D&D Studio Update: 2024 Core Rule Books and Survey Results
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- Get the latest on all things D&D dndbeyond.link/yt_studioupdat...
Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford update us on the 2024 Core Rulebooks, design, monsters art and Unearthed Arcana feedback.
#dnd #dungeonsanddragons #dnd5e 
Развлечения
![Darren Waller - Who Knew (Her Perspective) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GytDjB8u6bM/mqdefault.jpg)
UA 7 Feedback starts at 22:00
They barely touched on the UA7 surveys, dammit.
@@pdegan2814 most likely there will be a bigger video in thursday ,... hope fully
@@pdegan2814"Everything scored 70 or higher except Brawler and Base Barb, 4 subclasses scored exceptionally high" - nothing much to say other than that really
@@muffinhydra”and survey results” I think suggest no, which is disappointing
@@PsyrenXY Nothing much to say? How about "which features of the base Barbarian tested poorly"? And given the division over the base Warlock so far, some details about how those features scored would've been nice. Plus I was really hoping to hear some specifics about the Wildheart Barbarian, given the significant changes vs the current Totem Warrior.
I am hoping that we see more elemental weaknesses in monsters, and greater viability and variety of poison available to players and see less monsters resist it. Also more elemental spells. Fire is too prevalent, while others fall short.
Elemental weakness as long as it's not just Vulnerability. For a lot of reasons, Vulnerability is just not a good mechanic. Somethink like troll's weakness to acid and fire is perfect.
I honestly wouldn't mind seeing more Poison Resistance, it's actually pretty rare overall. The issue is just how common the Immunity is, which is way higher than the most common Resistance, which is actually Cold.
It would be nice if resistances and vulnerabilities mattered more overall.
a way to fix that is Vulnerability X so if a monster has cold Vulnerability 3 it would take 3 extra cold damage
Vulnerability is problematic because its crit damage without needing to crit@@marimbaguy715
I want more Thunder and Ice spells 😀
Why is artificer being kept out when you have included so many other things from the newer books?
Obvious they haven't made their minds up about what to do with it, yet.
My guess is, it's new enough and has been tinkered with in recent years.
@@pedrogarcia8706Not sure how it even remotely relates to "lol they're greedy" . What a dipshit response.
The alchemist could definitely use another passover
@@Rachel-nq1ktthe artificer absolutely should be on the core PHB. Ideally we should have a second Int based full caster, but that is a lower priority.
Interesting that they’re satisfied with the bard, despite entirely scrapping the way they access spells.
Yeah, the UA version is literally unplayable as written. 🤔
GIVE US SPELLS! I am shocked that we are so deep into the UA process and we still haven't seen revisions to Polymorph, Animate Objects, and all the PHB summoning spells.
Bumping this comment seriously how do we not know what they're doing about broken spells
I am also baffled at this choices unless we are just running them as is... A mistake for sure.
I agree but on the summoning spells they are already confirmed we are getting the Tasha's summoning spells.
In fairness there has already been over 40 spells included in the playtest.
@@Wertbag99 Nerfs to Spiritual Weapon and Banishment that no one asked for, changes to Barkskin that no one cares about, changes to Find Familiar and Prayer of Healing that are most likely just going to be walked back. Sure, reworking smites is fine, but that’s just one class, and none of the spells they’ve tackled so far have been any of the key problematic spells, except for Counterspell.
I just want a real lore update. Not a bunch of little notes throughout a bunch of adventures, but a collected lore update that explains where the world is now in the era of the second sundering.
So specifically Forgotten Realms lore? I'd appreciate that too, but I'm not sure the core rules are the right place for something that setting specific.
@@vincentwinqvist4023 you can get Forgotten Realms lore in the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide...it's one of the first 5e books and ironically people tend to forget it exists... Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes also provided updates on the Underdark, Elves, Shadowfell and Gith, and there are setting books with updated lore on Eberron, Ravenloft and Planescape.
That is definitely coming and I can't wait
Yes! This is my BIGGEST desire for the new stuff. As someone who started DM'ing 6 years ago and I've had to CONSTANTLY refer to older editions books for lore. As amazing as the Chains of Asmodeus module that just dropped is, I was really hoping for more lore for the Nine Hells.
go read a book.... its your game, your table so the WORLD is wherever you want it to be.
I want the Artificer in the PHB or at least SRD so we can see more official and unofficial subclasses for it.
It'll be a cold day in hell before they let their artificer be in the SRD
I want Jeremey Crawford to be fired from his position
The reason is probably that the Artificer is under a different license from everything else and they simply don't have the rights to reprint it. It's also why Artificer isn't under the Open Game License and why we don't see supplementary products release subclasses for it.
@@infernoeagles5812 becuz......?
Artificer needs to be included in the new PHB!
Don’t hold your breath
*Anakin:* "These books represent the culmination of ten years of D&D 5e."
*Padme:* "So Artificer will be in the new PHB, right?"
*Anakin:* ...........
I’m always disappointed when they completely shelve things rather than reworking them, especially after we only get the one look at them (glares SPECIFICALLY at Flex). But I guess I am interested to see what other fighter subclass takes its place. Presumably it’ll be one of the ones from an existing book which could be interesting.
The Exhaustion rework was flawless. I was initially dismissing all the people panicking when it was removed from the UA, saying, "They probably got all the feedback they need from it, they don't want it present in future UAs to not muddy the waters for the surveys", but now I'm not so sure. I wouldn't want a straight-up upgrade of that subsystem to be left on the cutting room floor
Lol, they are going with like 9/10 of the weapon masteries.
They did not shelf the system.
I wish flex gave you a bigger damage die when you two hand the weapon. Two-handing versatile weapons just isn’t worth it unless you’re a monk two-handing a spear or quarter staff.
@@talongreenlee7704 Isn't it more competitive after the nerf to Great Weapon Master (I think that's the feat)? The +10 damage was removed from that.
@@broomemike1 yes, but only because they nerfed the meta builds down to where everything else was. I personally think maybe they’re sanding down the high points so they can have a “rising tide that lifts all boats” kind of situation, giving some kind of blanket buff that makes all kinds of weapon styles deal more damage. I really hope they do anyway and aren’t relying on weapon masteries to fill that role.
Playtest Rogue is a huge step up from 2014 and seems like a ton of fun, but Monk continues to languish behind nearly every other class and Artificer isn’t even being included in the new PHB despite really needing some love.
I would prefer to see the Artificer in the 2024 DMG. It makes it easier to refer to the magic items that the class replicates.
Also, Fighter is massively improved as well. The new features they have are excellent additions that add a lot of utility to the Fighter’s base kit.
I’d love to see a new iteration on the Weapon Masteries though. I think treating Weapon Masteries as essentially cantrip-like effects for weapon attacks is the way to go and I’d love to see a few more options.
Artificer is a very fresh class, it doesn't need revision
@@eliascabbio7598It's an under-supported mess. It definitely needs attention.
Monks are seriously underpowered in 5e. I’m playing one at the moment and it’s just one disappointment after another. Can’t believe that the monk won’t be getting the love it deserves. At the very least, monks should get additional ki points (or whatever they’re being called).
Chris, if you have realised you are trapped in a corporate nightmare destroying the soul of the game you love, and you want someone to send in an extraction team to rescue you, blink twice.
Lol
XD
It truly does seem this way. So sad
Lol
What we need is a master compendium for every god and/or patron option to give new players and old a better grasp on the gods and patrons. Especially if it helps with roleplay, piety, divine factions, etc.
The podcast the dungeoncast does lore for such celestials. Their playlist is practically a wiki it's free and they're fun to listen to
That would. be incredible, I have an old book from AD&D that is about gods and myths, including real world mythologies, its pretty cool but having an updated one that includes patrons for 5e would be so nice!
The Pathfinder 2e Gods book is next-level. The only other books that can even touch it are the D&D 2e Faiths and Avatars, and the D&D 3e Faiths and Pantheons for the Realms, and nothing from 5e comes close.
It's almost like they need to produce an actual setting guide beyond Ebberon.
I’d love a Deities and Demigods book for 5e/5.5e
I love seeing people ask about the artificer, it’s probably my favourite class and it’s sad it won’t be revised for the new handbook
Outside of alchemist what would it even need for a revision? It’s the only class in the game that can gain magic items without DM interference. It’s abilities are solid throughout with little weaknesses. It should stay a half caster as casters as a whole are strong enough as is. They get medium armor and shields as a baseline. Genuinely curious what are it’s real weaknesses?
Same here!
@@TheLegendaryLegacy
Playing Artificer RAW is pretty clunky - for examples the Infusion system is weird because while it seems to be meant to be flexible, it prohibits you on how you get to switch between the Infusions (to put on a new Infusion the oldest one gets deleted, which forces you to work that out), and you have to build your character in very specific ways to keep up with your party combat wise in any aspect while they don't need to try as hard, or the level 6 feature which gives you Expertise with tools, which is only really coming into play if you have the All-Purpose Tool and a thinkoutsidethebox mindset for both the player and DM as there are barely any references to how tools work.
Overall it doesn't feel like a modern class and requires some good homeruling and even brewing to feel good to play in my experience.
Primary reason is the Artificer is not part of the OGL and putting into a core rule book could potentially change that.
The new books are just core. Artificer has never been core, so it can still get revised some other time.
Really disappointed that the Artificer is not going to be included in the 2024 PHB. It really needs to be part of the ‘base’ game to get the support it needs
Agreed
We already got enough INT-based classes! Oh wait..
@@PerikleZ87 isn't Wizard and Artificer the only ones? Lol. We have enough CHA based classes
@@mkdynasty272that’s the joke lol
I don't think it would ever be part of the base game because it's not part of the core fantasy the game is emulating. It should definitely get UAed and improved, and should definitely be part of the game, but I think to most people it's a concept that will always fit better as a supplement than the core. Not every table will allow technology based concepts into their magic realm.
Why does Chris look like he's there against his will? Chris! Blink 4 times if you need rescued!
15:52 Jeremy says that these three new books are the biggest versions of these books we’ve ever seen… but then he goes on to say that combined these books are just under 1000 pages… but like, so were the old books combined (996 pages), so what the hell is Jeremy talking about?
And I would have hoped each of these new books was at least the same length as their 2014 counterparts, so I’m not amazed by the 1000 page count, I’m just relieved they’re not giving us small books like they’ve been giving us for all the supplemental books.
And with a lot more art pages in those books.
@@Enlyss ya know. More art. same page number essentially Obviously the book dimensions will be 2x1 ft. ;)
Would love some timestamps on videos like this, D&D team!
By giving battlemaster manuveurs to all martials you give meaningful options for martials, you bridge gap between martials and casters by creating symmetry between martials and casters! Casters get cantrips at will and resources to spend by casting spells; Martials on the other hand get weapon masteries at will and resources (superiority dices) to spend by using battlemaster maneuvers
That would be so cool
As beautiful as the battle master is, I have always thought the subclass should be torn apart and dispersed to all martial classes. Then bring the subclass back after enough people have played it as a true Master of Arms based on the collected data.
@@o_double_t_o I agree - I really hope that they do not design martials only for new players, only for players who likes a simple playstyle... BECAUSE I do want to play a martial and have meaningful combat options. It is not about damage, it could about battlefield control, it could be about party support etc... Weapon Masteries is indeed a step in the right direction but there is a need for more. Already today there is an option to take the Superior Technique Fighting Style and the Martial Adept feat but they only offer 1 additional superiority dice. In the case of Martial Adept, it does not even offer an ASI... but honestly I would rather go for one additional superiority dice and not a +1 in STR or DEX.... maybe this flexibility could be designed in the feat letting players to decide if they would go for an ASI or for 2 superiority dices
I disagree. I wish they’d give superiority dice as a dice pool to all fighters with some stripped down functionality while keeping the maneuvers exclusive to the battle master. Maybe roll second wind into it as well and give a larger overall pool of dice to make up for splitting its use, so you can spend a die for either extra damage or extra health and then the battle master subclass drastically expands those options with maneuvers.
@@talongreenlee7704 What about using superiority dice just as extra damage that you can do a few times per day?
Honesty i would be thrilled if they fixed the Alchemist Artificer, Arcane Archer Fighter, and Monster Slayer Ranger. Some of the worst subclasses outside SCAG subclasses.
I would really hesitate to put Alchemist and Monster Slayer on the level of Arcane Archer. Both of those subclasses are far more potent than AA.
@NonRegnumDei1934 Alchemist isn't as bad, but Monster Slayer probably worse than AA. Slayer gets an extra d6 once per turn on one enemy per rest. It gets and extra d6 to escape a grapple, and an anti-teleport
@@scotthalfhill7501 It's not one enemy per rest. It stays on the enemy until you rest but you can put it on as many enemies as you want.
@thestormwizard6447 I missed that. Still very bland. Atleast AA can banish someone twice in a combat. Both are terrible imo.
AA can compete better than y'all give it credit for, but that's pretty much entirely from the strength of Grasping Arrow, which basically tacks on an extra 2d6 rider once per turn it moves, including forced movement from an allied Crusher user, Repelling Blast, Swarmkeeper shove, etc etc. No save, you just activate it on a hit like a smite.
Every time they remind me the ranger isnt getting revisited i die a little inside
My guess is that they gonna include Tasha's optional features and call it a day which isn't all that bad tbh
Ranger is fine? It's definitely not the class that needs work- that would be Monk
@@darkestlight660all of the classes need a big rework :(
@@krim7 i think a lot of them do yeah, more specifically spells and martial classes
@@darkestlight660 Sadly I do not think the new edition will be ambitious enough to truly update and revise everything :(
I feel like you guys should make the side kick system from Tosha’s the intro player system. That way you don’t have to pigeon hole your martials into the beginner category and you can expand on them. When a new player is ready for more diverse play styles, they can branch into the core class system. When you branch into the core system, it should feel more dynamic than the intro system. Bridging that martial/caster divide.
Also, talking about systems that will be modified. Can we get something for transformations? Other than your dm takes over your character. Lycanthropy and vampirism to name a few. Some sort of double edge sword that could have its own system, that allows for cool transformation moments or terrifying unintentional consequences of your thirst or hunger getting the better of you, and you lash out at an ally in the heat of moment. If you’re giving us a system for housing and land owning, please enhance player transformations.
Just another comment asking for Artificer in PHB.
So for me the big things still needing work on is, 1. a better crafting system, all they have is a loose frame work for crafting that the dm has to fill in a lot and i feel like it could use more work on. 2. More none fire spells, like all of the other elemental types are badly in need of more spells and poison needs some love as well.
Artificer in PHB.
People want it, the class DESERVES it.
My first character was an artificer. Yes, make it core!!
I bet they're gonna do a new set of Subclass centered books after this, like Tasha's and Xanathar's.
$$$
I would prefer to see the Artificer in the 2024 DMG. It makes it easier to refer to the magic items that the class replicates.
@@carsonrush3352
I agree, it also makes sense as an "optional class" and will be a good addition to the Death Cleric and Oathbreaker Paladin.
Oooh I like that every *subclass* is going to have art. That's cool.
This ^
"The New books look forward AND backward."
One DND is the Quizat Haderach?!
The big issue with brawler, it was a better monk than any monk we had so far. The monk needs some love.
I love playing monk but its just so bad
If I recall from some of the online discourse, was that the brawler was just better than the whole of monk.
Druid Monk Barbarian is going to reappear.
We still need to see monster stat blocks and some base game spells to give us some idea of game design changes.
One thing they overlooked with the Sorcerer was that a huge part of why Aberrant Sorcerer and Clockwork Soul are so popular is because of the bonus spell lists. This is their chance to decide right now, are sorcerers going to get subclass spell lists or not. Doing it half way just feels awkward. Personally, I'd say give each subclass a spell list. Also, instead of Clockwork Soul, put Divine Soul or Shadow Sorcerer in the PHB.
I'm really hoping that the Weapon Mastery for the Fighter is improved. The mid-level features that allow so many restrictions on swapping properties are next to useless, as a fighter could just pick a different weapon at 1st level and do functionally the same thing. I love the concept, but I hope it gets some tweaks before the books are released
Weapon Mastery as a whole is a mess. It got high scores because it was *something,* and something is better than nothing. But once they've seen a high score for a feature *one time,* they decide people *love* it and stop working to improve it.
Real bummer that their only fix for martials was weapon masteries.
Certainly the biggest fix, but the playtest did include a few new skills, tweaks to existing ones and a boost to second wind for example.
@Wertbag99 I don't see those alterations as real fixes for the issue which plagues martials, which is having very few tools to handle different situations.
Why? What more did you want? 🤨
@videogollumer I would have preferred something like a refinement of Kobold Press' ideas in Beyond Damage Dice, or something which gave more action choices to martials and which made weapon types distinct. The mastery system does not give us any reason to engage in the fantasy of a dual dagger weilding rogue, because ultimately daggers are just an objectively worse choice to short swords and rapiers. This sort of thing is annoying because ultimately there is nearly no consideration when picking weapon type, much as there is effectively no consideration when picking armor type.
Martials also need more non-combat options but that is less relevant to masteries, I just feel like they have been patting themselves on the back over this so much that they think it solves the martial issue.
@@videogollumer Well when at Level 20 a Wizard can turn into an Ancient Dragon and a Fighter can attack once more per turn, there's gonna be a big power difference between them. Once spellcaster classes start getting 3rd or 4th level spells, they have so many options to help with things inside and outside of combat. The vast majority of martial class features are based on combat, and even then they don't often provide more benefits than spells
This is a complete 180 from the UA. Sounds like they really aren't any different from the 2014 version
Ye monsters need more HP with the power creep of PCs, but that could also lead to making vulnerabilities to certain DMG types usable. Find the weakness and use it, kinda. Not just elemental but also physical weaknesses, so having and using different weapons makes more of an impact.
I love the Artificer! It should totally be In the PHB 2024!
One thing I REALLY want, that I know wouldn't happen, is an audio book of the DMs guide. ADHD, I really struggle with reading long amounts of text, but can really take in audio.
I guess...
As another person with ADHD, I'd say that I could never listen to hours of a reference book. I'm much more able to skim and read.
Wait at 12ish is he saying that we won't see revised spells? But that's the most important thing to be playtested!
I haven't made it that far into the video, yet. Sigh.
Reining in the outlier spells is crucial to leveling the field between casters and martials. It's also simply better for the game. Ideally, there shouldn't be clearly optimal spells. If the weak and overly strong were brought closer together, it would improve the game for everyone.
Would be great if you could add chapters to these longer format youtube videos. So people can look at the parts that interest them most.
I'm loving warlocks, I'm hoping necromancer gets some love
There will only be minor tweaks to the Wizard class.
@@lukedesmith as long as those minor tweaks help the necromancer I'm good
only 4 wizard subclasses in the new PHB, and Necromancer is not one of them, so im hoping they follow up the new PHB with a new Necormancer subclass pretyt quickly
@@yuen4817
I really hope these rulebooks will be translated as soon as possible 🇮🇹🇲🇫🇩🇪🇪🇦
Even when I have doubts on various aspects of this project, I can't help but love the genuine enthusiasm that these two bring. The corporate types maybe money focused, but the design team are players and love the product too. They'll never make everyone happy, but I don't doubt they'll try their best to release a product they are proud of. The playtest was both great for feedback and for PR, and we can actually see them actively listening to the feedback received.
I would have loved to get a deeper look at the survey results.
I would like to hear more about how they are improving the CR system for creating encounters.
We need a video about the 4 subclasses each class will get.
a lot of that has bene entioned in these veyr videos....
I think you guys forgot the bard... which also needs another round since it's literally unplayable in the latest UA state due to it being reliant on the arcane/divine/primal spell lists that no longer exist.
I'm still hoping for some word about the cut subclasses (especially my beloved Necromancer) and whether we might see revised versions in other future books. I look at the playtest wizard and what I see is something very close to the 2014 version but with half as many subclass options to choose from. I know I can still use the old versions, but I'm guessing the 2014 books will go out of print and no longer be sold on DDB, so new players are unlikely to have those available.
Content not in the UA is considered to be unchanged, not dropped. I'm sure the 2014 books will go out of print eventually, but there are still PLENTY around for now.
Why are you not giving us the math behind how WOTC creates monsters? That would be helpful for DMs.
they probably think its too complicated for the average person, which is whom they are targetting (and the reason for the large explosion in players in 5e)
Because creating enemies for an RPG really isn't a simple mathematical process. That can be used to derive a rough estimate of an enemy's challenge (a rating if you will) but monsters don't work via algorithms.
@@StarFyreXXXif a DM wants to put enough effort to make entirely new things through chapter 9, then they should get material that helps. It's not impossible to give better guidelines for strength of some stuff that isn't pure damage or pure HP/AC like... The devour intellect ability of a mind flayer
@@strawbellebelleYeah, Forge of Foes does not exist, nor does it include a single table to build a monster of any CR... The truth is that WotC is incapable of balancing monsters to fit a certain CR.
The math doesn't exists lol. Though you may want to pick up Forge of Foes from Mike Shea, etc. Which does a good approximation.
A monsters AC, HP, special abilities all impact its rating.
Min maxers are definitely going to want to main new classes and "dip" into old ones, IMO.
It will be an interesting challenge for dms
oh god good point
This is one of those things where I’d ask my players if they want one dnd edition or 5th edition. It’s just too much work to try to balance for 2 different editions that are very different in power level.
Yeah when he described all the content being run together it was big turn off. I think casual players are going to be hella confused. Imagine two people at the table, one playing a 2015 PHB ranger and another running a 2024 PHB ranger. The power levels will be radically different and will cause confusion for newer players. It's almost cleaner to just call it a new edition and just have a clean difference and cut off
@@wwcyfd22 I'm not sure it's going to be more confusing than it was back in 3.5 where you had people delve into several splatbooks for a specific feat or spell or prestige class, sometimes even having more than one version of them with the same name. I think the way it's going to work is similar to the way it works now for certain race options, like the Kenku, for which you have the Volo’s Guide to Monsters's version and the Mordenkainen’s Monsters of the Multiverse's version. It will be up to the DM to either veto or allow specific versions of PHB options the players will have access to.
@@thormag Yes, and normally that amount of rules bloat and splat book headaches for DMs only crops up after an edition has been out for the better part of a decade. With OneDnD we will have that on day one and it will only build more going forward
I would assume the thing about other books related to it being the 50th anniversary might be referring to a Greyhawk Setting guide or something like that, which could be cool
I was thinking the same thing. Another option could be a multi-edition adventure.
Oh my god it's painful to see an amazing class idea like the brawler go just because when we say to them "The mechanics aren't the right ones" they understand "We don't want this subclass"
not what he said... at all.
So glad theyre scrapping Brawler. You could literally make a Barbarian with Tavern Brawler that beats it. Lets get Arcane Archer in core instead!
I really liked Brawler, that’s a shame, it just needed adjustments to work well
Hopefully this means that they'll make Weapon Mastery work more like Brawler's Improvised Weapon Mastery, because that was actually fun and cool. I think Brawler also faced a problem with trying to do 2 different things that didn't really synergize at all with the Unarmed Attacks and Improvised Weapons not really playing nice as the former felt underdeveloped while the latter was cool but wasn't focused on as much as it could have been. And to be honest, the issue is in part based around their idiotic decision to not let Unarmed Attacks use Weapon Masteries, which also made the new Monk feel bad too.
@@sspectre8217 I don't hate it, but it and dance bard both kind of steal the monks identity. I hope they manage to get monks strengths right, so he doesn't get lost even more
Arcane Archer.
LOL
@@someoneidk3995 It needs an update more than anything else, so it being included would be a very welcome addition so it can finally be worth playing.
expectations have never been lower for D&D one new core rulebooks.
What would you change?
@@kongoaurius I was looking forward to a 5.5 or even 6.0 with something new and bold, but familiar. What we are looking at is more like patch notes on 5e.
@@VictusFate Corporate cash grab and fear of failure seems to be a reason why they wouldn't go to a newer version. "Let's keep this 5e momentum going without alienating the audience that just bought in". But you could do that same thing with a 6e. It's been about 10 years since 5e came out. It might be okay to go to 5.5 or 6e.
Misty Stepped from first base to home plate is accurate.
HOW WILL THE NEW BARD WORK SINCE THEY REVERTED THE SPELLS LISTS
What are you guys going to do about Bard though?
The version that had the highest score throughout the whole UA process isn’t compatible with class spell lists.
I really hope that they keep the 3 big list just for the bard, magic initiate, and subclasses. I think that would be a good compromise.
Guessing they'll just revert back to 2014 Bard and keep the changes to countercharm and the subclasses. Bard was already a well liked class, no need for dramatic changes.
@@marimbaguy715 that would be fine, just very disappointing because that version of the Bard had so much potential for so much flavor. I like current Bard a lot but they showed it could be so much better
I have no problem with having a 5.5 or 6e version. BUT just do it with a simple conversion template.
Level out advancement, close the gaps in character development. Update the old subclasses and use a rough standardization. (Please update the draconic bloodline sorcerer).
Is there a way for multi classes be a little less punishing for dips if subclasses aren’t starting until 3rd level?
Edit: I understand and appreciate the tough situation and hard work of the designers, developers and all of the staff.
How will the 2014 books and 2024 books work in DDB? Will there be a toggle if one does not want to use the 2024 books?
These are amazing. Thank you!
PLEASE FIX THE MONK.
You mentioned in a previous video it doesn't get played a lot. So I understand why it's at the bottom of your priorities but it's so frustrating how much more work you've put into every other class. Please fix the base class monk. It's the weakest class and you buffed everything else, and didn't buff the monk basically at all.
They didn’t even talk about the scores for the monk! Just a shame.
One of my favorite PCs was a monk. So fun, but I only had opportunity to play him at lower levels.
1000 Pages WOW that's like nearly a dozen more than 2014.
I like the quality of life update with the larger text size, but I worry that it means we actually get less content. Maybe word count is a better way to measure that than page count?
Please give us the release schedule and what the other new books for 2024 will be soon !!
Will the Head of Vecna be in the New DMG?
I hope they'll take another crack at the mystic/psionicist in the near future. I know it's not a core book fit, but psionic monsters remain such a big part of the game id love a pc take (beyond the existing sorc subclass)
You should check out “the talent” by MCDM. Recently released for 5e and a brand new system for psions. Awesome book
thanks I will!@@BreakingBugs
Is there any chance to be able to buy the physical books and get the digital codes somewhere in Canada?
Why are they referring to the new office as a building and not a bastion?
We need Artificer in the PHB. It needs an update. Rogue didn't even need that much and still got updated.
I would prefer to see it in the 2024 DMG. It makes it easier to refer to the magic items that the class replicates.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually think artificer is one of the best designed classes in the game. Every single level adds a feature, and each feature builds on each other. It's actually really tough to decide when to jump out of artificer.
Man... Brawler had me excited.... i was not satisfied with some of how it had been implemented but I didn’t want it gone altogether just made better. I’m really starting to have doubts on this survey system they have going on now. At first they did iterate in further installments but now it feels like they just ditch things instead of making them better.
It's disappointing that they still didn't adress the bard and that it doesn't work anymore with every class now having their own spell list.
How is the Bard going through to publishing? It's spells rely on the 3 spell lists that don't exist anymore. Any chance we could get a monk subclass that doesn't rely on unarmed strikes?
Uses old bard spell list obviously
These guys are a joy to listen to. They are some of the most wholesome people I have ever watched on this platform. Never change 😉😌🙏
90% of corporate speech and patting themselves on the back. This episode was one of the worst. So many pain points in the upcoming sub-edition, but so little interest in working on them. Yet we get books with more expensive art instead.
Couldn't agree less. I have been very impressed with the direction they are taking 5e, and I hope they continue as they are. @@Enlyss
so all the books after the 2024 rule books will still be fifth edition also will the 2024 classes be backwards compatible with subclasses from books like Tasha’s or bigbys
Yes, they will be. Although I don't think bigby's had subclasses? You might be thinking about Fizbans
@@marimbaguy715 Bigby's had Giant Barbarian, but that was it
Unless something has changed in this video, the old subclasses aren't compatible because of the change in progression. You could probably adapt a subclass and it work. The biggest thing is the subclasses moving to level 3
@@bradleyhurley6755 The progression change was reverted 3 UA's ago
@marimbaguy715 I may have missed it but I thought every class getting their subclass still happened at third despite the rest reverting back
Are the larger font sizes and extra art paired with more pages or are the books containing less material? Could you release a word count comparison between the old core books and the new ones?
They won't have a word count until the books are written, edited, and finalized... so no.
Has there been any comment if they're going to go back and address the mountain of issues left with the ranger playtest?
Any ideas how they might handle transferring xanathar's and Tasha's subclasses into the new system? Are they just gonna shift around the features level? Some of them like hexbalde are fundamentally incompatible with the new features
Given that they just re-released both books, they will likely get an errata to fix the issues
I continue looking forward to the 2024 books with cautious optimism.
I trust them in this. And even if it's not as great as we all hope it will be, the fact that it's ALL entirely optional means that it doesn't matter. The game we all love can only get better, it can't get worse because 5E will still work.
I'm sad that they're not revealing anything about the Ranger. Speaking specifically about exploration, where the problem of the class really lies, it's a shame that they don't use the idea of some actions being done as BA (like with the Rogue).
If Deft Explorer, for example, allowed you to make search, study and stealth actions like BA when related to a chosen terrain, you would be mechanically representing a character who solves problems half the time or twice as efficiently (two checks per turn), and who hides ease in it. It wouldn't even be difficult to adjust the loose ends (extend the benefit of search and study to creatures on those terrains, for example... prevent penalty for difficult terrain for allies within 10 feet and etc).
They said that Brawler is gonna be replaced with a different fighter subclass, but said that we won’t be seeing fighters in a future UA. Does that mean we will not see that subclass at all prior to the book release?
i assume this is going to be a huge book, becuz adding all of that art merans less CONTENT ?
Also Todd’s comment on “yay bigger text” makes me think it’s more an excuse to add less content
@@lapispyrite6645 that being said , ive read almsot all of the UA content and im excited about eveyrhting, other than the fact that Wizard schools of magic subclasses are being limited to 4 @lapispyrite6645 , leaving out my necromancer (which needs the politishing) is a crime. Otherwise i appreciate the uimprovmeents to the game , especially when theyve been requested for over a decade. i get seriously annoyed by poeple acitng like noone wanted these improvements, and calling it anew edition.
Put the Artificer in the PHB
Hi guys I really liked the effort you are making to listen to the community, and I would like to know if any element related to modifying/creating spells based on downtime with the wizard could be included in the final version. I understand that the community really likes the playtest 7 version, but is there a thematic and flavor issue around modifying and creating magic that with due rework? (it may work as a Class cap stone, or even more like Memorize Magic, choosing only one prepared modification/creation at a time) The importance of this type of ability is thematic. Its very important for the differentiation and identification of the class if something along these lines was added. Thanks for your attention ☺️
I took 3d6 thunder damage from the outro sound effect.
Surprised there's no new iteration on Warlock. I didn't feel like it did enough to address what I feel is the biggest pain point of 2014 warlocks, which is the number of pact slots staying at 2 for so many levels and really limiting how much you can do in any single combat.
There is vocal group who dont want to change the warlock enough to fix it.
They tried in one UA, but the people hated it. Thay said, it lost its flavor and it's bad. So they reversed it
I think the only people who like Warlock right now either want to multicalss with sorcerer, or play in one of those rare games that actually has 2-3 short rests per day.
Yea people said it felt too much like a half caster and unlike warlock. Imo I think having more slots is just better but warlock lovers seem to like their limited spell pool so.. 🤷🏽
It sucks, because I love the redesign of the Patrons, especially Great Old One, but I'm probably never going to play one because the design of the core class is so frustrating and out of sync with the other classes.
I honestly think Warlock would be a lot better if they kept the redesign where the Warlock gets conventional spell slots, but then also gets a redesigned Pact Magic that gives them a limited use ability to "overcharge" a spell and cast it at a higher level without needing the higher level slot. So, as an example, a limited number of times per day a 5th level Warlock could upcast a 1st or 2nd level spell to 3rd level, but only spend the 1st or 2nd level slot as if they cast it normally.
I'm running a champion fighter with the unarmed fighting style from Tasha's. I love it. I got really excited about the brawler but when I read it I knew right away my champion build was much better
Exactly, or even an unarmed Berserker with Tavern Brawler
@@PsyrenXYOnly if you're playing BG3. 😄
if I've got a Master Tier subscription on d&d beyond, do I need to rebuy the core rules books in 2024? or will the rules in the compendium just update to match the changes?
[Question] Will there be a translation of the Core Rulebooks on release date?
Question. Re more resources for art does that mean more artists or AI art ?
Here's an idea: Make the Brawler a MONK SUBCLASS!
Part of the appeal of Brawler was that it was a non-Chi subclass. It was someone who isn't centered & drawing on inner peace, it was just a person beating the crap out of their opponents. It's the difference between an ascetic monk and a gang enforcer: one is a disciplined, trained combatant, and the other relies on strength and brutality to end a fight.
But the entire point of the Brawler is that the fighter gets to fight unarmed. The real problem is that they're terrified of making anyone besides monk fight well unarmed--a subclass like Brawler won't be good until they get past that.
Berserker Barb with Tavern Brawler is great unarmed. They can even go naked like a Monk can
@@stargrace420 shame the monk doesn't fight welll unarmed anyways.
or it's four elements subclass@@Offbeaten
no ''you can use an elemental spell of a level equal to the number of ki points you spend, you can only change the spells chosen the spells during or at the end of a long rest, and work as written in the spell description, minus the material and monetary cost'', just:
here, have specific and limited spells cast using ki, you can only pick 4 max at a time, changeable per per long rest
it was never improved upon or streamlined for the whole of 5E, it got more spells in xanathar's guide, it didn't have a separate resource (even as limited as the arcane archer resources, THAT needed more shots per rest).
i love a monk, but it felt stale to me
The things I would like to see in the new 5.5 core books are all the things that were missing from the 2014 5e versions, such as; a CR system that actually works, a mass combat system that works, a hex crawl system that is fun and interesting, and prices for all the magic items.
I’m interested how he said that they’re changing how treasure is awarded and that the change will be seen in the monster manual. Are we going to see monster stat blocks with specific treasure typically found in their lairs?
I really hope there are more Ice Spells. That would really help me pull in my cryomancerly-inclined friend.
There should be at least one spell of every element for every spell level
Is your friend's character a Sorcerer, Wizard, or Druid?
@@videogollumer trying to get them to join.
@@SerothTalon Oh...
Players and DMs are allowed to create spells. Just take an existing spell and make it ice.
Hope that you organize Stealth and Hiding rules together so new players don’t need to jump around multiple pages.
Currently, it’s necessary to read page 290 (Blinded Condition), 177 (Hiding), and 182-185 (Stealth, Light, Vision).
I condensed this for players at my table, because the 2014 stealth rules are so scattered.
How is the Bard’s magical secrets gonna work without the 3 main spell lists???
I have a Rogue Arcane Trickster that took the older version of Chill Touch as Magic Initiative as a feat for Species. With the new version from Bastion UA we just renamed the ranged d8 version, so there's two versions of the same spell they're just different.
I know a lot of people have fair complaints, but fundamentally I do think that all the new rules are substantially cleaner than 2014, and martials are looking quite good imo.
except monk
@@user-pi8pi3wj7h Which will get another pass through UA. Rogue's first appearance was also trash. Let's wait and see.
well, im not pf oriented and i still like dnd more than pf (tried it couple times), but dnd martials do suck indeed. they cant do anything useful in exploration or social encounters. thousands of spells for that. and almost not a single thing which gives martials at least an opportunity to be useful in this areas (and no, here i do not compare with pf, i dont really see anything of these topics in pf as well. maybe like couple of actions which are dependent on skills)
Martial character will never have the same power as spellcasters because a DM is supposed to give out magic items to round out their class! Items like the Luckblade, the Amulet of the Planes, the Bag of Holding, Beads of Force, Wand of Magic Missile, Eyes of Charming, Perfume of Bewitching and Lantern of Revealing are amazing for giving your melee characters access to powerful spells like Wish, Forcecage, Magic Missile, Charm Person, See Invisibility. So if the DM notices a power-imbalance it's easy to fix by ensuring that they are giving out items that may be attunement locked or tweaked to work with that specific PC. Eg my Monk acquired a 'ring of 13' that once a day replaced a roll with a flat 13. This was a god-tier item because the stun DC for my monk was 16 - so being able to auto-stun once a day was a huge boon both for my PC and the entire party who got a round of advantage on every hit. Not to mention that in 5e each melee character always has at least 1 skill, tool or language proficiency from their background and race that can help out in non-combat..eg Intimidation for Barbarians and Wisdom skills for Monk so unless you do extreme min/maxing you'll likely have some skills to help out in non-combat situations.
@ether4211 that is a bad resolution. we fix martials with...spells and magic items which carry spells? what? what about dm NOT giving these items? this feels like a home-brew rule to fix martials, not an actually written rule for martials. you can give them items, and you can not - it's the choice of dm rather than it is a set rule
wizards, sorcerers, etc also have intimidation, yet it is obvious that the spell which can make a person be kinder to you is 100% better than simple cha check
Uff the ranger still lacks of a strong and original mechanic even mixed up the two UA versions and it pass the feedback time. I hope that the final versión will be stronger and a hunters mark with more options and important role in the final form. I'm still not happy with it.
The latest version of the Ranger is a solid setup. It's very much a versatile class, with physical, magical, and skill options at their disposal. They don't need to be tops in _everything_ to be strong.
They said that they have enough feedback from both versions of the ranger to know what people liked and disliked about each one, and the final version might be some combination of the two, based on all the most liked features. They don't think they need to pass it through UA again, they just need to balance what was liked about the UA Rangers together.
@@strawbellebelle Yes but the ranger is the only one without an own mechanic, rogue has sneak attack, barbarian rage, bard inspiration...And the ranger a few own spells but not an own mechanic and in the UA7 the spells were change by class features and we don't know yet the new features in the ranger's case. I don't want more power, only more uniqueness.
@@DessieDoyle Yes but I think the class needs new things that don't exist in the previous versions, something like the cunning strike of the roque but combs with the hunters mark maybe, something that only have the ranger and add more options and flavoure.
@@ryuzakidestiny I know people have different ideas about a ranger. but they need base line pet.
Very excited for the upcoming books! I have participated in a couple of the UA surveys, and I’m really happy about the updates, additions, and changes. I wish I could attend some of the cons so I could get first hand experience. I’ve been playing D&D since it first came out and I love the direction it’s taking.
So they clarified here that classes/ subclasses, spells, and feats from all previous books will be compatible with the PHB 2024 going forward, which is great. I am just curious how a few things are going to work. Could you, for example, use the 2024 Ranger, but take the original Gloomstalker Subclass? Or how about multi-classing? Can you use a 2024 Warlock and still do a 2014 Sorcerer dip?
I think they’ve clarified it a couple times now. As for the multi question, that has me curious as well. Tho I’d imagine that could have unexpected issues and may be clunky in other cases
That's what they're advertising at least. They're only going to reprint a few subclasses to start off so if you couldn't use subclasses from Xanathar or Tasha's it would be the opposite of what they've promised. That being said, mixing a 2024 base warlock with 2014 subclass and with a 2014 base sorcerer with 2024 sorcerer subclass just to potentially abuse mechanics is something they can't monitor. I would assume they're gonna just let every table make their decision on that front, I'm guessing the "default" way to play for most will be "Use the 2024 book for player options, if the option isn't there but it's in an older 5th edition book, choose from the old one". At least I wouldn't want to have to juggle 5 different books just to understand what feature combination players are using.
Short answer - YES however a couple of classes may be a bit tricky due to the change to subclass progression - eg Warlocks now get their subclass choice at level 3. Hopefully there will be some better clarification/rules on using 5e exclusive Subclasses/feats/classes and species with 'One'DND content in the new rulebooks. But I'd guess it's going to be treated like Tasha's with the 2014 versions of the core classes being 'optional features' that you can swap in/out on a per character basis.
So, barb, monk, and druid are coming out again, but not the ranger? Dear god tell me we aren't stuck with the playtest 6 version at least (haven't seen anything regarding the results of that survey, but I can't fathom them being anything but terrible).
They already stated in the last survey video
That ranger is done
They have received a lot of good reviews of both twst 2 and test 6 ranger and because of that the new phb will be a combination of both with all of their best rated features in there or tweaked together
@@mr.applejuice8546 would you mind sending a link? I couldn't find it when I went looking before making my comment :)
Damn, I loved the idea of the Brawler. Please don't abandon him!
I think a better way of building a brawler would be done with feats and fighting styles
Tasha's has a Battlemaster build for a Brawler (see Pugilist) that is actually better than the subclass in UA
I also like the idea of the brawler! The mechanics just flat out sucked since all the features could be achieved by feats and fighting styles.
Considering that the central part of brawler is the ability to use two Weapon Mastery at the same time and instantly switch between them (and not step on the heels of a monk as everyone for some reason thinks, using unarmed strikes with Brawler is just the most unoptimized thing that you could imagine with this subclass), I really want to see the fourth subclass around extension of WMs.
Perhaps in a different way, right now a character fantasy of warrior that is legitimate built (not in exploit way) around weapon swapping and jack-of-all-trade of all weapons is kind of missing, aka Taskmaster. This also fits into the general convey of how people want the fighter subclass look as it seems, like trained martial and not barbarian-like or monk-like.
As brainstorm attempts you can equip AND unequip one weapon after and before attack, or you can use two weapons mastery somehow, or you have poll of special weapon mastery only for subclass, or you auto-attune with magic weapon that you equip and auto-unattune then unequip, or etc.
If I play a 2014 sorcer do I also get the original version of twin spell?
If you play at my table , yes.
Twinning rules!