Power Creep that made D&D 5e BETTER
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- If you like what I do and would consider supporting this channel through Patreon:
/ treantmonkstemple
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
2:52 Xanathar's Guide to Everything
5:14 Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
12:57 Fizban's Treasury of Dragons
13:40 Bigby Presents Glory of the Giants
14:28 Conclusion 
Игры
OneDnD monks are more like a power sprint and I am 100% here for it
Fantastic phrase, exactly how I felt when Chris and Colby were gushing over it way back when.
I’m currently DMing a level 18 party of four. One of them plays a straight shadow monk. And with the right item designs (I gave him some homebrew handwraps akin to a holy avenger, +1d8 radiant per hit which becomes +2d8 vs undead and fiends for example) he’s totally on par with the other characters in the party and having a blast. So honestly I don’t think it’s that hard to salvage the 5e iteration of the monk really. There are a couple very cool and flavorful subclasses here. Buff their damage output and ki recovery a bit and they’re doing just fine.
But of course if they’re left without a little help, a remake of the class was badly needed.
A bit of good power creep you missed is from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft: The Undead Pact Warlock. It fixed all of the problems of Undying to such a massive extent that people often forget that Undying exists.
That's true.
Undying was so bad that Undead had to get made to have a playable version of that fantasy.
To a lesser extent, fathomless is a better version of the GOO for cthulhu themes
@@Siennarchist You take that back! Fathomless could have been a couple spells/invocations. GOO is the best
@@Siennarchist Eh, Fathomless is pure aquatic, while GOO actually plays on the cosmic horror stuff. Too bad GOO kinda sucks (Fathomless is my favorite pure caster, though).
In the Dungeon Dudes' recent video about skill proficiencies, they talked about wishing the history skill was a bit more like Pathfinder's lore skills, so you could be proficient in different areas of history. I didn't realize Xanathar's had explicitly added this function for tools, where proficiency also gives you advantage in lore situations like investigation related to that tool! I learn something new in every treantmonk video.
I think pathfinders version followed after 3.5’s Knowledge skill. Where you could literally take (knowledge : ancient war tactics) if you really wanted to. It was practically pick a topic and make it a knowledge skill.
I miss the UA playtest “feats for skills.” The Historian Feat was one of my favorites.
It's a tragedy how little that chapter in Xanathar's gets referenced. From the GM-side, that's my favorite part of that book. It makes tool proficiencies into such a nice way to round out one's character concept.
@@ikaemos Same! I used it extensively after making an Artificer, and my group came around to using it more frequently to resolve interesting out of combat encounters. Good stuff
One of my faves for power creep is allowing for situational abilities to have practical options for use (e.g. Wild shape find familiars, Harness Divine Power, Blessed Strikes, Steady Aim).
Good call!
Regarding the 3.5 power creep, one thing I always bring up regarding the martial/caster divide is that the gap in 5E is practically non-existent when you compare it to the gap in 3.5. The power disparity between casters and martials in 3.5 was so bad that near the end of 3.5's life Wizards released the Tome of Battle, a martial-themed sourcebook that introduced the Crusader, Warblade, and Swordsage. These new classes were basically replacements in all but name for the Paladin, Fighter, and Monk, respectively, and were incredibly more powerful than their original counterparts. And that drastic a step was pretty much necessary, because the original classes were that weak compared to classes like Wizard, Cleric, and Druid.
And they were *still* considered weak by comparison.
The ToB also worked as a replacement for ranger, barbarian and a few other classes. It wasn't as obvious but the Wildman aspect was there.
*laughs in hulking hurler/war hulk*
But that was like, the only martial class that was more powerful than casters and it was incredibly broken
I'm going to disagree with Treantmonk and say that 3.5 didn't have an issue with power creep. Power creep is where they introduce a disparity over the years. 3.5 didn't introduce the disparity over the years, it was there from the get go. Majority of the broken classes were in core, and they had access to a lot of their most powerful stuff from the get go (e.g. Polymorph, Animate Dead, etc...) On the other hand, they also had monk in core, and it never got notably better (except when you replace it with a Swordsage).
@@chaosredefined3834 A lot of it was there in the beginning but there was still quite a bit. Arcane thesis, 1st level animated corpses, Abrupt Jaunt, launch bolt the feat that let you cast any spell from your spell book a few times for wizard. Divine metamagic, fleshraker, venomfire.
Monks got quite a bit better with ACFs and even became a good choice as a 2 level dip for AoO builds.
8:00 Agreed 1000%: the Ranger, and the optional primal companion for beast masters in particular is the absolute best power creep done right in the entire game.
Honestly I really wish they reworked that whole subclass instead of just the first feature, you get a bunch of oddities cropping up that are addressed better with the Drakewarden, like riding the beast fighting as a team and actually making it stronger over time in ways separate from your ASIs and Proficiency bonus. It also renders half it's Lvl 6 feature useless.
Interestingly, I agree with you, but I actually prefer the old ranger animal companion, pre-errata.
@@Tomeroche It's not actually that bad, still, cos of the fact that you can still let it take an attack instead of you.
So if you attack, let the primal companion make an attack as one of those and then use a bonus action to make it disengage and retreat that's pretty useful.
It's not as good as it could be, but it's a pretty robust subclass all told with the new companions.
@@wesleyjudson599 ... I have literally never heard anyone in the history of time suggest something so incomprehensible.
@@HorizonOfHope ...you don't watch the news, do you? >_
I really really like the Darkness Sorcerer, it has a really cool flavor and abilities. At my table we just used the new bonus sorcerer spells as a template and picked 2 spell schools for each old subclass and tell players they can pick the extra spells at the same levels off of those lists. Now my old sorcerer has a new lease on life.
If it has the same restrictions as the new two where it’s limited to Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard spell lists I’d say there’s a few exceptions where other spell lists would be better, let’s say Storm Sorcery, it would benefit far more from having it be limited to Druid, Sorcerer and Wizard spell lists since the majority of weather and effects that’d trigger its class features are very exclusively to the Druid spell list, such as Call lightning and Maelstrom.
@@AtelierGod Yeah, I agree but we didn't want to go too complicated. Just get the bones of the new subclasses to bring the old into viable range. I am extremely excited by the Playtest sorcerer revisions.
I think a ton of players give the non-Tasha's subclasses extra spells as a homebrew option, and rightfully so. It's also just fun to come up with these expanded spells.
Path of the Giant will make all Barbarians better. Letting thrown attacks use Reckless Attack and Rage bonus is so popular that it looks like it will make it into the base class in the updated PHB.
Unfortunately, that will make the best feature of Path of the Giant redundant. Thus, the subclass is more like a bridge to smooth out pain points untill the updated PHB is released and we get four better subclass options (hopefully).
That's a great point.
the same thing happened to astral self monk
Wait how does it let them reckless? I thought it was only rage. Reckless seems like a bad idea for any kind of ranged capabilities.
@@TheEliteJohanit’s a barb, it’s not gonna be a big problem. Reckless on /thrown/ not /ranged/ isn’t a big deal in 2014, because you can’t use SS. It’s even less of a problem in 2024 where there is no SS.
I'm not too worried that people will stop playing path of the giant barb after OneDnD comes out.
It's still the only barb that lets you grow big, which matters a lot if you care about grappling. Elemental Cleaver is still a good feature, which gets better in a system without great weapon master. And if you want to throw your weapon, Giants barb is still the only barb where your weapon will come back to your hand, and the only barb that turns a greatsword into a thrown weapon. So giants barb will still be the thrown weapon specialists compared to other barb subclasses.
I love this video. The retroactive look at how the developers look to increase enjoyment. Prime example for me: Tasha's. Definitely brought the floor up. The amount of support Half-Orc or Goliath characters I've made is evident.
One class that I think might still need some power creep/buffs beyond what is in the UA is probably the Rogue, and oddly I think it might need it more in terms of the rest of the game system rather than the class itself.
Like most magic weapons, and "per hit" buffing effects benefit a mono-class Rogues build less than a build with 5+ levels in any of the other martial, or half-caster class. So it could be fun if the designers look into adding some magic weapons and effects that might offer a choice between a "per hit effect", and a "once per turn/round" effect, like if a Flame Tongue Sword offered a choice between "2d6 flame damage per hit", and "3d6 flame damage on the first hit this turn" (potentially with some additional benefits to the once per turn/round effect, either as part of the effect itself, or as a unique component to the Rogue class/subclasses).
TBH I really wish the proposed UA changes where they got rid of most of the "per hit" buffs has been kept. All "per hit" buffs are fundamentally bad for the game as it massively incentivizes getting as many attacks per turn as possible which makes all other uses of particularly BA a poor choice.
I couldn’t agree more. Once per turn damage needs to be a lot more common with Magical Weapon design so that the Rogue feels like they have the same impact as other classes with the same weapon.
I loved Tasha’s optional features for classes too. Those really helped the existing classes be more customizable and in some cases more powerful. Based on everything that has recently been released, I’m very excited for one dnd or whatever it ends up being called
Yeah! I especially loved the Sorcerers' ability to re-roll an Ability Check. Suddenly my sorcerer was GREAT at Counterspell, Dispel Magic, and Telekinesis. And I stopped worrying about failling Charisma Skill checks lol Loved that.
@@vachvuger2184 oh I didn’t think about using it that way! Does the wording stack with wild Magic’s tides of chaos or other forms of advantage?
@@SirEliteGrunt My DM ruled that only one die was re-rolled if you have advantage/disadvantage.
Didn't matter, since ideally you only re-roll those unlucky low rolls on checks you're supposed to be great at. One extra roll was almost always enough.
And it came up a lot too.
@@vachvuger2184 that’s so good! Time to build another clockwork soul sorcerer with dice manipulation as the main focus
Personally, I've always considered "power creep" to be making the best things better. In that way, the power level of the game AS A WHOLE gets higher. So things like buffing the ranger, well those are just buffs, not creep. So Tasha's allowing you to switch ability scores, that IS power creep, because it adds another level to optimization. Just a thought.
Yeah, we just define it a bit differently. For me, power-creep is making something more powerful, even if it wasn't overly powerful in the first place.
MtG has better examples of new cards that are just better than old cards. If you want to stay competitive, you must buy new cards.
D&D is a little different in that it’s less competitive and it’s easier to share resources. But still, in 3.5 I felt like I /needed/ tomb of battle or my martials were too weak. But I couldn’t afford it, so I played something else. That’s not healthy for the game.
@@TreantmonksTemple I would say there are potentially different kinds of power creep. It's definitely still fair to call it power creep even if the buff does not raise the bar, but only raises the average, because this will affect the game balance over all. In other words buffing weaker stuff will raise the average power of parties in general vs monsters, even if the most powerful characters are unchanged. Although I would wager that this type of power creep, where the weaker things are brought closer to the higher ones is mostly good for the game, where the buffs to the strongest things in the game or introduction of new things that become the strongest usually become examples of bad power creep.
I think booming blade and green flame blade were positive power creep.
I disagree, because now everyone wants the equivalent of the Bladesinger's Extra Attack on every martial class in order to keep up damage-wise.
one of the only good additions in SCAG, arcana cleric and crown paladin subclasses are also good but the rest are so bad
@@agilemind6241it would make sense with eldritch knight, because their ability sucks anyhow and it would make more sense for them to weave some magic between each attack. I really don't think blade singer should have been made though personally.
@@slydoorkeeper4783 These cantrips are basically specifically designed for Eldritch Knight's 7th level ability, though they also benefit low level high elves of almost any class.
Great video. Powercreep can be used to arrive to design goals and that's positive.
I'm playing a ranger for the first time and he's a wisdom shillelagh focused fey wanderer with all the optional features from Tasha's, and he's a blast to play.
I think ranger might be my new favorite class, everything just feels so good.
One thing to keep in mind about power creep in 3.5 is that some of the worst offenders to balance (in both directions, too strong & too weak) are in the PHB. Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger & Rogue are all Tier 4 with Monk being Tier 5. Meanwhile Cleric, Druid & Wizard are all Tier 1 with Sorcerer being high Tier 2. The only PHB class hitting the Tier 3 "sweet spot" is the Bard.
Late lifetime releases tended to be much better about that (though there are of course exceptions here too), with all 3 ToB classes being Tier 3 for example.
was just talking about fey touched and the other tasha half feats to someone in the comments of the previous video. and you sumemd up my feelings on it perfectly, Treantmonk.
Fey touched is a very ubiquitous half-feat now, but that's because it addressed the issue fo subpar half-feats for mental stats that had plagued the game beforehand. and despite that ubiquity, it's not the go-to for every character, as rogues and some martials would still want skill expert, elves would still consider eleven accuracy , and fey touched doesn't outshine feats like warcaster or lucky, or resilient.
That bit about astral monks has me wondering: What other good changes did the D&D community vote down for bad reasons?
the onednd playtest 5 warlock
it was so cool, you could really build it however you liked with either many low level spells or the same progression as 5e already has and you could pick what mental stat you wanted as your spellcasting stat
but the community said no for whatever reason
@@finalfantasy50 I was really sad when that version of Warlock was voted down, since I was legitimately excited about the possibility of playing a Wisdom-based Trident-wielding Fathomless Bladelock/Circle of the Sea Druid based on Aquaman, but that idea's pretty much dead now because Warlocks went back to being Charisma-only when the community voted down the playtest 5 changes.
Mystic.
I watch too many d&d videos on RUclips, but Treantmonk has the best analysis by far. ❤ content like this - thank you
I've watched both videos now, and I don't really mind power creep in D&D. I care more about what seems cool, rather than what is actually good. My first character was a Draconic Sorcerer, and my Draconic Ancestor was a vital part of the story, which was really cool. My most recent character is an Alchemist Artificer, and I'm really excited to try out the different infusions and tinkering options, despite people telling me that that specific subclass is underpowered.
Your last video was all the obvious things people point to, but THIS video was gold because it really showed the great way 5e had inproved as it has matured.
Psionic spells and clockwork spells were a godsend to the sorcerer! I added a spell list to the PHB sorcerer's as well
The whole 'apply the racial bonus to whatever stats you want' feature may have opened up options, but it kind of made races superfluous. Where you 'punished' for playing a wood-elf paladin? I guess so, but that's kind of what made races unique and flavorful. But I guess that's water under the bridge now.
I do agree that there is a lot of 'good' power creep in the game, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth over much of it.
I always liked the idea of, "I rolled rrslly good stats, so I can afford to play an orc wizard or an elven paladin and have my character be a notable exception to the norms." Or, alternatively, "My character isn't especially suited for this role, but through dedication and hard work (ASI and feats) they're going to overcome their disadvantages!" Their used to be some mechanical support for underdog stories like that, now they're merely narrative.
When it came to the floating ASIs I ended up banning it because it made the whole problem of race choices worse. Where before a weak race could exist in it's niche and only have to compete there in a limited pool now it has to compete with literally everything else. It shifted the burden from a combination of ASIs and features to purely features, and a lot of Races have underwhelming features but were still usable in their niche due to ASI with their oddball features adding flavor or making play interesting. With Floating ASIs it's now solely just a choice of "What race feature is the strongest or will work with this class?" And it lead to me getting campaigns where everyone played the race that trivialized most of the themed challenge, like all Tieflings in Avernus, or All Triton/Goliaths in Icewind dale.
Man I absolutely love the new logo/brand. Treantmonk has deserved something like that for a while. Thanks for all the amazing videos, content, and insight!
Good take and I agree, a number of the things added have improved the game and they should be reviewed on case by case basis.
Did the community really ruin astral self monk? I was so sad when it offically came out and nerfed my AS monk
I was devastated
Yes, all the crybabies were panicking over a monk being able to make 6 attacks per round at 17th level (because 17th level totally matters, right?).
@@Klaital1 Are you kidding me? Martials having so few attacks has been one of my biggest problems with 5e. Like I think every (true) martial should get like 3 maybe 4, the rogue probably 2. Only 2 attacks for most martials slows late game damage potential and most of their late features aren't that great either.
I hope they make Kensai better. I don't know how, but its part of an experimential build I'm working on, and I wish it just had a little bit more oomph between level 1 and 5.
Kensei is such an odd subclass. It's actually fairly solid at doing one thing that isn't super monkish (Sharpshooter ranged weapons), but bad at doing the thing that players want to do with it (attack in melee with Swords and Axes and such). Some of that is just that attacking with non-Heavy Swords and Axes is generally pretty bad for all classes.
@@thebitterfig9903 Its part of my dex Tonk build.
Couple easy things that would go long way for it are, give them weapon masteries with their kensei weapons (pretty obvious one), let them make their flurry of blows attacks with their kensei weapons, make agile parry to just require you to be wielding a melee kensei weapon (instead of dumbly requiring you to not use it), make kensei's shot scale with your unarmed strike damage die and not take your bonus action, and finally, make Deft Strike not cost a ki point.
Just go Clockwork Sorcerer 8/Kensei 8/ and Bladesinger 4. Enjoy always being the one person in the party that doesn't go down.😊
@@007ohboy Im looking at Kensai 5, War Wizard 10, with whatever (more kensai) after that. Honestly...not sure what Clockwork Sorcerer does for a Tonk. I thought about Bladesinger, but its to MAD.
An interesting example of what I think is probably unintentional power creep is the introduction of more Proficiency Bonus (PB) scaling on subclass features.
It's clearly meant to disconnect specific attributes from subclasses, so that.players have greater freedom in building their characters (just like allowing variable attribute bonuses on races/species does).
However, its also a massive boon to multi-classed characters.
Thanks Treantmonk!
I love the sorcerer class and I agree they were strong at the beginning levels because they were front-loaded all the way up to level six. Then becomes dead weight with marginal increases in power until level 14 where the sorcerer finally gets their second Sorcery feature. Between levels 7 and 16, you get only 2 ASI at the 8th and 12th levels as well as a Metamagic option at the 10th. At this point, there was no reason to talk about the rest of the sorcery levels. Because 90% of games ended at level 12 and players never got to see what their class can do at higher levels. That's why most of the classes feel like they sucked so much in my option. That's why don't take what's on the classes paper as value. It may look like the greatest shit in the universe, but in practice, it can underperform disastrously. Like the Ranger, Monk, and Sorcerer.
Being an older DM/Play that started back in Adnd 2e. I came back to DnD (5 years after 5e. came out). I joined in on some pub games, and I was shocked to find inept lazy DM's that trim the games down with restrictions for their convenience only and lie about how this is how Dnd is meant to be played. This upset me as I always ran high-level campaigns from levels 12-35 in Adnd. So ran a series of one-shots starting at levels 14 to 20. These were deadly campaigns to balance the boosts in class powers. I made Wizards find and buy their spells. That cut down the BS wait time in players having to decide which spell to use on their turn. 4 minutes was the longest wait. The only restriction I placed on all Classes was the removal of their CON modifier to their HP pools unless they take the Durability Feat. Fast forward 3 months later playing on Fridays and Saturdays from 8am to 6pm sometimes extending to 8pm all the way to midnight. I have seen 15 players up and leave their ongoing DM guild rules tables and come to me to play. At this point, I had 22 players to juggle but thankful I gave the parties access to a demi-plane to rest I called it the " Astral Mirage Suites" to allow the mixing of players that show up to easily jump in and play with the others. Of course, some of the DMs got pissed at their players leaving. I have known the game shop owner since high school and after being in the military for 10 years he still remembered me when entered his shop again. So the BS Drama they made up to get rid of me didn't work. I even tried to reason with those DMs and tell them their downside to the reason why the players up and left to make them better DMs. They exploded in a fit of rage at me. All I can do is raise an eyebrow at their baby tantrum. One of them took a swing at me. I respond by introducing him to my experience as a former SFC CI. He was hauled by police and the other 3 DMs were banned from the shop. I continued DM'ing one-shots up until the planned-demic happened. I tried taking it online but I didn't feel natural without reading the players' body language and faces to make course corrections. So I scheduled one more farewell one-shot Bosses battle. Where I took all my 28 BBEGs of certain degrees of power and had my 11 players run the gauntlet fighting them all back to back. That was a great time. We started at 8:30am and didn't finish till 3:40am the next morning.
I think you forgot one very important point, which is that people just like power creep. Especially for players who've played for years, power creep means a) new stuff to play around with and b) feels like a progression system on it's own, like raising the max level in WoW or whatever. For example finaslly being able to start with 18 in the primary attribute score without rolling for stats feels really good to me (even though it was one of your bad power creep examples). So I believe power creep is necessary for long term custoomer satisfaction and just straight up fun (and I believe a lot of poeple feel that way, even though they wouldn't articulate it).
So many subclasses were clearly designed with the idea that multiclassing was not being used.
There are only a few subclasses that are genuinely OP if used singleclass.
Great video. You pointed out a few things I had overlooked, and left me more optimistic about the 2024 revisions improving the game.
Good morning Chris! Had a busy weekend for a cousin's wedding, so didn't make any progress on my mission since last time but this am i have so far finished the Bladesinger vid and the Double Phantom! (I made sure to leave comments. It's not much, but hopefully, the engagement will give them a small signal boost to nab you some extra views 😉)
Writing this comment before getting into the list of changes, but my favorite example of power creep that was good in my opinion is the backgrounds that give a feat at L1. It let's you play something other than Human or Custom if there's a feat you want that a background can provide. And to me that's great! I'm playing fantasy, i don't want to be a Human or *~vague gesturing custom lineage that doesn't count as the lineage I'm supposed to be~*
Thanks as always for the company while I'm at work! 💜 Hope your weekend was great and the week will be even greater! Much love, until the next video! (Or the Past video in my case when i go back to the next Playlist video 😂)
If I can respectfully challenge your viewpoint here my guy, I think backgrounds handing out feats is a bad idea. As it stands every single game I've played that was homebrewed to allow feats at first level NEVER saw anyone play human. Why is that? I'd say with all the bells and whistles newer races get between flight and spellcasting humans hang onto the feat they get for dear life. If feats are easily accessible I'd argue the amount of people playing human will shrink significantly and the race will be overlooked regularly.
To quote our lad Chris...options that are so good they take options away feel like we are getting less choices...not more 😅
@@MeepOfFaith that totally makes sense to me! And I do also think that Humans getting just the feat is a problem. I'd love to see humans get some kind of narrative direction other than "short lived expansionists"
But my experience with Humans is that people play them specifically for the feat. So to me I view it as opening possibilities to other lineages, cuz Humans still get *any* feat compared to specific BG defined feats. Opening all to get any feat at 1 like you mentioned is definitely a big issue to pushing out Humans though. But builds that might have always gone Human/Custom have a chance to be something else.
But my own view can also say "now they'll just take Aaracokra for Fly speed". So I do definitely see where your point comes from! But I guess that's the beauty, D&D will never be flawless, but we all enjoy telling stories with our groups of friends and different experiences can happen which is awesome! I appreciate the view you shared so we can consider the other side too!💜
@@MeepOfFaithI think humans just need a buff. The 1+ all attributes is kind of lackluster. I think BG3 had some good ideas for how to buff humans and make them better. But as it stands non varient human kind of sucks mechanically and varient human/custom lineage are incredibly powerful do to level one feat and pretty much mandatory for any optimised fighter.
I also like backgrounds that provide a feat, though I'll like them more in September when it's universal.
One thing I get when looking at Xanathar's bad power creep, is that I can see a problem it was trying to solve (e.g. hexblade, gloomstalker) but they were looking at their fix in isolation, whereas by the time Tasha's came around they were better at finding edge cases and pre-fixing them (though obviously not perfect, like with Peace and Twilight Clerics)
The interesting thing about the tool uses in Xanathar's and character options is that the mountain dwarf can start with 7 tool proficiencies just from racial abilities plus background, class and subclass, can get 9 or 10 tool proficiencies at level 1 or level 3 with subclass. And can get weapon and armor proficiencies back with the right class or subclass.
I like the positivity vibe of this video ❤
I really enjoy the new base line of strength for the new stuff, and hope OneD&D is able to align everything with that new base line
I really want a tweak on some Warlock patrons (especially Great Old One), in Alchemist Artificer, and on Monks (more ki points per level)... Some official material changes are important like revised Ranger. Because homebrews are so arbitrary. Homebrews are nice for creating unique magical items, but I don't like changing class rules.
Have you checked out the 2024 players handbook playtest material?
I'm waiting for the full oficial 2024 material release, until them I prefer to see the based Treantmonk's review to control my hype xD .
The last Monk playtest was definitely a hit, but if you are interested in Great Old One improvements specifically, here's hoping the patron changes from its playtest go through largely unchanged, because they are pretty great.
The major highlights from the playtest:
1. Can convert their damaging Warlock spells to deal Psychic damage, and all Enchantment and Illusion Warlocks spells can be cast with Subtle Spell automatically.
2. At level 6, can use their telepathic ability offensively, basically a bonus action debuff where they select a target, and if the target fails a Wisdom save, the Warlock has advantage on all attacks against them, and the target has disadvantage on all attacks against the Warlock.
3. At level 10, Hex (which, as an Enchantment spell, the Warlock can cast without verbal and somatic components due to their level 3 ability) also imposes disadvantage on saving throws for the chosen ability.
4. At level 14, they get an ability like the 11th level Fey Wanderer Ranger ability: they can cast the Summon Aberration spell from Tasha's, and modify it so it lasts 1 minute without concentration instead of 1 hour with concentration. The Aberration also gets summoned with a bunch of temp HP, and they can deal the extra damage from Hex when they hit your Hexed target.
@@CivilWarMan yeah Goolock is gonna slap in 5.5
One thing, or maybe it's a couplet (two things tied together) is a change in HOW new features are rolled out for One D&D.
In previous editions a new race or subclass would be presented as universally available. In 5e, we see a mix of the old way, but also several setting unique cases like the MTG and Critical Roll additions.
My hope for One D&D is that as new subclass and racial features are added, they're tied to specific settings. Obviously there will be homebrews that mash them all together, but this will limit the unintended combo power creep, and the options paralysis issues as well.
It would also make the different settings books feel very different from each other, as the FOTM power build is probably different from one setting to another.
A playlist of the Sorcerer/Wizard videos would be appreciated.
Thanks for this video and you make great points. I still think looking at “power level” more times than not puts people in the wrong headspace. People tend to go for nerf or ban when thinking of these things. I think this is an opportunity, why not take the opportunity to update the older class options? This is what Bone Wizard does on his channel and I think he does a fantastic job at this. Much to Treantmonk’s point it’s about opening up more options.
Thanks for the video. Is there chance for a throwing barb build?
regarding power creep in hearthstone, the main mode people play is called standard, it uses cards released in the last 2 years and some amount of cards from previous years, so in this case shrinkmeister and quicksand elemental arent in the same game mode
Good video Chris! :)
Thank you!
Tasha’s is my favorite book, so far! 👍🏻
Hear me out, the custom lineage race, while basically being power creep, especially for non-human races, is still good power creep as it basically introduced a free feat at level one, and this really matters since IMO feats are the thing that help a character most in their concepts, and I really like the free feat at level 1 design overall.
Shame that it was attached to only one option, but customizable, but hey if that's the way we get free feats at level 1, I'm fine with it.
Working toward an overall re-set of the power balance in 2024-25 rules books, I would hope to see that "darkvision" will require concentration, as if concentrating on a spell.
Thats great! Thanks Chris!
I absolutely loath the Tasha's custom origin feature. Everyone says it opens up new race options but it doesn't, it does the opposite by making previously overlooked races that do have some synergy with a certain class be completely overshadowed by others with strong features that now have the option of also getting a boost to their ASIs. All it does is shift the priority from looking at stats to looking at features when choosing the race, and every single time I've made it an option the players ALWAYS go for the race with the feature that negates most of the challenges of a campaign. From all Tiefling Avernus parties, to an Icewind dale campaign were everyone was a Goliath or Triton.
There used to be a bit a trade-off between choosing features or stats when picking races but with Tasha's allowing both now there's no point in picking a Gnome wizard when you could be a Winged Tiefling and have both good stats and the ability to fly. It also opens up more cheese strats that used to be limited because it'd mean giving up a lot in stats like abusing Pack Tactics with spell casting, or just taking a Yuanti/Satyr to get magic resistance on any build.
Before the weak race options were still viable if slightly suboptimal because they only had to compete in their niche, and in that limited niche features weren't everything. The difference between a Leonin or Half Orc fighter wasn't that big. You might want to play a ranger and go "Oh, I didn't realize Loxodon actually had good stats for it, and thinking about it I've never played a Kenku since they seemed kinda weak but their stats also fit and the mimicking nature sounds would be cool for a ranger!" Now however each race isn't competing against a handful of others, they're competing against every other race and their features.
Honestly I've seen more unusual race picks since I banned that optional rule and just bumped up the Standard array by 3 points. Once the ASIs aren't initially crippling you got the best of both worlds, it makes players less hesitant to grab sub-optimal ASI race, but it also makes sub-optimal feature races stay competitive in their niche since they can start an even better spread.
I compleately agree with you, but in fairness D&D was originally built around the concept of nearly everyone choosing the same race (human). Nowadays Humans are a relatively rare pick in my experience, but there were always a few favorites for each class. With Tasha's, that's become just a handful of races for all classes.
Sounds like six of one and half a dozen of another to me. Either way there's still a reason to have favorites. For me personally I just find mechanics far more compelling than a few stat points so I'm happier being able to pick mechanics I like rather than worrying about a +1 here and +2 there. There's nothing compelling to me about a race that just has a stat bonus. It's dull and IMO deserves to be left behind. Give me compelling mechanics and lore and let me pick freely from those. Granted, lots of races need to be updated to the new standard, and many should be getting said update in the new PHB. But if sticking to the old way works for you and your table then that's a win too. Just not my bag.
I likes the Race and Class options in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
Tasha's is a terrible book from an objective standpoint. I still like some stuff in it though
@@trequor Some good and some bad. I don't think it's terrible book. Being able to choose where are race bonuses is very good, Artificer is fine, the Optional Class Features are cool, most of the nive SubClasses are cool Patrons are fine, I like the spell and magic items and the Dungeon Master's Tools are very useful.
The only real problem I see with the book is that some of the subclasses are really poorly designed and some have the potential to ruin a campaign.
@@sortehuse I really like Artificer, but the class could definitely use a polish pass. It's a bit rough.
@@MannonMartin You definitely right about that. Hopefully the will come around to that at some point.
@@sortehuse The subclasses are Unearthened Arcana tier. Many of them are borderline unplayable.
But the reason I say "objectively" is because it's terribly WRITTEN. Xanathar's has MORE subclasses, yet Tasha's has a much higher page count devoted to subclasses ( *without counting Artificer* ). The book is plainly poorly written, especially the subclass section.
I do like the spells and magic items from Tasha's and the DM section has some useful extras like avalanches
How do you feel about the Dragon Lance backgrounds/feats for martial and spell casters? Two free feats from a background is insanely strong and just their existence makes it difficult to not beg my GM for.
where did you find the image of the elf wth a staff and green mushrooms?
I think most people think “power creep” is when new classes or races or spells are more powerful than the existing ones. So that subsequent classes, races and spells have to match that higher power level to not be left behind. And when some of those subsequent options are more powerful, suddenly the next set of new options again have to be even stronger. In this way there is “power creep”.
Remember “power creep” is a strongly pejorative phrase so whatever it describes must strongly negative for the game as a whole.
Stuff like using tool proficiency to gain advantage is retroactively available to all player characters. Players get stronger but there is no “power creep” because there is no additional pressure on new options to be more powerful.
What do you think of the Eldritch Adept feat? Specifically, do you think the Abjurer Wizard/Armor of Shadows invocation combo was intentional? And would you put it in the good or bad power creep category? 🤔
I personally don't think Eldritch Adept is that bad, though it is an example of introducing unintended interactions. With the last One D&D Warlock playtest, the Pact boons were redesigned to be Invocations, but in order to make them available at level 1 in the redesigned Warlock, they weren't given any prerequisites, which makes them valid selections for Eldritch Adept. RAW, as of the latest One D&D playtest, you can Hex dip without needing to multiclass.
Power creep can be good when you are rescuing nonviable options and making them competitive with the good ones. When I'm homebrewing for my game, most of what I do is that things that are not remotely competitive, and make them mechanically comparable, while still being attractive to certain builds or playstyles. Feats are the main area here. The Feats are comically non-comparable in their affect on a character. So I edit them. Rarely do I nerf something. More often I will just buff the never-selected options until players start being tempted by them. And it turns out that's lots of fun for everyone!
Personally I love the Tashas racial bonus adjustments but I feel it makes Humans a little weaker, imo. Sure, variant human has all the fun with that feat! But I never enjoyed the aspect that it felt like I was playing weaker custom lineage. Or how potentially base human 'potentially' is strong but has nothing going on with it compared to newer designed races.
I dont hate the Tashas rules-- Like I said, I love it! I just wish there was better human variants. Or at least ones that were more openly introduced
I agree, actually. It was originally meant for Human to be default and other races to be unique in some way, but I think that underestimated how many players like myself find being human in games that offer other options pretty dull. (I'm human 24/7 IRL. I like some variety in my fantasy play.) Honestly I think human should get the same treatment as other races, complete with their own unique mechanics. Don't make human the baseline. Give them equal footing with all the other races.
Question, you didn't mention druid of the stars or simic hybrids as good or bad power creep. What are your thoughts?
> WotC, "Dragonborn have rusty coloured scales."
Players no
> WotC Fizban, "OK you win."
I would say there is a 4th kind of power creep that's also bad - the designers see a problem and *intend* to fix it... but fixed it the wrong way.
This is where I'ld for example put the gloomstalker ranger. There's no doubt that the *intent* of that was to 'fix' the ranger... but instead of fixing -the class- which they also did some of they instead made a subclass and went "If we can give them a really good subclass at least that makes ranger playable" without ... fixing ... the other subclasses appropriately.
If WOTC remade the other subclasses in the same book about as powerful as gloomstalker I'ld say it'ld have been good power creep, but WOTC didn't go as far as they needed too (And a bit too far in some other aspects - IE forgetting 1/turn)
The thing I worry about with 5th edition is that at a certain point with 3/3.5 I decided that if I was going to run a game of it I would have to limit which books were available to phb1 dmg1 the monster manuals and a relevant setting book, and then be willing to discuss a feat feature or subclass on a case by case basis. Now 5th has not gotten to that point of game breakableity yet mostly because there are far far fewer feats and sub-classes in the game, and while there are some overpowered interactions that were clearly unintentional it's not to that degree, but I worry that if all of the current options are still there with the 2024 core rules once they put out a few more supplements we will be getting to that point.
Power creep, it has the added effect of helping design balance in future editions of the games.
Tasha’s is the best example of this.
The half feats are pretty much universally loved, as are the base ranger optional feature upgrades.
The new sorcerer subclasses? Yep, love those too!
The thing is, these (plus others) make the game better with more options, and different ideas and play styles.
I would expect (within reason) to see these very popular game design ideas to roll over into the following version, and expansions for it as well.
That’s positive change.
Just please fix some still odd, and poorly worded game mechanics, and you should have another winner of a game.
Great video.
Ability scores from Tasha are great. You did not mention fluff-neutral classes or Artificer though
Your face when you were...... wait, I made that joke on the other video.
Thanks Chris
To me i think a big problem is the assumption of the table. Like a part of balance is resource management for spells, but almost every game ive ever run we don't do it because often I have newer players playing casters, not to mention that it makes it harder for me to remember every duck foot, bat wing, etc. or I say they have everything they need, then why have it at all. Tbh my players care much less about power and much more about fun and what you can do.
As long as they have their spell focus you shouldn't have to track material components unless there is a gold cost. So you can keep the more powerful spells limited without needing detailed accounting of a vast array of random junk items.
Component tracking is greatly overstated. You get roughly one spell per spell level that even needs a specific component, and half of them aren't consumed so it's a one-time purchase. If you weren't allowed to get any of those components, you'd still have a perfectly usable spell list
I always thought that the Giant Barb was kinda iffy, cause that ranged attack option they get with throwing weapon was somewhat random and felt like a placeholder.
I like subclasses to be narrow specializations if possible as in my mind it would entice more teamwork. And having a Barb who at some point gets increased Reach on his melee attacks, so you are enticed to try and build an area-control warrior, but then they get a thrown weapon attack for no reason, felt redundant to me.
Yeah I struggle to be inspired to play a giant Barb. If I wanna get big I just go rune knight, though the reach is awful nice
@@pederw4900 yeah, imagine if with that reach you got something like the Tunnel Fighter fighting style, instead of the whole weapon throwing angle. I feel it would have been some much cooler and thematic...
I’ve made homebrew subclasses myself; even I can tell that some have more power than others while others have more options.
Power creep wasn't 3.5E's problem. The Cleric, Druid, and Wizard were right there in the PHB, along with the overwhelming majority of the hugely overpowered spells; the full casters got more flexible, but not more powerful, over the years. Also in the PHB were the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue, so the unplayable degree of imbalance was in from Day One; martials eventually became more powerful with additional splats (Tome of Battle characters really were Just Better than PHB martial characters in every way), but they never did catch up with the casters. If anything, 3E needed _more_ Power Creep, not _less._
The high tier spell casters were broken
And needed to be nerfed
I think my complaint about things like the Mercy Monk or the Giant Barbarians is that I would much rather see fixes to the class that give a buff across the board, than see a single subclass that is so vastly better than all the others that there is little point in playing those. Fixing some of the terrible Ranger abilities (Favored Foe, etc.) was a good way to do this.
E.g. Monks could really use something like:
-All Ki abilities now use your Con modifier instead of Wisdom. Ditto for unarmored defense, it's Dx + Con. Makes the class a little less MAD.
-Instead of just their getting their level in Ki points, they get their level + their Con modifier.
-Monk's unarmed attacks get a +1/+2/+3 attack and damage bonus at levels 5/11/17.
-Monk gets +1/+2/+3 bonus AC to their unarmored defense at levels 5/11/17.
Most of the Monk's problems come from 3 things. 1 is MAD, 2 is resource expenditure, and 3) is features being too limited or niche.
What they need is to reduce things being tied to Abilities or else give options to substitute abilites in certain things. For example I feel like Unarmered Defense should be "AC can be 10 plus your proficiency plus either Dex or Wis" So it grows over time WITHOUT needing ASI investment.
For Resources I feels like it's Ki techniques should function as you got a free bonus action option that works as long as you have Ki and on top of it you have the option to spend Ki to make it better. Like Step of the wind should just be Cunning Action but you can spend a Ki point to also Dodge while doing it.
I think the current direction of DnD is to find horizontal power creep. This is, not doing “more”, but doing “new”.
Opening different ways to problem solving and creative expression is the key for a diverse game that brings you to the table again and again.
It reminds me to a barbarian subclass homebrew I made. My player basically wanted hulk, a scientist that had a horrible accident and woke something inside themselves. My solution?
I made an Intelligence based barbarian: “The Path of the Awoken Mind”. I gave him expertise in one intelligence based skill, and he also could add his intelligence modifier to Athletic’s checks, and he would gain hover speed at high levels. I also gave him telekinetic rage attacks that would inflict no damage, but would move the enemies. One at level 3 that would move one medium (or less) target 10feet in any horizontal direction, and later (level 6?) one that moved all enemies 10 feet radially.
It was amazing as a DM to see a barbarian solving combat with complex strategies of positioning, saving engaged allies, and evaluating at every turn if it was better to push an enemy or attack them. It was also awesome to see the barbarian engaging on investigations and research on the role play aspect. That one expertise gave the player a lot to do out of combat.
Was it better at combat? Not really if we talk dpr. But it managed its goal: a barbarian with high intelligence (and feels intelligent mechanically ) that still feels true to the class, but makes something new and different.
Sansuri's Simulacrum = Old Power Creep
I wish they went back and fixed PHB sorc subclassss the same way they improved the new ones. I like elementalist/wild magic flavor way more than esoteric Far Realm and Order realm stuff.
Is One D&D going to be considered power creep, or a total power reset?
One system I think handles power creep well is pathfinder 2nd edition. With every book, theres usually one thing thats generally stronger than something before, but its almost never to the point of being too strong in comparison to someone whos pc didnt take it.
As a game designer I don't call this power creep but power re-alignment or adjustment. Creep to me has connoisseur of gradual or hidden change. And I try to clear when it is intentional.
This isn't meant as a correction, just sharing a perspective on terminology.
Yay good morning!
Morning!
The question that remains to be answered: why is there a picture of an ultramarine in background when you say "powercreep"?
Why the Astral Monk hate? It is really awesome. Its only downside is that it is quite expensive on Ki Points, but that expense is the only thing that makes it sit on equal fitting with the Mercy Monk. In an alternate universe where they both have unlimited Ki, the Astral Monk would be superior to the Mercy Monk.
A solution to weak barbarian subclasses:
When my players pick a weak barb subclass I offer for them to double their rage bonus. (This makes all barbs roughly competetive and expands your options)
General fix to Barbarians: Brutal critical now reduces the range for a critical by 1 instead of adding an extra die. (Suddenly Barbs are actually worth playing beyond level 8.)
Honestly though... there are some sleeper barb subclasses.
The Wolf totem barbarian is honestly the most underrated barbarian. Most people don't read any further than the Bear totem, but Wolf totem has the potential to be the most damaging barb subclass in the game. A Wolf totem barb standing next to a paladin and a fighter is SCARY.
You should have showed Wild hart Guff fore that Hearthstone blizzard reference
Astral monk is pretty good. SAD alone fixes a lot about Monk
The game would be better if multi-classing would be removed and instead more subclasses were introduced that fulfill different kind of class fantasies (e.g Arcane Trickster, 4-Element Monks etc).
I've said this in a previous video, but I personally think that addressing balance issues in a class with subclasses isn't great, as more often than not the subclasses exist to help characters fill out a new core fantasy the class couldn't do initially, so locking the power fix behind specific fantasies just isn't great to me. New features and changes to the base class is just a far better solution that I wish WoTC would have used more often.
I’m sorry, I just gotta ask… do you have a second channel? One that covers modded Minecraft?
If not, look up direwolf20, it’s literally the exact same voice as you
Hope I’m not revealing some kinda secret second identity lol
Adding power crept options is a weird way to do balancing... It leaves behind all the problematic options, and it can't nerf anything.
I wonder what ttrpgs would be like if developers could do videogame style balance patches.
I dont think some of these are necessarily powercreep. They are just options you are meant to pick and play, without actually replacing the existing ones. No, some of these seem like additions and optional rules that would be considered "Buffs". Personally, i think that's important than "Good powercreep", as buffing the old stuff that no longer works will help add fun and interesting options back to the table. Otherwise watch as people pick the "Good powercreep" subclasses, technically turning them into bad powercreep in the long run (under Your own definition)
This is like one of our group members that made a handcrossbow eldritch knight/war wizard... He can deal upwards of 120 damage with his action surge and can regularly deal 60 damage per round just by shooting with the crossbow, this was started at level 6, we are now level 14 and he still is the one character that deals the most usual damage from the party
if it is still underpowered (like monks) you can't call it powercreep
it's just balancing up rather than down
It is powercreep if it isn't retroactively applied to existing content. Only Tasha's Ranger upgrades were good powercreep because they boosted all the existing ranger subclasses and any new ones, which means choice is retained. Whereas Tasha's Sorcerers were bad powercreep because they are so much more powerful that other sorcerer subclasses that you hardly ever see any other sorcerer subclasses any more.
Aberrant Mind Sorc is the most powerful sorc at 6+.
My problem with Power Creep subclasses is that then those become the only subclasses.
And half feats aren't a good thing IMO. They are instead a symptom of the problem with 5e feats - the huge opportunity cost of taking them and not getting +1 to everything.
Always thought racial stats were silly compared to actually having interesting active features for each race. Things like the Halfling slipping through enemy spaces and shrugging off a dragon's presence, Dwarves all being artisans who can tell you who made those stone ruins in the swamp to the east, even the most uneducated among them.
We don't need a +1 in Con to know that Half-Orcs and Goliaths are a sturdy bunch: that comes up on its own in their racial abilities! If ability bonuses would ever be fixed and determined by something, I would rather they be determined by class or by background. It only makes sense that you're good at a) what you're doing now, and b) what you used to do before adventuring.
And. If a player is really bothered that their strong gnome's path to ultimate strength *seems* to be as easy as a strong orc's path to the same? There's really nothing stopping that player from buying a 14 or 15 in their primary score instead of a 16 or 17. It's not even strictly a "self-nerf" - by the nature of point buy, such a move would help make you more well-rounded!
The problem with letting them choose their ability bonus is that it just kicks it to the class selection. It takes away from what makes the races special. Then you just need to say that when you pick the wizard you get close to your intelligence for example
I mean I'd argue that this was already a thing, it's just that before Tasha's you would pick wizard and then you pick the race that gives an intelligence bonus (or you just pick vhuman).
I was of the same opinion when Tasha's came out, but this argument falls flat fast. Hear me out:
There are too many races to have 'unique' ability score pairs, and some pairs were also just stronger and some more often seen together. Ability scores are purely mechanical bonuses for character building and it has nothing to do with 'character' or 'flavor' in the world or setting. Most races (and builds) were ignored because they were less powerful or not a good/great match which is a pity if that player really wants that race on their character (our group actually had a list with the order of races in terms of power). This made all races much more balanced against each other because the pure mechanical bonus and flexibility is the same for all of them. From a designer perspective, now you and the players can focus on the other racial features who actually DO set them apart.
Adventurers or PC's in D&D are exceptional individuals so it makes very much sense you can put the right ability scores on your class for each race. That doesn't mean that this is the case for every member of their race in-game (which is a common misconception). In fact, the DM can make up how a race is generally supposed to be or what its place is in the setting or lore. On average, dwarves can still be the classic "stronger/strongest and higher/highest endurance" race for example AND, as a player, you can still put the same old 'stereotypical' ability bonuses on your character like before. Nobody loses, we can all have more builds and more fun!
I never understand why new Ranger features from Tasha replaced old ones ...
I mean yeah they are universaly "better" ... i gues ... but Ranger lost lots of its identity. :(
And feel free to corect me, but i feel like they didnt really work against each other ...
So it would be quite fine imho, if Ranger would have both original and new features simultaneously.
I will continually argue and complain that Ranger's Tasha's options should have been add-ons instead of replacements for Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy. I'd much rather Canny have been scrapped and have Favored Foe (with maybe a less similar name to Favored Enemy), Roving, and Tireless stack on top of the PHB Ranger's base level 1 kit.
Zealot Barbarian is probably best to damage if you build a character, but Giant Barbarian is better if you just level up in this class
As a long-time Ranger defender, I partially disagree. Whenever I make a Ranger, I barely even consider taking Favored Foe. It’s just a crappy Hunter’s Mark. What’s more, is it’s so bland that it doesn’t do anything interesting outside of numbers either. Lastly, the game impact is so *wildly* different from the original Favored Enemy, that I see no reason for them to have one replace the other, rather than just giving both.
Deft Explorer is a solid contender for replacing Natural Explorer, but I wouldn’t call it power creep. They have a lot of overlap, and successfully convey two different but similar aspects of the same concept. If you have a DM that successfully communicated the expectations of the campaign, then Natural Explorer is arguably the better choice with its abundance of situational expertise.
The only problem 2014 Ranger ever really had was Beast Master being messy. Primal Companion *kinda* fixed that, but completely left the Beast Master out to dry for lvl 7. Plus you can’t even cast the beast buff spells on it due to its high Int stat.
As a DM, the ONLY thing I want from the next edition is a better DM’s guide. If we’re going to be designing encounters for ALL these options, we need a consistent, reliable calculation of hit points, damage thresholds, and abilities that will challenge and reward players. I know that’s a tall order, but it’s important to remember that NONE of these character options means a THING if they can’t be played at the table. And that’s what’s been happening, with DMs burning out and leaving the hobby because of analysis paralysis, where scores of character options slow the game down multiplicatively by level, such that half of most character options never get played because the players never reach those levels. In fact, if WotC wanted to be realistic with their audiences, they’d simply stop giving rewards after level 10 in the next edition. Just give people 10 levels of growth because that’s what the designers have designed the game for-10 levels.
Chris Perkins was in charge of the updated DMG, and he's a pretty good designer, so I'm fairly optimistic.
I dunno, I think BG3 showed that level 12 is a good stopping point. I realize it's different, but not so much that it's completely removed.
I have been using the DMG for encounter building and monster building because I throw two to four deadly encounter each day closer to three to four. Because I don't do six to eight medium and combat generally takes a time and these players tend to live I just scale up monsters all the time since the monster board is capped at cr thirty. I agree with you we need a better DMG especially for more advice on game running. You are also right my next campaign starting at eleven. And the game is designed around those first ten for sure. The elegance of fourth edition encounter design is gone.
@@Exhaltia Indeed, but that’s still 8 levels of progression that few if any players ever see in 5e. I’d rather they just cap all classes at 10 and just force people to multiclass to go above 10th level.
If they made it so nothing was gained after level 10 then multi classing becomes a necessity and spell casters whose spell progression continues into the higher levels will just become stronger.
If a change is good for the game, it is not power creep.
It's only power creep if it's bad.