when it come to synergizing flavor and mechanics
This, exactly this. It adds a ton of flavor for each subclass, helps make them more distinct from other sorcerer subclasses, and it fixed the biggest problem the base class had. Not to mention it is the easiest way to balance out the subclasses. Some will still be stronger than others, but Bloodline spells did so much to elevate Aberrant and Clockwork and it was easily the most requested feature for Sorcerers to receive.
As a DM, I won't let a player use the new version of a class with the old version of a subclass and vice versa if both have been reprinted. I would allow new versions of the class with old subclasses that haven't been reprinted yet about 90% of the time I think. I think this is what's intended by the balance, and that there are limits on "backwards compatibility."
@@leef9142 No no no, it's officially allowed DM. I want to run both new and old together! It's right there in the rules... As a fellow DM this is going to create a nightmare with some of the players that are floating around.
@@leef9142 they literally said at gencon that the book will say to only use revised subclasses with revised classes, they are not balancing the game around using the old version of a subclass on the new version of the class
I just want (and have wanted for decades now) the monk to be good. Also, for to have the same amount of care they have with magic with martials. Martials deserve to have interesting options and at-will cool features
Agreed. In addition, I think they need to reduce the power of Dexterity by decoupling it from Initiative. A smart strategist should be able to compete for high Initiative with an agile foe.
I wonder if this phb will be larger? If it's not then that would mean stuff will be cut, right? I hope it will be larger but I don't know if they have a predefined "size" that the book must be.
7:44 Problem with that sentiment though is that these fixes are currently coming at the cost of making MORE nerfs to the base metamagic, to the point of completely ruining some of them for the sake of adding the new spells! It doesn't fix the class if you undermine the power it already had to add the new power!
that artwork you showed from the 2014 PHB, before you said what spell it was, I assumed that was a picture of shield of faith taking a blast of lightning
The assassin might be the rogue subclass they're getting rid of as they've had design problems with it in the past. I really hope it's not the thief as it's one of my favorite subclasses in all of 5E despite being a bit underpowered.
one thing I also hope they include with multiclassing and classes in general is a mention of flavor. as sometimes you want to change the flavor of class abilities without changing mechanics" or for multiclassing choosing if instead of 2 seperate classes instead you flavor them both the same to make a more uniform character they put a small section like that in tashas regarding spell flavor. and while some disnt understand the need to have that there I have had DMs that are extremely by the book and if its not there you cant do it. so just adding a small foot note about that will help such DMs be open to players expressing their character abilities differently (as long as the flavor fits the campaign setting obviously)
I love flavoring everything into Sword. It's the best kind of flavor. Polarm?... Sword. Knife?... Sword but small. Shield?... Flat Sword. Magic Missile?... Summon Sword... That requires no AC and Saves to hit. Which is always fun to do.
I kind of like the idea that the reason that that particular guardian of faith spell looks the way it does is due to that cleric just so happening to be of the forge domain... and yes I'm aware that the forge domain came out i Xanithars. On a more serious note I think in one of the other interviews they talked about moving a lot of the really juicy subclass features to be level 3 or 6 to remove the ubiquitous one/two level dips. If you do that then you really don't need a redesign for multi-classing so long as one level of hexblade warlock or peace cleric doesn't give you so much right off the bat.
In some cases, a three level dip is still too strong in comparison to single-classed characters. They need to present a more balanced game, including feats and multiclassing as a default.
@@tracymonthei6561 that's fair, but that likely means that some feature or other should be had at a later level, or needs to be reworded to work in a less broken way. That's more an issue with balancing classes and subclasses against each other. Yes there are likely some issues that have more to do with how some class or subclass feature interacts with some other class or subclass feature, and I'm sure some level of effort is going into nerfing the broken combos or at least the most broken combos but there will always be some level of that with a multiclassing system that lets you stack features from different classes rather than only letting your warlock features apply to your pact magic spells and only let your cleric features apply to your cleric spells etc, but that would likely overly penalize multiclassing.
Some great clarifications and additions have been included in the playtest so far, but I fear they didn't streamline and simplify the ruleset enough. Some new options may slowdown gameplay for new or casual players.
I would say to them: Please put Backgrounds before Classes this time. In character development you need to pick Background first, because each has specific skills, and then you can select skills from your larger Class list.
For multiclassing, one thing I am curious about is if they did anything with the usage limits of features like Rage, Second Wind, Wild Shape, and Channel Divinity which each restore one use on a short rest, and all usages on a long rest. During UA, my thought was they could make those usages a shared resource when multiclassing, like how spell slots are shared while multiclassing, but I am interested in what they did, if anything, when it comes to those types of features, and multiclassing.
@@matthewparker9276 I don't have a preference for what this shared resource could be called... like I could also go with "Channel" points/usages as in "Channel Divinity", "Channel Nature", "Channel Rage", etc.
The new 4 elements from the playtest was pretty solid, if not a bit on the bland side. If they can manage to keep those features and bring back some of the old features like water whip and twin viper strike without making them too ki heavy or oversarurating the class then it may become my favorite monk.
I started playing around when TCoE was released, so I've always been of the opinion that Sorcerer subclasses should come with extra spells known. More spells known as a base clasd feature would also be coolz but that feels like stepping into Wizard territory, whereas giving specific bonus spells to Sorcerer subclasses allows for potentially more powerful options that can't be combined in the most broken ways. Sort of like having one of the Power Nine as an exclusive feature from all the others.
What i would like to see is: 1. Remove ASI entirely or have every feat give a +1 ability. 2. Remove concentration on buff spells. Especially Cleric spells. No cleric is going to cast Bless when he has spirit guardians. 3. Remove attunement. Attunement removes all incentive to quest for look. Its the exact opposite of what DnD should be about.
Im liking what im hearing but we will see. I definitely think they still needed some minor tweaks at the last playest documents so hopefully they made the necessary changes. One example was the order options of protector or thurmaturge there really wasnt any benefit to picking thurmaturge so hopefully they made it more interesting and other changes like that. Some of the subclasses needed a bit of work also like war cleric defintely needed another pass.
Spot on assessments, people’s assumptions about the updated core books are way too obtuse. As always your acknowledgement of the design teams nuanced approach is more complicated than “old books with UA class changes”
I just wish they would take the time to update all existing subclasses... which I hope will eventually happen but some really need love... Purple Dragon Knight and Path of the Battlerager to name a few.
Hi Chris, big fan. I'm an old-school 1st edition player recently getting into 5e. I'm mostly using DnD & Beyond and I think my campaign plans to stick with 5e rules even after the new books come out. Do you have any idea as to whether WOC will update DnD & Beyond with the new rules? More generally, wondering which of the many 5e rule books will be supplanted by the new books in practice? This might be a good idea for a video/series of videos - sort of "nuts and bolts" guidance as to how handle the transition to the new rules for campaigns that will stay with 5e, those that will shift, and maybe some that become a mix. This all might be premature at this stage. Anyway, keep up the great work.
I think the wizard art is fantastic. I feel the artwork for classes should show the most idealized versions of those classes to spark the imagination of the players.
I'm just not excited for this anymore after testing DC20. I created a rogue in DC20 and I'm getting to do things at level one that I would have to wait until level 5 as a NEW rogue in revised 5e. In revised 5e rogue you don't get to put negative conditions on targets until lvl 5 AND AT A COST OF DAMAGE. In DC20 you get to do that at level 1 AND NO DAMAGE LOSS. I'll give the new books a look but pretty sure d&d are stuck in the past and haven't grown enough.
I wonder if we will get rulings on weapons damage of different size categories. I feel like ever since rune knight there hasn't been a consensus on what turning your weapon large is supposed to do in 5e. Unlike 3.5 where it was clearly written etc.
I'm glad to see the proliferation of character options, but I still have reservations about the new book, especially with the lackluster track record of the current game design team. Still, I'll reserve judgement until I can see the finished product and rake it over the coals.
Hexblade nerf! Hexblade nerf! Hexblade nerf! But really. Taking away the easy 1-3 level dips from making characters incredibly strong is a real step toward improving multiclass diversity.
While I’m excited about new content, let it be known here that as someone who plays with a large group of casual players, dnds accessibility is its biggest feature. Easily accessible and free availability of the content is the make or break for how successful the new players handbook is, in terms of use. And hey, can always just stick with OG5e if you don’t like the new stuff or how it’s licensed
Great video Treant. Very curious to see what all has been done that they haven't shown us in the UAs. Or what they did but maybe revised (spell creation?) that didn't get revised in the later UAs. Also i think there are a lot of the 2014 classes that had a subclass that should really have some if not most if the features subsumed into the base class, and the that subclass either be completely replaced, if there isn't really much left, or really lean into it. For example, I really believe that the base concept of Battlemaster should be in the base fighter. However, the revamped Battlemaster should then lean into that and give more options, make it even better. As for subclasses all around there is a simple formula i think they could follow. Base class Subclass one - leans hard into the base class (think Champion fighter or Battlemaster) Subclass 2 - Lean into one of the other main class ideas (spell casting, skill monkey, or contact damage style) that the base class doesn't cover Subclass 3 - same as subclass 2 just the ither type (e.g. base class is fighter, subclass 2 is some spell caster -say Eldritch Knight, subclass 3 could then be a subclass that leans into skills, tools, etc.) Subclass 4 - This subclass would be the wild option. Could be a different take on a lean in base class option (say subclass one was a lean in for Champion fighter but this ine would be the lean in for Battlemaster) or something just different (say you wanted two spellcarter subclass but one leans arace and the other divine or nature magic) Further books ciuld then just expand in those. As for multi-classing, I don't do it often, but many of those in my group do, so not sure I want to see it be hobbled too much. Though clearer rules are always appreciated. What I would like to see though is more of the Feats that plucked an element of a class that anyone could take. Which not only opens up options without multiclassing dips, but can be really interesting with subclasses and can compliment those really well. Want to be the fighter's fighter? Take Fighter, the lean in fighter subclass, and the "Fighter feat". Want to be the true 'Jack of all trades"? Take say Bard, a subclass that leans further into that and a class feat to what is missing.
The problem with a fusing a subclass with the main class and then having a subclass just bring that but more is the same problem that Champion has it’s just more fighter but underwhelming. I say either keep it a subclass or take the entire subclass and add it to the class.
Yeah for sure. Unless they get TM himself to review the PHB at this point for unintended combos, I'm sure it will go to print with some. I doubt even the developers have as good a read on these things as Chris.
Chris, been loving your coverage of the update but i haven't seen anyone talk about how good or bad archery will be in one dnd. Have you looked at archery in the update yet?
I agree that I'd rather see the Thief subclass dropped than Swashbuckler. To me, neither Use Magic Device nor Thief's Reflexes has much of anything to do with an archetypal thief (let alone a rogue), so they could easily be omitted. Fast Hands could be omitted too since it's so rarely relevant. Then just integrate some version of Second-Story Work and Supreme Sneak into the base class and you're golden!
I hope saving throws are addressed. In my opinion spell casters should make a wisdom or intelligence saves for concentration not constitution. Dex and Wis saves are really all that matter in most cases. Has anyone ever made a charisma save? What is the functional difference (not mechanical difference) between an ability check and a save?
I certainly hope they have taken a step back in regards to certain features they showed us tweaked versions of especially early on. There are several class feature and feats that they seemed to go out of their way to reword in such a way as to eliminate combining them with other features or feats. It was like they watched an optimizer channel figured out every well known build and then started chopping up those interactions. Half the fun of making a build it trying to make fun combos IMO and when the designers come in and start eliminating those it kills a ton of the enjoyment and thought that goes into making a new character.
More than spell art, I wonder if they are going for actually describing what the verbal and somatic components are. I always thought it was a weak area of spell descriptions. I think a documented process would create more rp potential than art and make spell casting feel less nebulous. Spell art _can_ be good and bad, it can ruin the theater of the mind part of describing a spell cast if your vision and the artists are too different.
@@tracymonthei6561 I get that people hand wave the components but personally I think I would like more details, otherwise it feels too video gamey. I would support revisions of the components but I would like the mechanics of casting a spell to be more explored.
I think if you multi class you shouldn’t be able to subclass the classes you dip into (besides your starting class). But that’d mean they’d have to make every generic class have its own leveling system.
13:50 There are two things I will accept (1) Thief is a subclass (2) The fast hands with scrolls and magic items is given to base Rogue. Anything else and I riot.
I like the video. I think there will be some interesting and decent changes. Though I am a bit worried...They have given precision little information on what if any updates they will make to monsters in the new books is Monsters need some improvements in both what they can do and their power. Otherwise the power up that some classes seem to be getting will make problems with 5e even more pronounced.
I hope this means they fixed peace and hex dips, I just wonder how without removing early game viability. I would assume limits that go away further into the subclass.
Personally, I thought they should just lean more into subclasses like Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster, though it'd make sense to have feats for specific features that don't need to level up (like Fighting Initiate). Like, have a wizard schools whose things aren't spellcasting but completely mundane knife fighting or something.
@@AnaseSkyrider This is actually an area where PF2e was reinventing 4e. You used feats to multiclass in that edition (with the second class taking the place of your class archetype at level 10). And they probably got the idea from some non D&D game. In the 3e days, I had a similar homebrew solution and a number of DMs I encountered independently arrived at the same conclusion.
I'm looking forwards to the new rules coming out, but one thing I'm unclear about. Is this still 5e? And if it is, does it replace the 2014 ruleset? And if it is still 5e, and it does replace the 2014 ruleset, are we entitled to get the updated players handbook for free? Personally, I think they fucked up by still calling it 5e, and Hasbro's shitty business practices leaves no question about it. But could it be argued on the merits?
This is good and informative. The books sound like they may be nice. That said, WotC and Hasbro do not get any of my money. None. Zero. Ziltch. Yeah, I am there.
Incorporating the Thief/Champion/Berserker/Open Hand into their respective classes always seemed like a winner to me.
Baselining the Thief would frankly be amazing. All rogues getting UMD, Fast Hands, Stealth Attack and Reflexes would be an amazing buff to the rogue without actually overpowering it as none of those features actually affect their damage. More and more I'm hoping this is the route they go!
@@PsyrenXY just like it was back in advanced dnd. yes please.
Weird that they're all the martial classes, isn't it? I mean, many people say the base classes could use a buff so maybe this is why. Essential functions have been removed to create some sense of a particular subclass being the advanced form of the base subclass.
I say, let the higher levels be the advanced form of the base subclass. It incentivizes staying single-class if they did.
Subclasses should always elevate the base class, but in ways that add different flavors, not more of the same.
I think Battlemaster should be the base fighter, personally.
@@GlacialScion I think for most people it is tbf. The reason champion is there is to be the easy pickup and play subclass for new players. Most people probably think of battle master when they think fighter
Probably the soulknife rogue and psi warrior will have their dice tied to their rogue/fighter level instead of proficiency to avoid multiclassing
I fixed psy warrior in my campaigns by folding battlemaster into fighter, giving them 2 extra superiority dice, and changing the psy warrior abilites that use the dice into special maneuvers only pay warriors can do; same way i fixed arcane archer. I really wish wizards would do the same.
For soul knife they could fold its features into their new cunning strike as well if theyre worried about a busted multiclass dip.
I still don't understand why they make resources based on PB/A Stat outside of feats. The only place where PB should be is in feats and racial abilities. Even something that is based on a stat is not right IMO.
That defeats the point of it all though. People don't multiclass because its broken, they multiclass because straight classing martials is not viable and leaves you in the dust compared to casters.
Making martials worse is not gonna solve this, its just gonna make people not play martials.
If you wanted people to actually spend more levels in soul knife or psi warrior then give them good features at level 10+ that actually outvalue multiclassing into 2 different level 3 classes.
@@luminous3558 thays why at my table i fixed it the way i did in my reply. Tied it to fighter level but improved the base class so that you actually want to gain those levels.
That's true..once you get above a certain lvl casters,even half casters will out damage and have more rp options then martial classes,yes fighters can do 4 attacks a round but paladin with smite/with a few lvls will out damage a fighter
Preparing to use the term “Rules as Illustrated”
I love the idea, but I’d change the term to „Rules As Pictured”, so we don’t get our acronyms mixed up.
"Yeah but do you see that diamond the cleric is using to raise dead? Why, any professional jeweller can tell that is a cubic zirconia, so clearly the god only cares about the carbon structure, not the price!"
@@Idziemel1
Only problem is... Illustration can only explain some details unless WotC can actually apply it to the written rules. Pictures can be deceiving and not show the full rules.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 That's the joke.
Or Rules as Drawn (RAD)
Curious and worried about 'undesirable' multiclasses. I'm guessing small dips into Warlock for Eldritch Blast or Cha to weapons may be what they were talking about.
Eldritch blast is now tied to the warlock level so it's not worth dipping for it. But I agree that using Charisma for weapon attacks is a very good reason
If we look at the playtest for fighter, the prevented spells from being cast with action surge to make sure a fighter was the best user of action surge. My guess is the undesirable are what treantmonk listed in the video and ensuring the classes with a feature use that feature the best.
Yep. They basically seems to want multiclassing to only kick in, at levels where most tables stop playing. Making it completely suboptimal and boring to level. It will make for standardized characters, and tactical staleness. But I guess they hope to sell more subclasses that way, since that will be the only way to give your character variety.
For me it, this might be a reason to not play the new dnd.
i imagine they want multiclasses to feel like you are sacrificing mastery of 1 niche for versatility or multiple niches rather than just stacking as many overpowered low level abilities for the mathematically biggest number
@@kongoaurius Eldritch Blast *was* tied to Warlock level, but that was from the Playtest 5 Warlock, which a ton of the community absolutely hated because they didn't like Warlocks having regular spell slots, even if it freed them from their extreme reliance on frequent short rests in order to keep up. When the Playtest 7 Warlock basically reverted almost all of the Playtest 5 changes, that included tying Eldritch Blast to Warlock level instead of total level (page 43 of the Playtest 7 document, under the Spell Update design notes: "Eldritch Blast and Hex reverted to their 2014 versions.")
Spell art is not only a supplementary thing, it gives a nice pointer to how the spell is cast, which gives you information how you can bend the rules in your favor, use it correctly, how apparent or obvious the spell looks and sounds for stealth and deception purposes..
And of course the roleplay purposes for them are great
..... no its just a visual. get back to the roots and go with 2e (ADnD)
We need a visual for thunder wave, so people know how it works.
@@KingMJAH Cubes in general are weird, how you can angle it however you want, so long as the origin is on an edge or corner, compared to spheres/circles/hemispheres where the origin is always the center or lines where the origin is always one end of the line
If they kept the Halfling art from 2014, I am hunting someone down.
That Guardian of Faith spell art looks like it was meant for Shield of Faith. Like someone got the naming mixed up.
My first thought was a wizard casting fireball on himself.
I thought it was spiritual weapon!
I thought spirit guardians
I thought Shield of Faith to, but once they said Spirit Guardians, I looked harder, and it looks like there's a dark shape, standing behind the character, that is holding the shield, with its face turned down in a dramatically moody manner like Batman.
It does look like one thing: though the game may be backwards compatible, its certainly going to be an examined option. If the new Spiritual Weapon is concentration, I'm not going to let a player "choose" to use the old one. If a tamed version of Peace or Twilight Cleric is released, I'm not going to allow the older ones. I'm thinking what's best will be a complete blank slate start, with no grandfathered in subclasses. not to be mean, but also, to lessen confusion over learning new features. I think backwards compatibility is way more important to me, as a DM, for adventures.
I guess it’s more of a backwards compatibility like with pathfinder 2e. They released a backwards compatible remastered version of the core books to remove the ogl from their material and the rule is pretty easy: if content is released under the same name, use the remastered version. If it has a new name, both versions are legal.
Honestly this is why I plan to go over both 2014 and 2024 rules and merge them wholesale until I like the result.
Bingo... Backward Compatibility was never for the Rules but only for the Module Books.
Such is a marketing when they claimed it was, when it wasn't.
Case in point... Jump is an Action in One DnD. Not as a part of your Move in 5e.
Finally, we will get to see everyone's favourite character: Melf.
Melf the Dwelf?
Melf the Astral Self Dwelf?
I got some pointed questions for Melf.
His very self.
Rather see art for Milf's Minute Meteors
They better have visual examples of equipment and armor - like a Gambison - you know - to give some art to Martials!
Perhaps a layer description of armor- what's under the plate? What is padding? Is Padded armor the same as Gambison? I don't know.
I've always assumed that Padded Armor was Gambison
@@TreantmonksTemple gamberson is surprisingly effective it would be stronger than studded leather and lighter than any medium armor.
@@AtelierGod yeah, that's why I thought it wasn't the padded armor.
Why don't reach polearms have disadvantages in tight quarter fights, such as tunnels and grappling?
Shields... What Shields?... It's all +2 AC.
Because you can literally have a cardboard badge as a Shield on your hand with a Paladin's sign on it, and by RAW, it gives you +2 AC.
3.5e had better ideas for weapons.
5e is a fantastic system and I’m hoping/expecting this new version to be significantly better. It’s so sad that much of the goodwill for DnD was eroded by Hasboro at least it feels that way to me. The momentum going into the 50th anniversary could have been so much greater.
For multiclassing, I hope they finally addressed the awkwardness of multiclassing into two classes with extra attack. I always felt like if you had two classes that get multiattack at 5 and you totaled 5 level of them, you should get extra attack, so you can have more freedom of going back and forth instead of always going 5 on one class first and then never going above 4 another.
Let Fighter levels add beyond the 5th.
I tried redundant extra attacks turning into feats. It worked ok, most of the time multi cladding that far was sub optimal because it meant a 5 dip in two different classes, which most often hinders a character who could be a single 10.
Hard to say whether a feat would even be good enough to compare to Extra Attack. With the possible exception of the Paladin's 6th level aura, Extra Attack is probably martials' most significant individual feature in the first 10 levels.
True... Since different Extra Attack Types do not stack but it can be an extra option to choose for an Action.
@@briang3598
Sad thing is... Fighter/Rogue (example) get Extra Attack Types but you can only choose one Type for your Action and they don't stack.
By that level. A full caster out DPS and out Utility, a Fighter/Rogue.
My guess for the Rogue is also Swashbuckler. Dropping Thief instead doesn't seem likely since Thief is the other quintessentially iconic Rogue archetype alongside Assassin. Thief was literally the name of the Rogue class in 1st and 2nd edition. Dropping Thief would feel like dropping Life Cleric or Devotion Paladin.
Plus, Thief fits a bit better into the paired themes people have been noticing about the planned subclasses. You've got Thief vs Assassin as one pair, to represent the Rogue dichotomy of burglar vs killer, and you've got Arcane Trickster and Soulknife as the supernatural Rogues wielding magical power vs psychic power. Swashbuckler, while also an iconic Rogue archetype, doesn't quite slot in as neatly thematically as those four do with each other.
honestly, Assassin could easily be replaced with Soul-knife. Soulknife gives you infiltrating abilities (teleporting and invisibility), you can kill without leaving marks on a body, and you dont need to carry weapons with you. The ultimate assassin!
I do think Swashbuckler is the safest bet
Assassin needs a rework to meet their design goals of being table friendly.
Thief needs a rework to make it more viable
Arcane trickster needs a minor rework and mirrors the eldritch knight.
Swashbuckler is probably the least likely to be revised because it needs revised the least. Imo of course
I hope not. Swashbuckler is the only pirate-themed subclass we have. It is very thematic. Thief and Assassin have the least character, and Thief in particular has features which just seem like all rogues should get.
So that's what I'm hoping for. Merge Thief with the base class and maybe add a Thief feat for players who _really_ want to make theft their character's entire personality.
I would honestly hope for Swashbuckler staying and Assassin being split across Rogue Features and Feats. Keeping with the pairs idea, having Thief vs Swashbuckler representing subtly vs flamboyance. Thief has the classic Rogue energy, while Swashbuckler covers the ways to play a Rogue against type.
The art is probably the area I cared least about - it's cool, just not my personal focus. But you make a good point that having more art in the spell section could be really nice!
Most will be ai art or fan art they stole without asking since they feel they own anything.
@@l33tninja1slander or evidence?
Yeah this feels like you are just lying / making stuff up @l33tninja1 .
@@Arnsteel634 slander most likely
@@l33tninja1 Stop lying. They are putting the illustrator's name on all the art they publish, just type their name on Google and see their vast portfolio of years of experience. You try to criticize the brand with these false accusations, but you end up just being disrespectful towards the illustrators, like that time with the warrior dwarf art from the new phb
I see the playtest as a glimpse into their evolving design direction rather than a finalized product. The Monk adjustments seemed to signal a shift in approach. It's likely they've taken the lessons from the Monk and applied them to other areas and I'm eager to see how this approach shapes the upcoming changes to Psi subclasses.
The way you stop op multiclassing is to get rid of frontloading class abilities. However, if you do that people will then complain it takes forever to get to the cool stuff.
Lv3 sounds good enough. Because lv10 is where campaigns end. Lv11 to lv20?... Doesn't exist.
If WotC made lv20 as the norm. Then lv5 is the proper limit of when multi class can go crazy.
Instead of lv1 dips.
The way to handle that is give cool stuff up front, but make it improve in the progression of the class.
@@briang3598
Eldritch Blast was like that. Up front, EB is a solid DPR Cantrip per Character Level. But only Warlock Levels grant it unique Properties that fundamentally alter EB.
Although, I hate that 5e Warlock is limited with its "per level up" rule just to change your Spells/Invocations. It's arbitrary and it doesn't fit in with the Fantasy Story Telling.
I believe the Assassin might be moved to the DMG to join other darker themed subclasses like the Death Domain Cleric and Oath Breaker Paladin. If they might add subclasses again in the DMG.
Agreed, Assassin is the likely Rogue subclass to be removed from the PHB.
Why are Sub Classes in the DMG?... That's just a terrible product if you mix content between the rule books.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Oath breaker is in the DMG because it's meant to be one of the consequences for the roleplay of breaking your oath, not a choice the player is allowed to make as the oath they take. Death cleric is in the DMG because it doesn't fit the morally good image of a cleric I guess?
Also Aasimar first appeared in the DMG as an example in how to thematically (bc two resistances is a totally mechanically balanced idea) make a race.
@@biodude15
Even so... Your can put "if and only if" rules into the PHB. It's not hard to make the books more orderly.
5e is a jumbled up mess compared to 3.5e. One DnD may follow that same disorderly design as 5e.
If the players are going to use a Mechanic or Feature etc. Then put that in the PHB. Don't hide it away in the DMG.
Example... If there are Monster Transformation Forms such as Vampire and Werewolves. Than put those into the PHB, not DMG.
Players should be able read the instructions in their PHB without having to search it up in the DMG.
Video: "Playtesting and design have continued beyond the public playtests."
Bard players who still don't have a UA Bard that's compatible with the playtest material: "Uh, yeah, I sure *hope* they did!"
It always felt a bit implied that they wouldn't just print the latest iteration of something from UA in the new books (since after all, when have they?), but hearing confirmation that improvements kept coming after those closed is neat. I was kind of glad about some of the Ranger stuff they presented, but by the time they said Rangers weren't going to get another go and a bunch of other classes just kept climbing, it felt like the balance would be off yet again.
I expect more spells for Sorcerers of all subclasses -- to parity
Would be lovely, I've been making such lists for all my players who choose older subclasses.
That would be amazing ❤
i really dislike the UA where they did away with subclass spells for the sorcerer and just gave them 10 extra bas spells known. It took out all the flavor
8:34 My problem with this idea is that, yes, the extra spells from Clockwork and Aberrant did fix an issue with the base class, but it was done so well and added so much variety and flavor to the subclasses that most sorcerer players I know, myself included, see it as the gold standard going forward. The idea of gutting an interesting and long requested feature from Aberrant and Clockwork just to help prop up Draconic and Wild is not good design. What I want to see, and hope to see, is Draconic and Wild get their own lists and have a special way to use those spells just like how Aberrant can silently cast its spell list so long as it uses sorcery points.
People can call me a worry wort or whatever, but Sorcerer has famously be considered just a worse Wizard for a long time. I just want one of my favorite classes to get the upgrades it needs. It would be wild for WotC to gut a fan favorite feature in favor of propping up weaker subclasses, but this is WotC and I just do not trust how they have handled the Sorcerer for a while now.
Good almost afternoon Chris! I've made it to the Disney Princess build ready to be my next video in my continued journey to watch EVERY build video you've put out!
The session 0 last Saturday unfortunately got delayed until tomorrow, but hopefully things will go well tomorrow!
Much love, have a great weekend! 💜 Thank you for being an amazing creator and awesome person! Until next time!
Can't wait!
My guess on the Rogue is that it is the Thief, as the only options that don't seem bland or just basic enhancements to the base class of Rogue are UMD & Reflexes...which honestly just seem like they should be base rogue features.
Still salty about them not putting Artificer in. Overall, still optimistic. Kind of apprehensive about them publishing books with just 'reprints' but yeah, pretty optimistic.
Yeaaah it's a darn shame.
Artificer not being core makes sense though. A class that needs to flip through the DMG could rightly be seen as complex.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed they're including it. It's the only class that's not!
All not lost, we still have TCE & the web.
@@PsyrenXY Honestly, I'd prefer them making magic items/effects unique to artificer like the boots of the winding path and gutting having to know a bunch of magic items in order to keep it in. I'm more worried that this means if artificer comes back, they won't support it with any new subclasses like before
My speculation it's the assassin that got the axe. Due to it being similar thematic to the soul knife. And soul knife is a better assassin than the assassin anyway.
Nah crits on surprised creatures >>> pool of dice mechanics
@SNDKNG but the one dnd assassin rogue didn't do that. What it did was add the rogues level in damage and then with the 17th level ability required a saving throw to do the double damage.
The soul knife has teleportation and invisibility which are way more useful for an assassin than anything the 2014 or UA assassin rogue can so.
@@adamg0013 Yeah that was a bad design but it was just playtest material
Agreed. A Rogue who can kill without leaving wounds, teleport and turn invisible is a powerful assassin concept.
Additionally, Assassin is weird thematically as a solo actor in a team game, while soul knife and their telepathy encourage team play
@@SNDKNG Yeah and everybody loves a player who forces the party into a particular playstyle because their character subclass becomes irrelevant without it. It's the same annoyance as the Warlock "can we take a short rest?" stereotype.
GUYS PLZ LET'S SNEAK UP ON THEM SO I CAN DO THE BIG NUMBERS PLZ PLZ.
Not everyone wants to do stealthy shit.
I can’t wait to only use this book and not worry about what my players are combining with a bunch of other books. I have wanted to run just phb for a while but Tasha’s and xanathars seemed like a must to give good player options to all the classes. Then things like fizbans, Scag, strixhaven, etc all add something that balance the game in some ways but break it in others.
I guess i can’t wait to be surprised a bit less in my combat encounters
Don't allow campaign setting books like Strixhaven. Choose the OPTIONS you want to allow from Tasha's. For the most part it's a good book. Ban Peace and Twilight subclasses and Custom Lineage. Also from 2014 PHB, make sure players no variant human has always been OPTIONAL and ban it too.
I only allow the spells from Fizban's.
@@tracymonthei6561 you must be such a fun DM...
@@tracymonthei6561 I’m a premed student with two kids working full-time so I don’t really have time to balance the game like that. You are correct that is the answer though.
I feel like they did a "vibe check" to see what the community would like ( and gave us some subclasses ) then presented the more deep mechanics of the game, and now they're adding stuff based on that "vibe". Also, it sounds like they'll be doing the dragontalk series again, which is awesome.
I think one thing that would be awesome are characters that represent the classes that are consistently seen throughout the new PHB. Pathfinder has this with their iconics, and I really enjoy it, it gives clear ideas for what each class can do, and it’s just fun seeing characters you gradually begin to recognize. It’s also very cool seeing the spell art with the iconics. I think one of my favorites in the PF2e Core Rulebook is one of a T-Rex with glowing runes on it (presumably the druid, Lini) fighting a red dragon. There’s a lot of cool art in the Pathfinder 2e books, period. I love the appearance of the alchemist, Fumbus. He repeatedly looks so deranged and it’s the perfect vibe for that kind of class, I feel.
I’ve heard this was a thing in D&D 3e but I’m not sure, I’m unfamiliar with the system. If that’s the case, maybe they can bring them back or bring back some “iconics” from other editions… assuming there were any. Again, I don’t know.
100% they’re going to use the spell art as the basis for the spell assets in the VTT.
Whats the last thing we heard about the VTT? are they even working on it anymore?
@@gloryrod86last thing I personally saw about it was that they brought in a handful of content creators to test it out under a very specific and curated experience as a form of advertising it and showing its current state. It was kinda hard to see what it offered, really, and I got the impression that while it looked pretty, it lacked a lot of basic functions that I personally would want in a VTT, though that may change as it was just an alpha build.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they are looking at aberrant mind and clockwork soul and seeing them as so much more powerful than the rest because of their expanded spell lists and instead of rebalancing the remaining subclasses by giving them expanded spell lists they just remove the expanded spell lists from them and replace them with nothing.
I disagree - the reason why aberrant mind and clockwork gave those is without them sorcerer is just a worse wizard. I suspect the remaining subclasses will gain *some* free preppared spells. This being said, I wouldn't be surprised if it's notched down to 1 spell per spell level.
That could happen but I don't see them removing the tentacly spells from Aberrant Mind or Summon Construct from Clockwork. Rather, I expect they will trim the bloodline spells for each down from 10 to 5, add 5 each to the other two, and combine that to the increased base spells known (15->22) so we still come out ahead.
@@pacattack2586 don’t forget that when they first redesigned sorcerer they didn’t include expanded spell lists and instead tried to make them even worse wizards than they were by tying their subclass features to spells where wizard gets the same amount of spell losses but a regular subclass in addition to new features so broken that you could double haste a target.
more likely just the ability to swap theem for other spells
I would hazard the guess that if they remove the spell lists, they'll be replaced with some other feature.
One thing I'd like to see addressed with multiclassing is Warlocks being consistently used for 1 level dip power spikes. Things like Pacts being invocations now create this double edged sword. On one hand, you can have multiple pacts now but on the other, bards and paladins can just get the Eldritch Adept feat and grab a pact without messing up any of their class progression. Things like Pact of the Blade,Chain, and Tome should at the least require a warlock level (i'd actually like to see them re-swap the patron/pact features to requiring warlock levels 1 and 3 respectfully) and hopefully Eldritch Blast continues to only scale with warlock levels as opposed to character levels. At least this way, if you want your busted features, you have to commit at least a bit more than a spare feat for it.
What other Invocations are available for Non Warlocks with Eldritch Adept Feat in One DnD? In 5e, there are better options that isn't just Default Eldritch Blast.
5e Invocations are strong for the particular spell the Invocation has.
@absolstoryoffiction6615 as of right now, pact of the Blade, Chain, and Tome are all level 1 invocations so paladins and bards can use the Eldritch Adept feat to grab a huge power spike with pact of the blade and not even have to divert their class progression for it. Even with the latest UA, warlock continues to shine as a class you simply dip into or out of rather than dedicate several levels to. I'd like to see more long term reward for investing 15+ levels into warlock.
@@TheSko90
Warlock seems to be the class that picks a few spells but the Invocations heavily enhances/modifies it. While picking other spells over more Invocations are just to smooth out the specific build.
But the "you may change your Invocation per level up" 5e rule is just terrible. I prefer Per Short or Long Rest. It's more in line to other casters.
Can't wait for the reveals and your analysis
Hey TM, I still enjoy and watch everyone one of your videos, but I'm one who left D&D after the WotC scandal last January. I 've checked out the Playtests that D&D released but I honestly felt most of the things were Meh. The company was smart to make 5e Open Source so they'd always be relevant. But, I truly want any new edition of D&D to blow me away and I felt like most of the tweaks weren't about bringing the old subclasses up to the power level of the new concepts. I felt too much old school Microsoft influence with minor tweaks to just Nerf everything.
I'm glad to hear about them keeping Multiclass combos because that's always been fun for me.
Rule #1: Make the game FUN. I understand that they have a herculean responsibility to make the game fun while maintaining balance... Not just for -Bar-passed-20 years-ago professional Rules Lawyers, Doctors, IT Pros, etc. But, for middle schoolers & any and all Creatives who fear the click-clack Math Dice. :)
As someone who's been following your Guides since 3.5, you've done a great job of being one of the Champions of D&D in every edition and I appreciate you keeping us up to date about this new stuff coming out.
Totally understand your decision. I had a better reaction to the playtest stuff but I'm hopeful the published version will be superior to the playtests.
I dunno why, but the art for the wizard gives off more holy than arcane vibes. Well, I mean, I guess I know why - cause of the yellow/orange/whatever color. xD
My honest takeaways are the following:
1. I definitely like that they are attempting to clarify the rules, especially on Illusion spells, as they are areas where players would get into far too many arguments with DMs due to the inability to clarify what illusion spells do.
2. I'm a little nervous about new spells and features/feats, since each one is potentially a new way to break the game, but I'm a little optimistic that they've learned from the past 10 years of designing for 5e to prevent cheese when new features are added.
3. Pushing subclasses back to level 3, while simple and anti-flavorful, is actually really good for the game in regards to multiclassing. There are still problems with certain frontloaded features like Pact of the Blade being able to be taken through a feat, indeed they're more front loaded since you can now get Hexblade-lite at level 1 through Pact of the Blade, and providing almost the same benefits as Hexblade, and stupidly reverting the change that scaled Eldritich Blast out of Warlock levels than total levels, which still means a Warlock dip is stupidly good at 1 level.
4. On multiclassing itself, if I were advising them, I'd probably either junk multiclassing entirely, or clarify that it's a variant rule that the DM has to approve beforehand. At this point, despite 5e being better than most editions on not allowing people to make broken multiclass builds, it still occurs with frightening regularity, and the other outcome is being completely overshadowed.
I don't believe they can redesign and fix multiclassing in time to release the PHB without pushing back on the release date, unfortunately.
I understand it may be giving sorcerers a big lunch, but id much rather see every subclass get a dedicated spell list with some having the option to swap some of them than have sorcerers with no expanded spell list and a new feature. If we're beinf honest it's much easier to balance spells than it is to balance class features, and having dedicated spell list does a lot of the heavy lifting when it come to synergizing flavor and mechanics
This, exactly this.
It adds a ton of flavor for each subclass, helps make them more distinct from other sorcerer subclasses, and it fixed the biggest problem the base class had.
Not to mention it is the easiest way to balance out the subclasses. Some will still be stronger than others, but Bloodline spells did so much to elevate Aberrant and Clockwork and it was easily the most requested feature for Sorcerers to receive.
Since it is backward compatible, I wonder if the "old" subclasses will still function well with the "new" core class leveling features.
I bet some stuff will be overpowered as hell.
As a DM, I won't let a player use the new version of a class with the old version of a subclass and vice versa if both have been reprinted. I would allow new versions of the class with old subclasses that haven't been reprinted yet about 90% of the time I think. I think this is what's intended by the balance, and that there are limits on "backwards compatibility."
@@leef9142 No no no, it's officially allowed DM. I want to run both new and old together! It's right there in the rules... As a fellow DM this is going to create a nightmare with some of the players that are floating around.
@@leef9142 Monk's deserve the love.
@@leef9142 they literally said at gencon that the book will say to only use revised subclasses with revised classes, they are not balancing the game around using the old version of a subclass on the new version of the class
I just want (and have wanted for decades now) the monk to be good. Also, for to have the same amount of care they have with magic with martials. Martials deserve to have interesting options and at-will cool features
I am obsessed with the art!!!
I really hope they expand on things like group travel/survival mechanics/etc.
I just hope strength will be a viable alternative to dexterity in the new edition
Agreed. In addition, I think they need to reduce the power of Dexterity by decoupling it from Initiative. A smart strategist should be able to compete for high Initiative with an agile foe.
Supreme Sneak and Thief's Reflexes they can just ditch, and make the other three thief features baseline for rogue and that would be fine.
I wonder if this phb will be larger? If it's not then that would mean stuff will be cut, right? I hope it will be larger but I don't know if they have a predefined "size" that the book must be.
They mention in the video that it will be larger.
7:44 Problem with that sentiment though is that these fixes are currently coming at the cost of making MORE nerfs to the base metamagic, to the point of completely ruining some of them for the sake of adding the new spells! It doesn't fix the class if you undermine the power it already had to add the new power!
that artwork you showed from the 2014 PHB, before you said what spell it was, I assumed that was a picture of shield of faith taking a blast of lightning
The assassin might be the rogue subclass they're getting rid of as they've had design problems with it in the past. I really hope it's not the thief as it's one of my favorite subclasses in all of 5E despite being a bit underpowered.
one thing I also hope they include with multiclassing and classes in general is a mention of flavor.
as sometimes you want to change the flavor of class abilities without changing mechanics"
or for multiclassing choosing if instead of 2 seperate classes instead you flavor them both the same to make a more uniform character
they put a small section like that in tashas regarding spell flavor. and while some disnt understand the need to have that there
I have had DMs that are extremely by the book and if its not there you cant do it.
so just adding a small foot note about that will help such DMs be open to players expressing their character abilities differently (as long as the flavor fits the campaign setting obviously)
I love flavoring everything into Sword. It's the best kind of flavor.
Polarm?... Sword.
Knife?... Sword but small.
Shield?... Flat Sword.
Magic Missile?... Summon Sword... That requires no AC and Saves to hit. Which is always fun to do.
I kind of like the idea that the reason that that particular guardian of faith spell looks the way it does is due to that cleric just so happening to be of the forge domain... and yes I'm aware that the forge domain came out i Xanithars.
On a more serious note I think in one of the other interviews they talked about moving a lot of the really juicy subclass features to be level 3 or 6 to remove the ubiquitous one/two level dips. If you do that then you really don't need a redesign for multi-classing so long as one level of hexblade warlock or peace cleric doesn't give you so much right off the bat.
In some cases, a three level dip is still too strong in comparison to single-classed characters. They need to present a more balanced game, including feats and multiclassing as a default.
@@tracymonthei6561 that's fair, but that likely means that some feature or other should be had at a later level, or needs to be reworded to work in a less broken way. That's more an issue with balancing classes and subclasses against each other. Yes there are likely some issues that have more to do with how some class or subclass feature interacts with some other class or subclass feature, and I'm sure some level of effort is going into nerfing the broken combos or at least the most broken combos but there will always be some level of that with a multiclassing system that lets you stack features from different classes rather than only letting your warlock features apply to your pact magic spells and only let your cleric features apply to your cleric spells etc, but that would likely overly penalize multiclassing.
I like the new logo Chris, but also like the old one
I'd be upset if Thief wasn't its own subclass. It holds a special place in my heart.
Some great clarifications and additions have been included in the playtest so far, but I fear they didn't streamline and simplify the ruleset enough. Some new options may slowdown gameplay for new or casual players.
I'm wondering if they will make an official ruling on if a spell scroll can be counterspelled.
I would say to them: Please put Backgrounds before Classes this time. In character development you need to pick Background first, because each has specific skills, and then you can select skills from your larger Class list.
For multiclassing, one thing I am curious about is if they did anything with the usage limits of features like Rage, Second Wind, Wild Shape, and Channel Divinity which each restore one use on a short rest, and all usages on a long rest. During UA, my thought was they could make those usages a shared resource when multiclassing, like how spell slots are shared while multiclassing, but I am interested in what they did, if anything, when it comes to those types of features, and multiclassing.
You mean like focus points?
@@matthewparker9276 I don't have a preference for what this shared resource could be called... like I could also go with "Channel" points/usages as in "Channel Divinity", "Channel Nature", "Channel Rage", etc.
If they will improve path of four elements, that will be the most fantastic thing they will do
The new 4 elements from the playtest was pretty solid, if not a bit on the bland side. If they can manage to keep those features and bring back some of the old features like water whip and twin viper strike without making them too ki heavy or oversarurating the class then it may become my favorite monk.
I started playing around when TCoE was released, so I've always been of the opinion that Sorcerer subclasses should come with extra spells known. More spells known as a base clasd feature would also be coolz but that feels like stepping into Wizard territory, whereas giving specific bonus spells to Sorcerer subclasses allows for potentially more powerful options that can't be combined in the most broken ways. Sort of like having one of the Power Nine as an exclusive feature from all the others.
I believe one of the coming surprises will be that artificers will be in it
Improvement to clock and abberant soul, no more expanded spell list, and kick in the nuts for free
If you ever feel like you want to create an argument at your gaming table just cast an illusion. I give it 50/50 that your friendship survives.
What i would like to see is:
1. Remove ASI entirely or have every feat give a +1 ability.
2. Remove concentration on buff spells. Especially Cleric spells. No cleric is going to cast Bless when he has spirit guardians.
3. Remove attunement. Attunement removes all incentive to quest for look. Its the exact opposite of what DnD should be about.
I'm not sure if it's in, but I'd like the default to be that everyone starts with a feat.
I was hoping for this video from you!
Im liking what im hearing but we will see. I definitely think they still needed some minor tweaks at the last playest documents so hopefully they made the necessary changes.
One example was the order options of protector or thurmaturge there really wasnt any benefit to picking thurmaturge so hopefully they made it more interesting and other changes like that.
Some of the subclasses needed a bit of work also like war cleric defintely needed another pass.
Spot on assessments, people’s assumptions about the updated core books are way too obtuse. As always your acknowledgement of the design teams nuanced approach is more complicated than “old books with UA class changes”
I'd love for thief to be integrated into the core of Rogue. That's what I'd do if a player wanted to play a rogue.
I just wish they would take the time to update all existing subclasses... which I hope will eventually happen but some really need love... Purple Dragon Knight and Path of the Battlerager to name a few.
Hi Chris, big fan. I'm an old-school 1st edition player recently getting into 5e. I'm mostly using DnD & Beyond and I think my campaign plans to stick with 5e rules even after the new books come out. Do you have any idea as to whether WOC will update DnD & Beyond with the new rules? More generally, wondering which of the many 5e rule books will be supplanted by the new books in practice? This might be a good idea for a video/series of videos - sort of "nuts and bolts" guidance as to how handle the transition to the new rules for campaigns that will stay with 5e, those that will shift, and maybe some that become a mix. This all might be premature at this stage. Anyway, keep up the great work.
I think the wizard art is fantastic. I feel the artwork for classes should show the most idealized versions of those classes to spark the imagination of the players.
I'm just not excited for this anymore after testing DC20. I created a rogue in DC20 and I'm getting to do things at level one that I would have to wait until level 5 as a NEW rogue in revised 5e. In revised 5e rogue you don't get to put negative conditions on targets until lvl 5 AND AT A COST OF DAMAGE. In DC20 you get to do that at level 1 AND NO DAMAGE LOSS. I'll give the new books a look but pretty sure d&d are stuck in the past and haven't grown enough.
DC20 looks really good, but I think we're still a long time away from an officially published DC20 book. Alan is working with a very small team.
I wonder if we will get rulings on weapons damage of different size categories. I feel like ever since rune knight there hasn't been a consensus on what turning your weapon large is supposed to do in 5e. Unlike 3.5 where it was clearly written etc.
i wonder if they'll actually give the stealth rules
I'm glad to see the proliferation of character options, but I still have reservations about the new book, especially with the lackluster track record of the current game design team. Still, I'll reserve judgement until I can see the finished product and rake it over the coals.
Hexblade nerf! Hexblade nerf! Hexblade nerf!
But really. Taking away the easy 1-3 level dips from making characters incredibly strong is a real step toward improving multiclass diversity.
Great editing at the beginning.
As much as I dont care with how they have handled magic and psionics it is clear that they have chosen people who care about the game.
While I’m excited about new content, let it be known here that as someone who plays with a large group of casual players, dnds accessibility is its biggest feature. Easily accessible and free availability of the content is the make or break for how successful the new players handbook is, in terms of use. And hey, can always just stick with OG5e if you don’t like the new stuff or how it’s licensed
Kyle Brink did promise that Basic/SRD will be updated with the new stuff as well
Absolutely!
I love Thief, fast hands is so incredibly great and fun during combat. I hope thief doesn't get the shaft
Another forgotten detail about WOTC products is that you can buy them next year at Ollies for 90% off.
Clown thinks Ollie's may stop ordering Hasbro rejects.
Great video Treant.
Very curious to see what all has been done that they haven't shown us in the UAs. Or what they did but maybe revised (spell creation?) that didn't get revised in the later UAs.
Also i think there are a lot of the 2014 classes that had a subclass that should really have some if not most if the features subsumed into the base class, and the that subclass either be completely replaced, if there isn't really much left, or really lean into it.
For example, I really believe that the base concept of Battlemaster should be in the base fighter. However, the revamped Battlemaster should then lean into that and give more options, make it even better.
As for subclasses all around there is a simple formula i think they could follow.
Base class
Subclass one - leans hard into the base class (think Champion fighter or Battlemaster)
Subclass 2 - Lean into one of the other main class ideas (spell casting, skill monkey, or contact damage style) that the base class doesn't cover
Subclass 3 - same as subclass 2 just the ither type (e.g. base class is fighter, subclass 2 is some spell caster -say Eldritch Knight, subclass 3 could then be a subclass that leans into skills, tools, etc.)
Subclass 4 - This subclass would be the wild option. Could be a different take on a lean in base class option (say subclass one was a lean in for Champion fighter but this ine would be the lean in for Battlemaster) or something just different (say you wanted two spellcarter subclass but one leans arace and the other divine or nature magic)
Further books ciuld then just expand in those.
As for multi-classing, I don't do it often, but many of those in my group do, so not sure I want to see it be hobbled too much. Though clearer rules are always appreciated.
What I would like to see though is more of the Feats that plucked an element of a class that anyone could take. Which not only opens up options without multiclassing dips, but can be really interesting with subclasses and can compliment those really well.
Want to be the fighter's fighter? Take Fighter, the lean in fighter subclass, and the "Fighter feat". Want to be the true 'Jack of all trades"? Take say Bard, a subclass that leans further into that and a class feat to what is missing.
The problem with a fusing a subclass with the main class and then having a subclass just bring that but more is the same problem that Champion has it’s just more fighter but underwhelming. I say either keep it a subclass or take the entire subclass and add it to the class.
Hey, Chris, how much you wanna bet you can show that they will have missed some OP combinations?
Yeah for sure. Unless they get TM himself to review the PHB at this point for unintended combos, I'm sure it will go to print with some. I doubt even the developers have as good a read on these things as Chris.
Game design is hard, and I don't think any number of balance passes will prevent this.
I mean duh, qa can't catch everything. Not with such a big document.
@@garion046Hey TM is cool but he's not a God, he'd miss stuff too.
@@life-destiny1196precisely. Only years of actually playing the system will unearth some stuff.
They need to balance feats, concentration on utility and buff spells and remove attunement. Fix those three things and its a win.
Chris, been loving your coverage of the update but i haven't seen anyone talk about how good or bad archery will be in one dnd. Have you looked at archery in the update yet?
I am excited to see what they decided on honestly
I agree that I'd rather see the Thief subclass dropped than Swashbuckler. To me, neither Use Magic Device nor Thief's Reflexes has much of anything to do with an archetypal thief (let alone a rogue), so they could easily be omitted. Fast Hands could be omitted too since it's so rarely relevant. Then just integrate some version of Second-Story Work and Supreme Sneak into the base class and you're golden!
Why do people think the Swashbuckler becomes obsolete? There are only 3 subclasses in 2014. Just adding Soul Knife is the 4th.
@@tracymonthei6561 Problem is when you add _both_ Soul Knife _and_ Swashbuckler you end up with 5 rogue subclasses, not 4.
Melf stands for mother everyone would like to…
I hope saving throws are addressed. In my opinion spell casters should make a wisdom or intelligence saves for concentration not constitution. Dex and Wis saves are really all that matter in most cases. Has anyone ever made a charisma save? What is the functional difference (not mechanical difference) between an ability check and a save?
I certainly hope they have taken a step back in regards to certain features they showed us tweaked versions of especially early on. There are several class feature and feats that they seemed to go out of their way to reword in such a way as to eliminate combining them with other features or feats. It was like they watched an optimizer channel figured out every well known build and then started chopping up those interactions.
Half the fun of making a build it trying to make fun combos IMO and when the designers come in and start eliminating those it kills a ton of the enjoyment and thought that goes into making a new character.
More than spell art, I wonder if they are going for actually describing what the verbal and somatic components are. I always thought it was a weak area of spell descriptions. I think a documented process would create more rp potential than art and make spell casting feel less nebulous.
Spell art _can_ be good and bad, it can ruin the theater of the mind part of describing a spell cast if your vision and the artists are too different.
They just need to get rid of specific components, unless a quest item is involved, and fix that silly Somatic interaction.
@@tracymonthei6561 I get that people hand wave the components but personally I think I would like more details, otherwise it feels too video gamey. I would support revisions of the components but I would like the mechanics of casting a spell to be more explored.
I think if you multi class you shouldn’t be able to subclass the classes you dip into (besides your starting class). But that’d mean they’d have to make every generic class have its own leveling system.
13:50 There are two things I will accept (1) Thief is a subclass (2) The fast hands with scrolls and magic items is given to base Rogue.
Anything else and I riot.
2:25 Maybe the flames are depicting the second part of the spell.
Other content creators release a review of the details video: I sleep
TreeantMonk releases a review abou- : LOCK IN
I did think Nerd Immersion's reaction had some decent insights as well
I like the video. I think there will be some interesting and decent changes. Though I am a bit worried...They have given precision little information on what if any updates they will make to monsters in the new books is Monsters need some improvements in both what they can do and their power. Otherwise the power up that some classes seem to be getting will make problems with 5e even more pronounced.
I hope this means they fixed peace and hex dips, I just wonder how without removing early game viability. I would assume limits that go away further into the subclass.
Not getting your subclass until level 3 pretty much takes care of both.
Maybe. Some non-spellcasting classes still benefit, and aren't hindered by, just a 3 level dip.
Tl:DR Some vague comments, which the one really concrete is about new art in the 2024 books.
Awesome video! As long as WotC isn't hiring Treantmonk at least as a consultant, I will be skeptical of the results.
Absolutely agree. I love 99.9% of his insightful analysis and suggested fixes/enhancements.
I've always thought that multiclassing should be a feat to represent the amount of effort it takes to learn a new class/skills.
5e players try not to reinvent PF2E challenge (literally impossible)
Personally, I thought they should just lean more into subclasses like Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster, though it'd make sense to have feats for specific features that don't need to level up (like Fighting Initiate). Like, have a wizard schools whose things aren't spellcasting but completely mundane knife fighting or something.
@@AnaseSkyrider This is actually an area where PF2e was reinventing 4e. You used feats to multiclass in that edition (with the second class taking the place of your class archetype at level 10). And they probably got the idea from some non D&D game. In the 3e days, I had a similar homebrew solution and a number of DMs I encountered independently arrived at the same conclusion.
@@abyssimus Listen, why you gotta ruin my joke with facts and logic.
I'm looking forwards to the new rules coming out, but one thing I'm unclear about. Is this still 5e? And if it is, does it replace the 2014 ruleset? And if it is still 5e, and it does replace the 2014 ruleset, are we entitled to get the updated players handbook for free?
Personally, I think they fucked up by still calling it 5e, and Hasbro's shitty business practices leaves no question about it. But could it be argued on the merits?
This is good and informative. The books sound like they may be nice. That said, WotC and Hasbro do not get any of my money. None. Zero. Ziltch. Yeah, I am there.
Players always find away to break characters with multiclassing no matter how they try to 'protect' it