Unearthed Arcana: Expert Classes (One D&D), the TL:DR Version | Nerd Immersion
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 фев 2025
- Check out the newest Unearthed Arcana! www.dndbeyond....
As this was so popular with you all during the last UA, I thought I'd do a shorter "TL:DR" version of the most recent Unearthed Arcana, Expert Classes. This covers the Bard, Ranger and Rogue along with one subclass for each of these as well as new feats! What do you all think?
Thanks for watching!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📧 For marketing/business/sponsorship inquiries, email nerdimmersion@gmail.com
📬 Shipping: P.O. Box 416 Salisbury Mills, NY 12577
💻 Discord Server: / discord
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🔥 Support 🔥
📈 Patreon: / nerdimmersion
💵 Direct Donation: paypal.me/nerdi...
👕 Merchandise: teespring.com/...
🎁 Amazon Wishlist: www.amazon.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🎤 Social Media 🎤
🎮 D&D Actual Play Channel: / nerdimmersionplays
🐦 Twitter: / nerdimmersion
🕒 TikTok: / nerdimmersion
📷 Instagram: / nerdimmersion
🎭 Facebook: / nerdimmersion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🎵 End Credit Music: benbriggs.net/...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nerd Immersion is an entertainment network focused on Dungeons & Dragons. Our RUclips Channel currently has over 900 D&D videos covering everything from D&D advice, D&D product reviews/unboxings, Top 10 videos, DM's Guild Module reviews, and play throughs of over 13 different D&D campaigns, and more.
Any links to products or services may be affiliate links that give me a small kickback at no cost to you, with no influence on the content. #dnd #dnd5e #nerdimmersion
I just realized that the Fighting Style Feats are all 1st-Level Feats. Theoretically, that means a Human Fighter could start with 3 fighting styles (one from background, one from race, and presumably one from fighter)… wow!
I may be wrong but I dont believe you get feats from race anymore
@@vincentgibbons5613 UA Human gets an additional 1st level feat
@@dantesuoh9190 correct they do
Fighting style feats are locked to class. Human fighter gets 2 from background, which is what you did before you were fighter, and a fighting style feat???
Something to clarify is that JC said this unearthed arcana is not a response to any feedback from the previous one, since that survey was still open. These were always the different playtests they were planning on. So they didn't revert the crit rules due to feedback, they just are experimenting with different things.
I would take that with half a cup of salt.
@@I..cast..fireball fair, but I'm sure they knew that people weren't going to like those rules and never planned on it sticking.
@@I..cast..fireball It would be pretty strange for them to prototype different versions of crit rules in each playtest document just to save face. We’re going to see another change to crits next month.
@@shinra528 Tis possible.
Thank you. I've seen so many D&D youtubers say "Congratulations, WOTC listened to use and cancelled the crit rules we didn't like!" Don't quite give WOTC that much credit, and it's going to be really confusing for some people next time we get yet another version of crit rules since I'm pretty sure JC said there were three versions they wanted to try.
The section talking specifically about climb speed mentions "A Climb Speed can also be used in any situation in which your Speed is usable." meaning that you can use the movement of your climbs speed as a walking speed if you plan on climbing within the same move.
Ted out here averaging less than one minute per page of this full UA in this TLDR. That's hella impressive, good job man.
They also changed the healing spells from Evocation to Abjuration, which is pretty smart in my opinion.
I'd also except necromancy
@@mikeg8564 Same. Absolutely.
Still doesn't make it available to Bards though, unless you count their Secrets.
@@davidarmstrong1617 Which was probably also intentional, since they're an Arcane caster that allowed/required them to instead give Bard a curated list of just the healing spells that most fit their flavor no matter what. The change was more for the other classes that use Divine or Primal but weren't going to be allowed the big flashy Evocations like Ranger.
honestly I'm a fan of the new changes to spell slots and spells known.
It is technically a nerf to most if not all the classes, but this method males it a lot easier to keep track of spell slots imo, and makes the magical classes far more friendly towards new players.
also Ranger doesn't need concentration on hunter's mark, that alone makes me love this UA.
ranger needed free casting of it though
@@johnpaullogan1365 I mean, the tradeoff of getting two spell slots at level 1 and cantrips at level 1 without having to give up your more traditional Fighting Style options at level 2 more than makes up for that, particularly when you see a full caster like Bard not getting their Magical Secrets as bonus preparation slots. They're basically a full caster with martial weapons for that one level.
Honestly, though, examples of things like the Hunter subclass having downcasting of Conjure Barrage as its 10th level feature IS a huge hit to the long term viability. I feel like it would have been entirely balanced to let that subclass cast that spell with the same damage using 1st and 2nd level spell slots, or at least just 2nd level, to better replicate the original Multiattack features without bogging down combat with too many potential attack rolls, which I have to assume was the main intent. Or maybe the feature could allow casting it as a bonus action (with or without a limit to how many times you could do it?) with the same downcasting stipulations as written? Either way, it's at a level where it's competing with the likes of cantrip up-scaling and fighter's additional Extra Attacks, so it definitely needs an extra oomph to be worth being a feature at all. Something as insubstantial as a singular free preparation and downcasting of that one spell puts a damper on the whole kit.
I'll say the only subclass that didn't feel like a straight downgrade to me was Collage of Lore. Yes, losing additional Magical Secrets was unfortunate, but the kit you do get is very solid (and there's still the hope that there might be a separate Bard subclass that still does get that).
Edit: Original Hunter Multiattack Math, was easily at least a range of 7-19 damage per target with no resource expendature beyond having Hunter's Mark up and not counting Fighting Style or anything else, while this new one is max of 3-24 damage for a 3rd level slot, and costs a first level slot for 1-8 per target, totally a waste of an action unless ONE D&D brings back the Minion rules (fodder enemies that can match up to the challenge of any level of party with what they can do in combat, but only have 1 HP and aren't damaged on any successful saving throw or missed feature used against them).
Rogues can no longer Sneak attack on a reaction! This is a big change!
Also can't sneak attack with Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade. Sorry arcane tricksters.
@@DoktorApe Arcane Tricksters might get thr ability to SA with Spells in the continuing UA subclasses
@@Barrlounge Let's only hope.
@@Barrlounge I highly doubt it. BB/GFB + SA is broken powerful, often making the rogue a better damage dealer than the paladin while the latter is using their finite spell slots to smite.
Your the only DnD youtuber who hasnt overreacted 2 the UA changes. Thanks for the great breakdown. Also guidance is technically buffed since you can use it as a reaction. If your rougue fails a stealth check in combat for example
True, but once per day *even if it fails* is maaaassive nerf.
net nerf by far and now everyone player including those who don't have the spell has to track it since the caster can't as there could be other casters
You couldnt use it in combat before without planning ahead and giving uo your action
I like the new limit on Guidance, but I think the bonus die should scale to compensate, maybe d6 at level 5, d8 at level 11 and d10 at level 17. If a creature can only benefit from the spell once per day, the spell should really help you achive that sucess.
Still seems pretty weak. What if firebolt could only hit once per day? I think proficiency bonus or spellcasting modifier times per day makes more sense.
@@brandonm9378 But it is once per creature, so around 4 times per day in the average party.
Not really act as a cantrip anymore. I understand why they would want to do it, but you have moved the spell from great to bad. Maybe lose it only if it takes a fail to save? And then maybe 1 per short rest? That would still significantly limit spamming but still leave it strong.
if you just get rid of the once a long rest component it's fine as guidance becomes insurance against failure rather than a buff.
Guidance was never meant to be spammed and abused the way it was. I think the changes are good, and making it a reaction to a failed check eliminates all the times players would waste time shoehorning it in where it wasn't needed. You can always mitigate "wasting" it to some extent, simply by virtue of the fact that realistically you are going to know what the player rolled and you can make an educated guess as to how close they are to a favourable result. Basically, if they rolled a 3, don't bother using up your Guidance on them, because it's not going to make the difference between failure and success. But if you think they're close and could use a bump, take a chance on it. If anything, making Guidance into a clutch "moment" with an element of risk is going to make it more exciting and that much more rewarding of a payoff when it does seal the deal.
It's also not Concentration now, which is important because before you literally had to stop concentrating on any existing spells if you wanted to use Guidance. For example, if you wanted to maintain something like Barkskin or Pass Without Trace, you literally could not cast Guidance. I think a lot of players "conveniently forgot" that part of the equation.
The added range is also an excellent buff, since you don't have to constantly be breathing down everyone's neck all the time to help them out. And sometimes there are circumstances where you literally can't be right next to them, but they need a little help on an important ability check.
It might not come up very often, but there's at least potential now to use this in combat for an impromptu ability check. There's no way this would have been possible before, or at least it would have to be something you foresaw coming and you wanted to waste your action casting it (and again, dropping concentration on anything else).
Having it only once per character also kind of has an upside, in that a lot of the time if you have two characters who are proficient in something but one has a slightly higher score, it will always be that person doing all the checks. This encourages other players to get involved and try things more often. I would be okay if they adjusted the limitation so that it really did have to cause a successful ability check before it went away, but I do feel like getting on average 4 "Guidances" per day is still good value and a spell worth taking.
The Rogue sneak attack is changed. In the playtest, it's only on an action.
On the other hand, two weapon fighting isn't an attack on a bonus action anymore, so a lot of where this would be a problem is resolved by that.
@@jonp8015 an extra d6, and chance to hit doesn't make up for the dpr lost. I understand the change if Rogues were on par with other classes but double sneak attack was the way Rogues kept up with the other classes
@@solarkhan484 Most people don't know that trick even exists. And DPR is a poor metric of value in an open-ended game.
@@SJPaladinHawk sure, but their in combat utility is probably one of the worst because they can't tank like fighter or barbarian. Casters and half-casters have spells. They only squeak out against monks for the fact that monks are gimped.
Out of combat utility is good, but new bard and ranger is just as good, and they have spells to make the rogue look worst. With the new One dnd changes Ranger is a better Rogue in almost every way.
Also can't use it with Booming Blade. Not that BB is necessarily better than 2WF, but flavor wise it really sucks for arcane tricksters.
A clarification - they said the new Rules Glossary *supersedes* the previous rules glossary *entirely*. So, if it isn't in the new Rules Glossary, you refer back to previous published works - DMG, PHB 2014, etc. However, that only applies to the Rules Glossary, the remainder of the UA are cumulative.
I think the changes to Bard are far more significant than you suggest (comments to follow).
Yes. Some are good and some I'm not sure.
Sneak attack was nerfed.
Has been exactly waiting for this video since that UA has popped out, thank you so much for your efforts Ted
Heavy Armor Master is buffed because it reduces all b/p/s even magic sources
durable is even better now because a long rest recover all your expended hit dices, not half. So you can expend all your hit dices every day.
Tbh, Ted, Sneak Attack was NERFED! Not getting sneak attack on an opportunity attack outside of your turn may not have been widely known but was really helpful and not too difficult to achieve as long as you had a big damage dealer in your foe's face.
Also you can't use PAM with a spear anymore because the polearm needs to be heavy as well as have reach. Boo, there's goes my Spartan PAM and Sentinel build!
I would love to see some spells have casting times between 1 action and 1 minute. The magic action states that you can concentrate on casting a spell with a casting time of 1 minute or longer, but combat generally doesn't last that long. Casting times of 12 seconds to 24 seconds could be interesting for spell casters to have some riskier spells to pull off in combat
This sort of reminds me of how you might want to do something in a rushed way. So maybe something like quick cast or speed cast. It cuts the time to cast a spell in half but would come with penalties as a drawback. Like disadvantage on a spell attack roll or a minus 2 or something to that spell’s spell save dc. Though other spells that don’t have either would either be exempt from it entirely or it’d had to be reworked a bit.
They really should try experiment with cast times.
Love the grind, you’re doing great sharing this stuff
The climb speed rule clarifies that it can also be used for walking, but the others don’t
You can build a GWM Ranger that uses a longbow and Shillelagh Quarterstaff now.
Oh, good catch. That bonus damage doesn't require it be a "melee" Heavy Weapon anymore. (Not sure why you'd Shillelagh a Quarterstaff if you can get more mileage out of actually just using a Heavy or Finesse martial melee weapon with that Feat, though.) Too bad it only allows you to increase Str, unlike the efficiency with which you can include Heavy Armor Mastery on a Dex focused combat build now.
@@Shalakor I was thinking it was a workaround from having to use STR for GWM
Wasn't one of the ideas to make 5e compatible with this? Cause you can't really use the Bard subclasses since they only have 3 abilities
i have a feeling they meant you could run 6e chars in 5e adventure modules
I'm in a weird spot. I've heard some people complain about how they nerfed the Bard's spells, limiting the # of spells to their number of spell slots and how this is far less spells than what they used to get. While I agree that I don't necessarily agree with the restriction to the level of the spells you get and being unable to exchange them with different level spells, I think this is entirely fixed by the Bard becoming a prepared caster.
The reason I think this is I've been playing sorcerer for two-three years in TOA campaign. Sorcerer gets spells at an even slower rate than the new Bard. The new rules, if being applied for balance, is something I'm all for, as my sorcerer wouldn't have to waste a feat on Fey Touched to get more spells. At level 12 without feats, I have 13 spells that I cannot change out. So I love this change. Being a prepared caster lets you pick from whatever spells you want, and for those that think they'll be restricted by how many spells they can learn now, try playing sorcerer. 4 1st and 3 2nd-4th level spells is fine.
While I like the idea of other classes getting prepared spells and rituals, it does kind of raise the question of what the wizard's niche is.
@@DoktorApe if I had to guess I'd say that wizards will probably be able to prepare extra spells, maybe without level requirements.
RIP Rogues.
I know that Expert is supposed to refer to the Expertise feature in this case.
But I'm just going to call this grouping Specialists.
Just sounds better.
I haven’t though that but yeah you are right. Maybe if we put that on the survey they will change it lmao
Specialist is the artificer subclass name, like how rogues have their roguish archetype
But one of the defining aspects of bards is that they are generalists! One of their main class features is called "Jack of all Trades"! Calling bards specialists would completely misrepresent them.
@@Aaarrrgh89 I don't disagree. But I'd also swap the Paladin and Monk.
My main point though is really just that I think that referring to this group as Expects don't sound right or flow well.
They specifically said the changes to crits were not in response to feedback but rather that will see many different variations on crit rules over multiple releases. Also the crit rules in this aren’t 100% like 5E; you get inspiration when you crit fail.
Regarding the Prepared vs Known - a couple things.
1st is they are saying you are required to prepare spells in spell levels that exactly matches your slots. That is a huge hit to flexibility, and it doesn't really do anything to manage power levels since you still only have the slots you have. Hate your 4th level spells so want to go grab another 3rd level that upcasts well? Nope.
2nd - yes having prepared spells will generally make Bards more powerful. But you know what else it will do? Make all Bard builds the same. They will all be pulling from the same list of spells. One of the things I love about Warlocks and Bards is that you can have 2 characters with the same class/subclass that play entirely differently because of the spells they select. They also are going to look more similar to a healing wizard than a Bard - at least through level 7.
There is more to DnD than just power in this game, there is personality. I don't like either change.
I get where you're coming from. I'd rather have complete control over my spell list but, this could also lead players to actually use spells that were rarely chosen before.
I was hoping that they would change the Rouge's Reliable Talent skill to work off Expertise instead of Proficiency.
The way it is now a Rouge would be able to out perform any class on any check provided they have Proficiency in it which is extremely easy to get as it currently stands.
I... think that's the point, though. Being THE most skilled class is what they do.
They're going to be nearly obsolete in combat by that point, so might as well have something to do. Maybe if they got a third Expertise feature, making Reliable Talent only apply to those might be more warranted.
Imo jump should be a bonus action so that characters can grab onto creatures with flying speed and hold onto objects in high places.
Sneak attack does NOT function the same, it’s now restricted to your turn, meaning no reaction attacks. They’ve gutted rogue and they’ve gutted thief.
they buffed rogue if anithing...new lv 13 ability is sick, you can choose either wis or cha as your free save proficiency at higher level, theievs chant buffed, better two weapon fighting that do not require BA...massive buffs for rogues
Relax man take a breath, the whole document is a play test not an official rule book. Try it out and give them feedback, that’s all they’re asking for. My group ran with the updated Ranger at 18th level and we really didn’t work out like we wanted it so we have feedback through experience.
Try it out and see how it works out for your group. You may be pleasantly surprised.
Were people REALLY getting sneak attack off on reactions that often? Like actually in play consistently?
I don't see it as a problem "gutting the rogue" but they killed some cool teamwork things, like commander strike and order cleric, dissonant whispers and fear, and giving a flank to a rogue that holds their actions for a sneak attack, which is the bigger problem, to me.
@@Deathranger009 Yes, actually it can come up a lot. My rogue tries to use it as often as possible with Sentinel. It's risky and makes him a target, but he's all the more exciting to play because of it.
I'm worried about all the 4th LV feats offering the +1 thing. It makes picking a first LV feat at 4th level really hard as you miss out on the +1 and in general they all appear as more powerful.
This basically means that you will only pick one lv1 feat (unless human) and if lv8 feats show similar power creep then also only one lv4 feat. So it no longer is a mix and match thing but rather " choose one from lv1, one from lv4, lv8, etc".
If all lv4 feats offer a +1 and are generally more powerful than LV 1 feats anyways, why not just give the +1 outside the feat and let people choose the effect independently from that.
I was pondering if maybe there will be an 8th lvl feat that says something like "add +1 to a stat and choose a 1st lvl or 4th lvl feat to gain as well"
@@DrgnDrake that could work even as a 4th level feat. Depends on what kind of balance they are going for between feat lvls. It's a certainly an interesting idea. I'll mention it in the survey, thank you!
Do like dual wielder, let’s you go rapier and dagger, that said there’ll probably be a sequel feat
Unfortunately, since the Rapier isn't a Light Weapon, you can't do that under these rules.
Step 1: Be a Ranger. Equip Rapier in "main" hand.
Step 2: Use a club as your "light" weapon in off-hand. Cast Shillelagh on it so it becomes a d8 weapon and use WIS mod for attack/damage roll benefits.
Step 3: Hunter's Mark damage on BOTH WEAPONS, BAY-BEE!!!!!!
@@0Fyrebrand0 Unless I'm missing something, since a Rapier isn't a Light Weapon, you can't attack with both in the same turn. And of course, since both Hunter's Mark and Shillelagh have a casting time of 1 Bonus Action it will take two turns to reach full potential so you need to plan accordingly. Same with material and somatic components - you need a free hand to cast Shillelagh and want to have a weapon in both hands. Lastly, a Ranger's Dex is likely better than his Wis in any case, so it may not give you any benefit to change to a d8+Wis over a d6+Dex.
Revert sneak attack back to how it was, and give Rogues subtle strike at lvl 5.
Subtle strike is a worse version of extra attack because it can be negated, requires specific conditions, and provides no extra damage outside of a crit (but extra attack provides the same chance to crit just with lower damage).
Thanks for the TL:DR, it was great :D
On Conjure Barrage for the Hunter, while I do find the damage of Conjure Barrage lackluster for spell slots 1 to 3, the Ranger can't get Evocation spells. That means their AoE damage potential is limited to Conjuration pretty much. And there aren't many AoE spells better damage-wise than Conjure Barrage from 1 to 3.
But downcast Conjure Barrage is just a terrible action economy proposition. Even if literally the whole area of effect was filled with targets, 1d8 damage each is always going to be worse than taking the Attack Action at character level 10+. Pure damage AoEs are only a meaningful contribution to combat when they can reasonably be expected to decrease the number of turns the targets will survive for. A whole subclass feature that gives a spell the class had already gained at level 9 and a subpar way to use it differently is garbage. Needs to either not scale down with lower spell slots or the ability to cast it as a bonus action. (Honestly, the base spell being a bonus action wouldn't be too bad, even assuming a Druid will now gain access to it at level 5, so long as the limit of no leveled spells alongside bonus action spells remains true.)
The only way it could be beneficial as written is if they brought back the Minion rules (enemies with combat options appropriate to the given challenge level, but with only 1 HP and don't take damage on a successful save or from features that don't require a successful hit to be made).
I still don't see a lot of people talking about the new Bard spell list. That change does a lot more than is immediately apparent. A lot of spells that were quintessential bard spells are no longer on there. Heroism is gone. Heat Metal is gone. No bane, no Faerie Fire, no Silence, no Tiny Hut or Magnificent Mansion. Let alone all the healing that isn't those four spells from 2nd level (also means you can't get access to healing word at level 1).
only class i'd say heat metal was quintessential for was druid. but fair point overall
I feel like level 6 bard was meant to be a big level (which it never truly was, I agree). Now you just get the college feature... Why not simply give the bard an aura that gives advantage on saves against charm & fear effects? It's simple, it's treamlined, easy to remember and also useful.
interesting that if you are invisible you are not hidden but they act very similar
I'm just disappointed they didn't keep steady aim for rogues. I get that it would be useless at higher levels, but most gameplay happens at lower levels where it was very usefull.
That was added via Tasha's so it might still be in?
@@NerdImmersion The ranger stuff was added in Tasha's as well but it was in the UA.
Appreciate the tl:dr but there are some implications from class changes that get glossed over.
The spells you can prepare are limited to the slots you have of those levels. Not a fan of the restriction. Maybe Mages will be able to prepare more though, idk.
Jack of all Trades applies to skill checks only here, meaning it doesn't apply to say, Initiative rolls anymore (likely always the intent, but it is a significant change).
Sneak Attack no longer applies to Opportunity Attacks, otherReaction weapon attacks, or spells (Magic Actions? lol) that call for weapon attacks.
@18:16 I have to disagree, Sneak attack actually changed a lot. Now it is only once on your turn instead of once per turn (Meaning hasted rogues or sentinel feat rogues cannot proc their sneak attack twice per round by using their reactions, they can only ever get it once.), AND it requires an attack action instead of a hit, meaning cantrips like booming blade are no longer usable. Rogues lost some of their versatility in exchange for being forced (essentially) into only making the attack action.
I've seen people talk about hasted rogues but they never had any different opportunities to sneak unless you are specifically referring to the hasted action now not qualifying for sneak because it requires the attack action and the idea is that this hasted action isn't an attack action. I'd say no the hasted action would still allow an attack action but the specific rule that only one weapon attack for the sake of extra attack or the new two weapon attack
I really don’t think guidance needed the nerf, it just needed to be thought of in-character. Ironically, I think the best thing for this spell would be some guidance for the DM in figuring out NPCs’ reactions to the casting. It’s magic, and most people are not familiar with magic.
If a player tries to persuade an NPC of something and another casts a spell on them beforehand, that NPC should be*incredibly* weary and fearful of mind control.
If the party is trying to break into a shop in the dead of night, the casting of guidance should reveal their presence to those nearby.
And lastly, there should be no guiding checks that are mentally-based. You can’t really guide someone on remembering something.
Jack of All Trades now no longer applies to Initiative or Counterspell checks, because they don’t use a “Skill” proficiency. So technically, I’d say it is a nerf especially since it is also given later.
Can't wait to see you hit 100k! Let's goooo!
Maybe I don;t understand something, but it just says when you move, but can;t you still split your move? So you walk 10 ft up to the wall and then clim up the wall for whatever movement you have left? With the new rules it's basically telling you to subtracts whatever you've already moved from any new climb movement?
I was playtesting a Rogue under the new rules (until he died), and let me tell you, not having evasion was really, really rough at level 8.
Dual Wielder is NOT nerfed! I'll take a stat +1 over a super specific conditional +1 to AC all day, every day.
Honestly I like the concept of the general spell lists but I think as they are they might leave a lot of the casters feeling a bit samey.
A way to fix this might be to give each class access to one of the general spell lists (with restrictions to what schools they can get spells from) and in addition give them their own smaller class specific spell lists including spells that they can't normally get from their general list and spells that are entirely unique to that class.
Great video, but I am very confused by the new equip/unequip option in the UA attack action, which you glossed over quickly, saying it was not much different. This seems quite different; previously you could only draw or stow once per turn, but this now suggests you can draw and stow for each attack you can make, regardless of the weapon's properties. Does this means an 11th level fighter can attack with greatsword, stow it, draw a longbow, attack with it, stow it, draw a dagger, throw it as an attack, and then redraw the greatsword as their interaction? That seems crazy, and perhaps a mistake in the UA. But then if you look at the new thief subclass, they have removed the part about switching weapons as a bonus action in quick hands, which suggest it is not a mistake. What do you think? What am I missing?
I feel like this is one of those things where they feel that enough players were ignoring it and it was a minor enough thing anyways that they just removed it. That's just my observation though. I mean I feel like most people are simply going to choose maybe two or 3 weapons at most that they prioritize, cause after that there's too much redundancy or you need to split between dex and str more to get any actual use out of it.
With the new rules, if you already are holding your greatsword you could attack, stow it (interaction for first attack), draw your longbow (interaction for second attack) and shoot your longbow. At this point you would not be able to both stow the bow and draw the Dagger (unless you use your object interaction for either one, or you have that thrown weapon fighting style). Essentially you get an item interaction for each attack in addition to your normal one.
@@dojojolly the UA say s this:
"EQUIPPING WEAPONS
You can equip or unequip one Weapon before or after any attack you make as part of this Action, even if the attack is with an Unarmed Strike."
It seems like they are implying that equipping is different than your interaction.
@@silvinity4939 I personally wish these kind of things would be clarified better. Even prior to the recent UA these issues have come up at our tables
thrown weapons are now useable
So do you need to prepare a spell to ritual cast it? If not, doesn't that give people access to every spell on their entire list with the ritual tag? Either a huge nerf or a huge buff depending on how that works
haven't seen wizards but they and tome warlocks with the invocation were the only ones who could ritual cast wothout preparation anyways
Thorn Whip has a range of 30 feet, so Spell Sniper would make that a range of 90 ft total. You're thinking about the part where you can pull an enemy 10 ft closer. That part would remain unchanged.
Wait… so can a level 1 Ranger take magic initiate to grab Hex, then dual wield, and then do 6d6 damage in a single turn, all at level 1?
Yup
"Jack Of All Trades remains pretty much the same." Uh, no? Apparently you used to get to apply it to Initiative and now you can't. Also, Counterspell, I think? Or something else like that. I'm like 99% sure it was 2 specific things you'd want to add it to if you could, but I only remember Initiative.
Edit: I can’t believe you said Rogue was “pretty much the SAME.” when it got NERFED BIG TIME. Literally half as many potential Sneak Attacks per round. Ranger got buffed so much that Rogue feels completely redundant and pointless until Reliable Talent, imo. It’s just straight up the worst Expert Class now.
Yeah Jack of All Trades got double nerfed - level 3 to level 5 and add to skill checks not ability checks.
Did they change how two weapon fighting characters interact with their weapons ? i mean can you bring both weapons up at the start of the first turn of combat ? how about item interactions while dual wielding and how about casting ?
I haven't played with it yet but at least 3 other channels has complained that they have actually destroyed the Rogue. Such a wide array of opinions. :(
They restricted Sneak Attack to the Attack action on **your** turn only, meaning no opportunity attack or Ready or other character's abilities like Commander's Strike can be applied. A HUGE nerf to a class that needed all the help it could get to keep up with DPR and one that nobody was asking for.
30 minutes tl:Dr let's go
wish the light weapon property exta attack was not limited per turn but was once per attack action so, and if, fighters get even more attack using action surge
Not all the feats are 4th level tho. Lightly Armored is a 1st level feat which makes it REALLY good for any unarmored class. Might get nerfed if people realize it gives ANYONE medium armor and sheilds
I think most people just dipped Fighter, Cleric, or Hexblade for that anyway, so making it a feat allows people that same flexibility without sacrificing a character level.
@@WolfHreda
Exactly. Seems like the feat to take for a wizard sorcerer or warlock easy, and maybe for rogues and bards too
@@WolfHreda it'll be hard giving up a cleric dip if they still get subclass at lvl 1. the different 1st level spells is really useful. healing word on a wizard is nice.
@@johnpaullogan1365
Makes it more of a choice tho. Get more Lv1 preparations, the AC, and a Feat but loose wizard preparations, or us the feat for AC
The change to preparing spells is a mixed bag for the Bard - yes, it allows more flexibility in that you can change up your spells on a long rest, but it limits spell caster flexibility considerably during the adventuring day at low levels since you are limited to the number of slots you have. For example, at levels 1 and 2, you have roughly half the 1st level spells to choose from to cast with your 2 and 3 spell slots. You do catch up at level 3, though, and from there you tend to have the same of maybe 1 more spell prepared than the spells known previously. The trick is managing to get to level 3...
Also, you now can't down- or up- prepare spells. Want an extra 1st level spell prepared in place of a 2nd level spell or higher? Nope, can't do it. Likewise, you can't drop a 1st level spell in favor of a higher level spell. Fewer choices, less flexibility.
I think there should be a generic magic attack since a lot of monsters get that now. Deals maybe 2 die per proficiency bonus and the die size is determined by CR or total character level? Just to make things harmogenous
How would that be equivalent to anything? There's no generic martial attacks. Just as spellcasters have cantrips that they use with the Magic Action, martial Attack Actions have weapons with different properties. Even base Unarmed Strikes have multiple tactical options attached to them.
So a Thief Rogue could theoretically never run out of Wishes from a Ring of Three Wishes with the updated Use Mafical Devices ability huh? WoTC may want to post something about that.
Most of the updates I am fine with. Things I loved
1. Two weapon fighting on single action
2. Study action is neat
3. Guidance update to reaction use. Though needs more uses
4. Bardic inspiration now reaction use
5. Gwm and sharpshooter updates
6. 1st lvl spellcasting and cantrips for Ranger! Pretty happy with most of Ranger updates in general
Changes I would like to see not in any particular order
1. Either revert sneak attack changes or give Rogue extra attack and allow rogues to use sneak attack on enemies that have not moved yet since new rule disallows sneak attack on held attacks
2. Great weapon fighting style change to double Str modifier damage, this would put it on par with two weapon fighting. I would like to see Dueling fighting style give +2 to attack and not be able to be used with shields either
3. Give bard Bardic Inspiration on short rest period would be great or at very least put the thing back at lvl 5
4. Heavy armor training feat should be accessible at lvl 1. Really weird that it is lvl 4 but light one isn't
5. Give thief bonus action use item back
6. Change hunters mark into a full blown feature instead of spell. Let it be free for proficiency number of times per long rest
7. Hunter multiattack is trash. A 10th lvl feature that gives you 1 spell prepared? Terrible. Just give me a cool feature or let me at least use it for free a few times per long rest or something.
8. All the boons are underpowered for a level 20 ability. Almost all of them need more uses at the very least
While I agree with most of your points the one thing I'm against is making hunters mark PB per long rest. I think that would just make rangers far to good for multiclassing. Maybe make it use a spell slot but not have it count as an actual spell (kinda like paladin smites).
I like the idea of once per long rest for guidance. We spam the crap out of it in our group every roll someone yells out guidance.... im sick of hearing it. But since it's limited now have it scale up by a d4 at the same lvl cantrips scale up.
In my case, I actually found it hard to use Guidance under the old rules because I didn't want to shoehorn myself into every situation and talk over people, and the other players in my group were new to D&D and wouldn't think to ask for Guidance or else didn't give a crap about it. Ironically, this new version makes it a lot easier to slide into the conversation without making a scene and making every roleplay moment about ME and MY BIG HELPFUL CANTRIP THAT EVERYONE SHOULD LOVE ME FOR.
People are worried about "wasting" it on checks that still fail, but honestly you can avoid a lot of that by simply rationing the spell for important moments and for rolls that actually are close to a favourable result but need a little extra nudge to get there. The new range is also very nice, as is the fact that it doesn't involve Concentration anymore.
What if the 48 is a product of separating Circle of Land into 8 different Circles?
Spell Sniper's Casting in Melee states "Being within 5 feet of an enemy doesn't impose Disadvantage on your Attack Rolls with Spells."
Not *ranged* spell attack rolls, but rather *all* spell attack rolls. Does this imply that melee spell attacks also have disadvantage against enemies within 5 feet of you if you don't have this feat? Why else wouldn't they specify ranged spell attacks only?
Probably a typo
inspiring leader change sucks. at level 20 you get 8-14 temp hp instead of the guaranteed 26, which was already questionable in its usefullnes. if i really want the wis or cha increase i would take a different feat that scales much better into higher levels.
I was literally looking back through the document as I got this notification
Crossbow Expert: The hand crossbow gatling gun is dead. The rules on two weapon fighting under the Light weapon property require 2 different light weapons, one in each hand. We don't have information on how reloading / ammunition will work but I suspect it'll be similar to the current edition. You won't be able to reload the crossbow once it's fired because both hands have a weapon. But you can have a dagger in one hand and the crossbow in the other and then throw the dagger freeing up one hand to reload. Maybe you can throw dagger, reload the crossbow, then draw a new dagger. Maybe not. Again depends on the new ammunition property.
I have a feeling it will change so people can duel wield hand crossbows. Just a feeling though, maybe, hope lol
Thanks for telling us how to get access to this
I know you’re trying to keep things brief for a TLDR, but was there a reason we didn’t talk about the nerfing of the rogue? Seemed like we talked about bard & ranger quite a bit longer.
probably got to rogue last and wanted to keep it around 30 minutes
Skulker is, imho, nerfed. You used to be able to hide if your character was lightly obscured, so there were no light sources around, you could hide immediately from someone with darkvision. The feats features no longer have anything to do with the name. Fog of war is bologna. There is no fog - just chaos and that has nothing to do with skulking in shadows. The previous version gave you the ability to see better in dim light because you were used to operating in. Blindsight is a weaksauce replacement for it. It is just terrible. Now the hide mechanic is back to being extremely difficult to use in combat.
Rogue has been changed for the worse. You can only Sneak Attack on your turn as apposed to once per turn. This means you cannot sneak attack on Held Actions or Reactions.
I wonder if they will say if you can up prepare. What I mean is if have a free level 2 slot can I use it to prepare a level 1 spell. I would think yes.
I rather have spell list per class rather then say you can use parts of the spell list of a bigger group.
Ritual feat will not let you get level 2 or higher spells where the old one would let you add level 2 and higher if found in the wild.
the name expert classes seems to me an extension of the names of sidekicks
Love the change to the Guidance cantrip
Did the thief lose reaction sneak attack?
Check sneak attack again. Minor difference being that it can only be on your turn now... large change on gameplay. No ready action or reaction nor working with battlemaster...
also if you somehow get a bonus action attack it can't happen there. but with changes to twf that should be relatively uncommon.
My group ran with Bard and Ranger changes yesterday (the players are level 18). Ranger was kind of underwhelming an improvement from the baseline ranger from the 2014 book in some ways, one of the big wins is no concentration on Hunter’s mark. Though I wish it was a class feature so we don’t have to expend spell slots. Also don’t like spending a spell slot to turn invisible for 1 round, seems a waste. It’d be better as a pro bonus per day class feature. “Multiattack” is kinda dumb.
Bard. We really dug the Songs of Restoration and Bardic Inspiration. Again level 18, so some of the changes didn’t impact the player. It was a good buff/debuff/ off-healer role.
Another win was Exhaustion! Since a table rule we have is that the players take a level of exhaustion each time they start rolling death saves. The minus 1 per level of exhaustion is so damn simple, really speeds up player actions who are exhausted. Hope this sticks.
Reaction based Guidance was super useful and didn’t kill a players turn. Hope this sticks.
I dig the rogue changes but didn’t have an opportunity to play it. I always felt Rogue was OP as fuck, so some things got moved to be later on and that helps in my perception, but two bonus actions on a turn sounds like a badass pain in the ass I’m going to plague my players with.
Omg. New Durable is god damn amazing. Hope this sticks.
The epic boons concept is cool and all but a lot of the epic boons don’t feel very epic. If these stay the same way I probably will make them trainable feats that my players can quest/train for. The capstones are still mostly lame and moving them to level 18 isn’t much of an improvement that we saw. Again my players are level 18.
The invisibility rangers get now is terrible in comparison to Tasha's. It used to be kind of like greater invisibility as a bonus action except it only lasted until the beginning of your next turn, and it was tied to prof bonus I believe. Now it's basically just a suckier version of the invisibility spell. And I'd agree on the hunters mark thing they should have just made it class feature and removed the spell. It's always been a ranger thing and I don't think I've seen people pick it up outside of ranger so it wouldn't be a huge change to just remove it as a spell and tie it into a class feature like they have already w/o requiring you to cast it with a spell slot (esp considering it doesn't have good benefits with upcasting). Just tie it to prof bonus or something like that. It's just a little wonky to effectively give a class a spell as a feature when other classes can still pick it up without taking a ranger dip, and then expand the class around that single spell by buffing it much later on
Rangers are the Same as before, good at low level, not good after level 11.
Can you make a bonus action attack any more with the rework of light weapons?
With how it is in the play test, if you have two light weapons equipped, you just attack with both as your attack action. It does not cost a bonus action.
@@BruceGiffordJustMyOpinion Yeah it's included with the primary attack action, but once you do it i don't think you can make a bonus action attack any more. Makes you wonder what they're going to do with monks and flurry of blows...
@@jaywalker8824 I suspect since that rule is only part of the Light Weapon rules it won't affect Monk Unarmed Strikes at all. But, I suppose they could change that as well, we'll have to wait and see how they rework the Monk class.
All i want from one d&d is nets that don't suck
Spell sniper doesn’t have to be an attack spell. You could spell sniper healing word now.
Except it specifies a spell with a range of 10 feet that uses an attack roll. All three parts of the new feat specify spells with attack rolls.
@@silvinity4939 you’re right. This is what happens when you half listen to someone’s shorthand explanation and don’t take the time to read. Im betting he said attack roll too and I wasn’t paying attention. They underlined attack roll 3 times to make sure nobody makes the mistake I did. Lol
You know it's serious when the Tldr is still over 30 minutes long
less than a minute per page still though
What class group would Blood Hunter be?
Probably warrior
Surprised you said Sneak attack didn't change when you lost opportunity sneak attacks
WotC: "This will all be backwards compatible"
The actual playtest: Old Bard subclasses aren't technically usable because none of them have a level 10 subclass feat. Eloquence, a bard subclass as recent as *Tasha's* isn't usable at all because of rules contradictions.
They use that phrase, "backwards compatible", I do not think it means what they think it means.
I really hope the jump action is there so for the below 8strg casters, and not the only way of jumping. Takes away from monks/barbs even fighters doing epic attacks.
Be kinda silly for the monk with 50ft speed, walking through the 10ft wide stream, instead of jumping, just because otherwise they'd lose their action.
Lets say 10ft gap, otherwise someone will point out walking on unarmored movement. 🤣
You jumped over SS very quickly. No -5/10 changes dpr of those builds a lot.
I personally like the new ranger so far.
Same. Some very nice improvements here, even for something as simple as a couple cantrips and prepared spellcasting. I can't believe how long it's taken to achieve this. It's going to just let players get a feel for their spell list, try things out, and understand the game better.
My 2 cents about the classes: rogue needs more utility outside of combat(pre reliable talent) because all the other experts are better than it because of spells, besides that the problem with sneak attack not scaling well at higher levels is still there.
Also, rangers feel really nice. Although I think he needs a bit more ribbon features but that’s just me, also high level rangers are still the same thing which isn’t the best things because of martial/caster disparity. Hunter subclass can die for all I care tho.
I don’t play bard so they are fine I guess
Speaking about feats: I love what they did but now I’m worried with high level play and how martials will keep up with spells(or how spells/spellcasters will be nerfed)
Rogue is mostly fine, they just need to focus on the subclasses giving out of combat utility. With a boost in combat at later levels. Rangers favored foe should have free casts, and I'd like a out of combat thematic addition like allowing the ranger to apply hunter mark to a person they cant see as long as they see evidence of their person through a survival or perception. Bards are in a good place though I think they hurt lore bards too much. Im still concerned about two weapon fighting and fighters becuase as soob as you get a third attack even with changes two weaponing fighting is very poor decision.
@@tenaciousgamer6892 maybe we could hope the rogue subclasses grant different out of combat options but I would prefer if this solution was baked in the class per se, like extra expertises/proficiency’s or smthng, maybe a junior reliable talent where you can’t roll less than 5 the It lvls up to reliable talent, the problem with sneak attack is still there tho. Agreed with the hunter, the ranger class is really good and cool now but that subclass sucks ass, maybe they’ve seen that ranger was only viable because of subclasses on 5e and decided to prove they are fine now even if the subclass is shit lol
Imo, they buffed Ranger to the point that Rogue is redundant and useless outside of flavor... Until Reliable Talent. And nerfed Rogue, too. Seriously, getting Smeak Attack not on your turn was FANTASTIC. And it's something that basically only experienced groups would even know to attempt, so the DM should be able to easily balance encounters around that. There was ZERO reason for the nerf, ESPECIALLY since Jeremy Crawford said Rogue was basically everyone's "most satisfied with" Class in their survey and they weren't "looking to change it much." I think he's either dumb af or a piece of trash liar.
@@Paradox-es3bl he’s neither, simply because the change to sneak attack was, as you said, something that only veteran people were aware of. I much prefer they do fix sneak attack by granting it more damage at higher levels than having to play around a technicality(old sneak attack being on turn instead of round) that wasn’t even relevant in most tables(don’t let Reddit nor RUclips fool you, a bunch of people didn’t even realize AoO sneak attack were a thing because it was a technicality much more than a feature)
@@Paradox-es3bl I think the craw was going off the assumption that most of the people that rated it so high doesn’t know about the sneak attack reaction thing, as it was probably never intended to be a core feature.
I am confident this is the first rogue draft testing rearguing level progression, especially because of the survey. I expected to see a more ribbon features and a little more damage in the next revision. (Especially low level thief)
My expectations is that new properties for mundane weapons was why damage was prempativly reduced for rogues.
I also cross bumpy fingured that they make a system so martials can get their weapon upgrades without only relying on DM grace’s as to keep up with high level spellcasting. (Unless the new montane actions are somehow get overturned).
HEY YOU!? You subscribed yet? If not, consider it!
Anybody complaining about the new (old) way to prepare spells?
Why was barrage compared to fireball? Do Rangers get access to that now? I personally like downcasting a lot and am glad they are finally syncing up some of the more broadly thought Ranger features more accessible to the game. You can play super stereotypical versions of all the other mainstream classes, but the badass aoe archer is always way more difficult than something more like Aragorn. Making them much better casters also helps a lot cause you'd usually dip into Druid if you wanted real casting, but then the Ranger specific spells you couldn't get.
Downcasting adds so much more than barrage too, steel wind strike at level 1 hitting 1d10 to 5 enemies plus a teleport to one of them. The warcrime potential of wizards casting fireball at level 1 has gone up exponentially though. lol
I don't think downcasting is meant to get you access to a spell at earlier levels, but rather just let you save higher level slots for other spells if you just want a quick burst of damage. If that's not what you meant then I apologize. Anyways I think the point was more that fireball is just a better spell overall and it would have been a better way to introduce downcasting if they gave us more options than just barrage. He goes into more detail on his opinion in the initial livestream.
@@silvinity4939 Yea that makes sense, if we got the casters as the first round of classes maybe fireball would have been the example. I know downcasting isn't meant to give you spells early, but when you get to barrage as a ranger you can only cast it twice and there's almost always something better to do with those 3rd level slots like revivify or summon.
No personal attack intended, but I swear it felt like just about every time he said something "was mostly the same" and went on to his next point ended up being directed at something that was changed drastically. Would have greatly preferred if he simply outright ignored the things he wasn't going to explain, because watching this started to feel like I was being gaslit or something. Obviously, he didn't mean anything by it, he was intending the recap in total good faith, but I was full body cringing at certain points, no hyperbole.
This all seems a lot like 2nd edition 🤔
It's second edition meets Pathfinder 2E.
as a DM and a Player, I hate only once per turn damage. so the change to Colossus slayer is a major turn off. at my table I added all classes that get bonus damage on every hit. an example would be divine fury for the zealot barbarian. I dropped the plus level in damage but added the extra d6 to every hit
Colossus slayer always was once per turn
@@NerdImmersion hmm wow don't know how I missed that. After 8 years lol
Already watched the 4-Hour version but hit me with a like in the comment for the RUclips algorithm
I really hate what they did with ability score modifiers, linking them to background instead of race. But since they are giving us the "suggestion with options" to classes, I would suggest they do the same with ability scores and races. Instead of making it a generic free-for-all that makes all races homogenous (in which case, why have different races, if the numbers all come up the same?), they should phrase it as an Optional choice under race. Example: Instead of tying the ability score mods to Background, put them back under race, but phrase them as such;
ELF, Ability Scores: +2 Dex, +1 Intelligence (or +1 to any three ability scores of your choice).
This gives players all the options they want but allows those who prefer the older way of doing things to still do it that way WITHOUT having to enforce clunky (and not always well-received) house rules. What do you think?
they don't want to give even suggested racial modifiers because they saw with tasha's mosts dms said no. so they are making it the only option here. just like they are explicitly making it you create a background not just take one from the book so dms have more pressure to not restrict players. it makes no difference in the end having where you choose your +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 in background or race. the total effect on your scores is identical and they are both chosen in character creation.
@@johnpaullogan1365 Isn't it funny how "Most DMs" say one thing, but absolutely none of the 30 or so DMs I know in my local game clubs feel the same way? I call B.S. ... it can't be that popular a stance if absolutely no one outside of the "Most folks" on the internet feel the opposite.
The more I have thought and talked about this, the more I dislike the spellcasting changes to bard. Its basically just making them into a generic caster, and giving them access almost all spells is is not something i am a fan of. The general change of bardic inspiration is fantastic honestly, but man only two uses per day til you get to 5th and then 3 til 7th is just awful. Far too few uses for a great core class ability. Did the person who designed Arcane Archer design the new bard, because that is a big downfall of AA archer as well. 2+ability modifier should be what they are using. But again the new spell lists are awful. PLease go back to class specific lists.
I actually hate the unarmed strike-shove mechanic. No way should the ability to knock a creature prone be tied to AC. Poor 11AC ogres will never stay on their feet.
Regarding moving BI to reaction:
I looked into things a little more deeply... I see only 8 Bonus Action spells in the provided Arcane List in the schools Bards are getting - 1 cantrip, 4 level 1s, 1 level 2, 1 level 3, 1 level 5. Shillelagh, Compelled Duel, Expeditious Retreat, Hex, Hunter’s Mark, Magic Weapon, Lightning Arrow, Swift Quiver.
If I don't want to melee then Shillelagh, Compelled Duel, and Magic Weapon, are worthless. Hex and H-Mark are in direct competition with each other.
And all but the cantrip are Concentration spells. Yep, read that again.
If we are playing a controller (an absolutely great role for a Bard) we likely will already have a concentration spell up. So our turns are:
>keep an eye out to heal someone who goes down with BI (of which we have 3/day total until lvl7)
>(Turn 1) throw out concentration control spell, end turn
>(Turn 2 and beyond) throw out one of our amazing damage cantrips (Thorn Whip or Vicious Mockery), or some other leveled damage spell, end turn.
I will almost never use my Bonus Action. So moving BI to a Reaction is going to be a disaster for our action economy. And note, throughout most of the levels people play at, BI resources will be more scarce than spell slots.
Of course, when we get to lvl 11 we could also look for opportunities for CounterSpell. Oooo a Reaction, I am supposed to save those for heals...
I love your channel Ted, I watch all of your videos. That said, you must be reading a different document than me, because I believe the rouge was absolutely murdered in this UA; it’s horrendous.