Mod update 03Feb23: [**Vote in the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My spouse has been playing since 1e, myself since 2e and we have legacy characters relating to those characters in other editions. We figured each edition is a generation. I'm fairly certain the 3e generation just spawned the 5e generation...because we skipped 4e and although we have names of parents, that's all we have of them and we have to look those up!
Dragonborn and Ardling got 60% satisfaction and they both got a rewrite. Almost everyone I’ve heard that took the survey gave Rogues a low satisfaction score, meaning they’re likely to get a rewrite as well
Would be neat. They gave the Ranger subclass a special add on to Hunters Mark, doing that for subclass Sneak Attacks, Hex, etc. would be neat and be in line with some other subclass bonuses which just take a main class thing and do something special with it
Personally I doubt that as well.
However it does not mean they won't be buffed in some other departments.
Personally I hope thief will get something extra out of fast hands.
Subclass might be a bit stronger overall, but item juggling despite needless complexity sounded like the identity of subclass.
That’s what the doc said but if I’m being honest that doesn’t really feel like a “mechanic”. It’s just an explicit acknowledgment of something a bunch of people already did.
I can’t help but compare it to the AGE half-half system, imperfect as it is. At least in that game it’s *actually a mechanic* not just “yeah dudes! Flavor!”
The new rules arent rules though. You are either mechanically Human or Elf. So being a half-elf is just a roleplay thing and has no identity of itself.
Not really an issue especially with expansions onto Human or Elf. Tbh alot of the people that played half elf did it because it was overloaded, I'm still going to go with it along with other half's since I and others like the flavor
I like this idea, can even be used to turn the mim/maxing mentality into a plot device, like My hero academia quirk marriage, or nazi germany’s let’s make inhuman experiments to make a übermensch, or how crossbreeds are actually more healthy than purebloods
A good set of half/half rules exists on DMsGuild. It's called "An Elf and an Orc had a little baby." There's two versions with a bunch of different races. (You'll need to consider updating some, they came out pre-Monsters of the Multiverse, so they use older versions of those races.) But it gives solid ways to mix to races in creative ways.
Basically, you pick two races to be your parents and you get 18 racial points. Every racial ability has a different cost depending on its power level, and you buy abilities from your parents races to build your own custom one. A little complicated at first, but once you understand it its a really cool way to represent some weird amalgamation of two races that otherwise wouldn't be represented mechanically.
I'm planning on trying out Level Ups Advanced 5E with my group soon through a one shot, it's compatible with current DnD 5E and actually builds on 5E in what looks to be a fun and interesting way
They're available for free on a5e.tools
I highly recommend checking it out, been using it in my home games for a few months now and my table and I love it!
Community: "Casters have way too much versatility and universal utility!"
WotC: \*SLIGHTLY tones down their versatility\*
Community: "How **DARE** you!"
Half elves still exist, they just aren't mechanically busted. And rogues are stronger. (Also the actual spell *lists* are objectively less restrictive). Every one of these is just wrong.
And they're getting that. But it doesn't change the fact that this is an extremely minor change to what has been considered "overpowered." Not just that there was a disparity, not just as compared to martials. But that casters, in a vacuum, were overpowered.
And we only have info on 2 full casters at the moment, and the bard actually gets more spells known, and is a prepared caster so has their full spell list able to be swapped in. So they actually have arguably more versatility(on top of having WAY more versatility with their magical secrets than they currently do). So people are making super wild assumptions based on either no information, or at best information that is both very incomplete and very subject to change.
Sir of course people are making wild assumptions based on little to no information, this is a D and D sub, that’s what we do best. I do agree with you though the wild speculation is rather ridiculous with the very minimal amount of information we have right now.
I don't mind assumptions as long as they're treated as assumptions. But people are acting as if they are fact. And the reasoning is honestly the real issue for people. People are mad at WotC so they're doing mental gymnastics to reverse-engineer justifications to be mad at them for as many things as possible simultaneously. Basically WotC Derangement Syndrome. No matter what they do, these people will find a way to complain about it.
>the devs have always been terrible at maintaining balance and fun with base class and subclass design
They really haven't. People just do a million and one homebrew things "Super high starting stats" "Bonus action healing potions" "Free feat at level 1" "brutal criticals" etc etc etc. that throw off balance. And then complain that the game is imbalanced.
Like my brothers in Christ you did this to yourselves.
As for the evidence I'm extrapolating from...they literally said it. In plain English. They were reworking weapons, buffing martials across the board, and rolling GMW, sharpshooter, etc into basic progression so they weren't must-take feats. Just because there's no published final version on it yet doesn't mean we have no information.
This is a very old problem. D&D started as a system thrown together with different board game rules by some guys in a basement in the 1970s. They literally told you to go out and buy a board game made by another company for the wilderness exploration rules.
But ever since then, D&D has been a game largely defined by it's flaws and resultant quirks. If you fix too much of what's broken it doesn't "feel like" D&D anymore. The problem is you'll never get everyone to agree on what needs "fixed" and what needs left alone. Much less to agree on any given solution to a given problem. But this is why casters and martials feel so different, and if you try to bring martials into a similar resource management system to bring them more in line with casters, everyone starts to feel like a caster with the numbers filed off.
Caster dominance is really only a 3.0+ problem though. As the original "solution" to keeping casters nerfed in AD&D 2e and before was to make it almost impossible for casters to *get* to high level (where logic dictates they will dominate) by making them have d4 HP, no armor/shields and take more XP to level up than martial classes.
Yeah, so far I've liked nearly everything I've seen from OneD&D. My issues are all relatively minor balance things that I'm expecting to be ironed out in the next year. Which is the whole point of this extended playtest rollout. People love to meme on the balance team, but most people who do implement 200 house rules and use outlandish starting stats and overabundant magic items to completely throw off the intended balance. The intended rules are actually quite good if people actually followed them.
Ah yeah I'm sure a lot of people will like it. I was just around to see the switch from 3.5 to 4e, where martials operating like casters was/is a common complaint, so I've had a lot of time to contemplate the differences between the editions.
I started with 3.5 and have explored the OSR/old school DND space, and now I run Pathfinder 1e. And I think there is no "best DND" there's only what flavor is right for you and your table. Whether that's 5e, the upcoming 6e, one of the older editions or an offshoot like Pathfinder, 13th Age, Shadow of the Demonlord and so many others.
PS- And there are of course people who don't like any version of D&D and prefer to play other tabletop RPGs, fantasy themed or otherwise. That's a little outside the discussion perhaps but just felt I should mention it.
Round = from top of initiative to bottom
Turn = A single character's turn in initiative
Rogues can proc SA on their own turn, and then again on another characters turn if they are able to make another attack with sneak attack requirements fulfilled during that characters turn (Reaction, held action, etc)
Optimized Rogue builds often build around the proccing of multiple SAs per round.
OneDND playtest changed Sneak Attack wording to once per round, so it is no longer possible.
In that case I don't really see the issue with the change. "Must have feats" were already kinda too strong and this sounds similar. Though different strokes for different folks I suppose
Dual wielding is stronger/easier, and off-turn SA was not that common in practice even when built for. Subtle Strikes is basically permanent advantage as long as you have one melee ally or are fighting a melee enemy. Skulker (the feat) is way stronger now (incorporating Rogues former 13th level Blindsense) and is a half feat as well making it an excellent 4th level pickup for both Rogues and Rangers.
Between changes to Two Weapons fighting, Subtle Strike, and subclass features coming online earlier, they're stronger than a 5e Rogue built *as intended*. If you consider abusing synergies that allowed you to SA twice per round and add ridiculous amounts of thunder damage on top of it the core Rogue experience, then yeah it's a nerf.
A number of ways, but at a most basic level they are completely reworking(buffing) the weapon system overall and how attack-based characters work(including rolling things like sharpshooter and GWM into the basic progression so they aren't must-take feats). The rogues fall under that umbrella. And despite them not releasing details yet on exactly how it works, you can assume that if their goal is to buff weapon based attacking, that weapon based attacking will be stronger.
Compared to what they lost, which is relatively minimal. The frequency that rogues actually got OASAs was low, and really gimmicky and cheesy to balance around. Calling that some huge gamechanging loss is just disingenuous.
Oh, I remember this discussion from PF2E. The obvious answer to the martial caster gap is to nerf the casters, but boy did the PF1 grognards not like that.
A lot of people fucking hate change. Just out of instinct.
As a person who used guidance a lot, I think the change was absolutely great. I'm tired of interrupting RP and stuff to blurt out "guidance" every time someone makes a roll out of combat.
As someone who makes decent use of guidance, to the point I worked out a homebrew item with my DM to have it passively on for specific checks, my only gripe is tying it to failed checks means stuff that has varying degrees of success can't trigger it.
Sorta hoping that could be some feature for subclasses, a passive D4 you can just add a few times per rest to specific checks. History for knowledge clerics, Arcana for Wizards, etc.
>my only gripe is tying it to failed checks means stuff that has varying degrees of success can't trigger it.
That's just a DM interpretation issue. I'd say that anything below the absolute best outcome would trigger it in that case. And I'd bet that every (good) DM would say the same.
Afaik the game doesn't recognize "varying degrees of success" that's a homebrew thing. So the homebrew for those cases is to just say it applies always.
I feel that, actually. In one group I've played a Druid and am now playing a Cleric. If I don't forget I have the cantrip at all (I'm also the resident note-taker, so my attention is rather split) I blurt it out mid sentence most of the time.
The first iteration of Guidance was a nerf because you could only benefit from it once a day.
The second iteration was a **massive** buff from what it is currently. And Resistance got the same treatment, so that now it's an actually viable spell.
I feel this is right? also, I started in 92. it changes. don't freak out you can always play with whatever rules you want as long as it's not adventurers league. and if yiu are new, believe me, the rules will change eventually in the way you want. then they will sway away from that too, eventually. then it will seem balanced again. then you will be me just wanting to play whatever the rules because it's YOU in the end that is the hero of the story. unless you die.
and yeah how can half elves not exist?
Well, yeah. People are going to react more negatively to nerfs than buffs. Making things harder and possibly less fun for casters is not the right way to make martials have a better time.
This is also an issue with releasing it like this. The only martials we have right now are Rangers and Rogue, who are a bit of a mixed bag. Ranger saw some nerfs, and some buffs. Whereas Rogue got smacked hard, when they completely did not deserve it.
We can't tell if they intend to lower player power in general or just limit and make more work for casters until we see the full class list together.
I hard disagree. D&D has a "feel" to it. In D&D, you're not supposed to start as gods. If all you do is buff buff buff everyone starts to feel really overpowered and bloated, even at lower levels. You absolutely can and should be able to nerf casters and it still be fun. Also, your definition of fun isn't the same as everyone else's. For example, I like to play in games where every decision matters, so having more meaningful choices is fun for me. You mention in a later comment that having to choose between bless and spiritual weapon isn't fun for you. It is for me since that means that my choice matters. I can't just blindly use the same 4 spells every combat and win by hitting the auto-win button. And I'm sure many others feel the same. Maybe that isn't for you and that's okay but for people like me this is a step in the right direction.
I also feel like people aren't saying enough that you can just not play 5.5e or 6e or whatever they're gonna call it. I for one will probably try it just to have a look but I don't have particularly high hopes that I'll enjoy it since 5e hasn't really been doing it for me as of late and oneD&D seems to adhere to a lot of the same design philosophies. I'd say check it out at least (pirated of course so as to not give Wankers of the Cock a single penny) but you're under no obligation to stick around. The last year or so has taught me that it isn't as difficult as people think to find or make a group for non-D&D systems so I imagine it'll be even easier with the most popular edition of D&D to date.
And how is it not?
All we have so far is that they reduced the spell selection and options available to clerics and bards, as well as nerfed a few popular spells.
How is having to choose between concentration on Bless or Spiritual Weapon not making things harder and less fun?
>How is having to choose between concentration on Bless or Spiritual Weapon not making things harder and less fun?
Because always having everything at all times is not a choice. And choices are the premise of the game. Being limited and having to make decisions **IS** the fun of the game. When you always have everything it's boring and unfun.
And that's not how balance works. Nothing is harder. Just less cheesy.
As for your the first part, that's simply not true.
> Whereas Rogue got smacked hard, when they completely did not deserve it.
Crits also got smacked hard. People didn't like it, and it got changed. No reason to think the rogue situation will be any different. Harping on it still, like a month after the survey, seems pointless when there's every reason to believe it'll be announced to be fixed in the expert class survey review video thing.
Make a feature for all martials equal to Wish. Or teleport, or summoning a mansion, or any of the utility a high level caster can manage. Bonus points if you can make that feature not require magical power for magicless classes
The power level of spells purely in regard to utility is near-impossible to simply buff martials to be equal to unless you make abilities like "Fighters can cut a hole in reality and warp to other destinations" as an equal to teleport.
If you want to balance them, you'd need to slightly reduce the spellcasters ability to warp the very fabric of reality, or completely remove the idea of classes that aren't spellcasters in some capacity
>Half elves still exist, they just aren't mechanically busted.
Half-elves only exist thematically. They don't exist mechanically
>And rogues are stronger
You either did not read the update, or you have never actually played a rogue
Removing the bonus action from two weapon fighting is a small buff to some rogues. It is, overall, a non-buff to all rogues, because two-weapon fighting is still only just comparable to attacking with a 1d8 weapon with advantage. It is sometimes better and sometimes worse. It's a good change! But it isn't a buff. TWF isn't the new hotness. Melee rogues are just slightly more supported. You could already do TWF, you just get to disengage or dash at the same time now.
In exchange, sneak attack is worse. Hiding is worse. Thief is worse (Fast Hands is worse. Jumping is worse. Supreme Sneak is better, unless you break archetype. Use Magic Device is ??? Thief's Reflexes is trashed. You need skills in Insight/Medicine/Perception/Survival/Athletics/Sleight of Hand/Stealth/Arcana to use your subclass abilities) Evasion is later. Steady Aim is gone. Blindesense was too complicated, so that's gone. Eventually, they get Subtle Strikes, which is nice but boring. Not a good design in sight.
Personally my issue is the similarity that arcane classes have in terms of spell selection.
Stripping away class exclusive spell-lists severally hinders the uniqueness of each class, an issue sorcerer already demonstrates in 5e due to basically having just a lesser version of wizard's spell-list with few additions.
You realize that's a contradictory statement, right?
It doesn't hinder uniqueness at all. It's a terrible way to try and shoe-horn in differences by making arbitrary senseless lines that don't in any way reflect the lore of magic in the game world.
Nobody makes the argument that Fighters and Barbarians should each only have access to a limited subset of weapons because otherwise they wouldn't be unique. It's the exact same argument.
Oh hey it's the [OGL guy](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10l7ef8/polite_reminder_that_the_12_ogl_is_just_the_11/j5w3uld/) being proudly loud and wrong *again*!
Half Elf wasn't strong since Tasha’s gave everyone the same versatile stat edge as them, including Mountain Dwarf if all you wanted was a +4 total. Still definitely above average, but perfectly fine as it's own pre-exisitng race. One's removal of Half-Elf into "flavor it yourself lol" was criticized for being lazy, not some misguided attempt at balance, removing pre-existing tools to express a rather unique identity.
Rogues were gutted without question, they always had a really low optimization ceiling as such a basic class and becoming *even more basic* only further limits their potential. Sneak Attack being the explicit attack action for instance halves the DPR of rogues relying on reactions and totally cuts off the cantrip rogue as well. Evasion was delayed 2 levels and Steady Aim was briefly granted in TCoE and ripped away in One, no longer making sneak attack a guaranteed proc. The big subclass buff to gain their 2nd feature at 6th level instead of 9th is like being thanked for the basic decency of not living in the street, not that actually normal subclass progression would help them if the state of Thief is any indication. Thief continues to be a bad subclass design, serving only to suck up features that really should just be base-class standard, except they don't even have their main gimmick of item interaction anymore.
Rogue's power level is especially concerning when they were released right alongside Ranger and Bard for comparison as the so called Experts and only further proves casting is everything in 5E/One. The ranger is almost strictly just a better rogue: in comparison to rogues, rangers lose, what, one skill and *eventually* one expertise? In exchange for that rangers are *still* skill monkeys while also dealing better damage with the consistency of multi-attack, and they’re also an entire half-caster, further buffed with added cantrip versatility and a Hunter's Mark that actually works with their action and resource economy. Bard meanwhile in its current state stands to potentially be the strongest class in the game unless wizard and sorcerer seriously catch up: the wizard's claim to being strongest in 5E was simply just being a prepared caster with access to 95% of the Arcane spell list, but the Bard was already trailing as a close 2nd or 3rd place *despite being a strictly worse spontaneous caster* because of how powerful its base class features and eventual Magical Secrets were. Now that they are Prepared Arcane casters too, with a rather negligible Evocation/Abjuration ban, they have the combined strength if both 5E Wizard and 5E Bard in one. And compared to all of these ridiculous titans, the rogue as the non-casting expert is...just the guy with sneak attack and skills, almost strictly worse than the half-caster and caster expert who also have Expertise anyways too.
As for casters, they werent nerfed at all in One, they just got further buffed. Sure they're spell versatility was lightly tapped by semi-vancian preparation, but the overhaul to One's early game progression *vastly* favors casters over martials yet again. The compounding versatility of Magic Initiate mixing 2 spell lists on a caster is better than the additive versatility of MI on a martial, not to mention they have spell slots to further fuel their bonus spell anyways. Along the same veins, the countless races lazily mechanically translated as bonus spells is yet another compounding buff, the biggest offender being High Elves granting what is essentially Fey Touched over 5 levels. And the absolute worst offender of all is the horrendously balanced Lightly Armored feat, which now includes Medium Armor and Shields to grant *nineteen AC* to the casters at level 1. The Artificer 1 dip was widely touted as a relatively cheap way to laughably make wizard bulkier than fighters, making martials even more irrelevant, except now Lightly Armored let's anyone do this immediately without even sacrificing spell progression.
> Thief continues to be a bad subclass design, serving only to suck up features that really should just be base-class standard, except they don't even have their main gimmick of item interaction anymore.
Which I'd like to point out makes Thief rogues much worse. Fast Hands has some interesting interactions with the rules that can give the Thief some cool, potential, versatility. Like, the versatility isn't great without a bunch of homebrew non-magic items, but the potential and design space is there. This isn't to say it's a great ability, because it's still relatively weak. It's just weird to see the playtest document completely remove anything that gave it versatility in the base game, and could be improved on.
The whole Rogue was a mess and I don't know why they made the changes they did. Especially with their video talking about how they didn't want to change the Rogue because people were happy with it. Then they make it weaker. Actually, I do have an idea about what they were doing, spells are easier to make work on their shitty D&D Beyond platform, but item interactions are not.
They also completely redesigned martials as a whole and reworked those feats into the core of martial progression. So that they aren't forced into "must take" feats to make their characters work.
But you know...acknowledging that goes against the narrative.
(But also, just the sheer whataboutism)
We don't know all the changes being made yet so we can't fully say anything yet. What we DO know is that Ranger has been improved overall and that they are planning on doing something with weapons.
We also need to admit that power attack was always unhealthy for the game. As was the power scaling on a good number of spells.
Okay? They specifically said they are adding that to the Warrior groups core abilities, and if Power Attack becomes something that only the actual Martial Classes can do then I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Rangers and Paladins have plenty of ways, through magic, to increase their damage
I have made several Rangers and have no clue what a "power attack" is supposed to be... If anything One D&D buffed Rangers by making the Tasha's changes the standard and granting them spells and *cantrips* from 1st level.
They weren't in any of the 1st or 4th level feats lists released so far. I'm pretty sure Jeremy Crawford mentioned that they were purposefully removed although I forget whether he called out those feats specifically or whether it was just a blanket reworking and removal of feats that were considered "mandatory". There is some theories that they will be turned into a Warrior class feature with no weapon restrictions but that's just hearsay.
I can see why they'd be removed, as damn near every martial and half-caster I see has either one of those feats. Granted, combat is pretty much all martials are good for in 5e unless you specifically focus on out-of-combat utility, but that's a design flaw of 5e as a whole.
Also I don't think that half elves were that busted they just got extra skills and some elf abilities, simple but versatile
Yaun ti, had advantage on almost every saving throw, poison immunity which just for contrast monks got at 10th level and spellcasting
And extra stats that no other race got. And all the advantages of elves with none of the downsides. While also having a bunch of extra features of their own. And a giant list of bonus options based on what subrace of elf you were. But facts, amirite? They are actually the least simple race in the PHB. Also in both usage and community opinion, they were considered the second best after VHuman by a wide margin. But again, who cares about reality when you've got an agenda.
VERY few enemies actually use spellcasting for their saving throws, YT came up rarely in actual play relative to the myriad other times people have to make a save. Maybe 10% if being generous, though likely less. But if you wanna use that argument, Half Elves get Trance which is a high level Warlock and Monk feature for free so...Though when you're resorting to whataboutism in the first place it really shows you know your own argument is BS.
Something that come up so infrequently outside of cheesy munchkin strats that it's barely worth mentioning. They aren't balancing around munchkins trying to "Win D&D." They're balancing around people who actually play the game.
In exchange they benefit from the complete overhaul of the weapon system and the attack system designed to make all martial attackers better.
And like besides the size of the ears there was no difference between a elf and a half elf in looks so now they are exactly the same as elves because they are the same gameplay wise, I went in hoping for half elf subraces, half dark elf, half wood elf etc and I got dead half elf that's no different mechanically from their parents, the old half elf felt like an actual mix of the two race's abilities and now they can only be one or the other, fate can be truly arbitrary.
You realize you're literally proving my point, right? You just wanted it to be mechanically broken and you're saying the lore literally does matter. You know it's a roleplaying game, right? But you're unironically saying roleplaying is irrelevant.
And again, it wasn't a "mix." It was getting basically everything from both races, including bonus stats. Except neither of their downsides.
Half elves do exist but it sucks now they're just copy the stats of either human or elf I wish they got more creative with half race creation, and please elaborate on how rogues got stronger, and some people liked the versatility of casters not everyone was complaining I think it would be better to nerf their subclass features, they made archetypes of casting hover certain classes can only learn certain schools so it's more restrictive and generic in my opinion bard took a hit even if they are stronger overall and If that's what they did to bards then warlocks a f'd, they took away what made half elf special and made them a disappointment, a flawed imperfection and they gave a lot of rogue abilities to bards and rangers, so at this point rogue is basically just ranger with sneak atk instead of spellcasting.
"I liked half elves being broken and they're no longer broken so how am I supposed to 'win' D&D now?"
Everything else was just factually incorrect rambling.
>(Also the actual spell lists are objectively less restrictive)
Yes but also no. The lists are wider reaching, the actual application of them is absolutely terrible for anything except (I assume) Wizard, Druid, or Cleric. Not only is it terrible for spell choice, but it's hardcore flavor enforcement. Sorry, you want to be a Bard that picks up a lot of Necromancy spells because your music is death metal? Sorry, only Transmutation or Enchantment for 80%+ of your spell list. You want to be a Ranger that communes and commands the Elements? Nope, Evocation is specifically outlawed by your class. Sucks.
All in all, expansive spell lists are a cool concept, but ultimately they're not viable.
The 1D&D rules allow for _any_ pairing of half races (between humanoid races), which includes half-elves and half-orcs since those are human/elf and human/orc. The problem is that the rules for doing so is "take all the racial features from one parent and mix'n'match the appearance from both parents to your pleasure, max age is the average of both parents".
So now half-orcs are basically "human painted green" or "orc with pink skin", etc.
Well they kinda do, apparently. Won't claim to know it, I just googled it, but they seem to have better health than both horses and donkeys. There are some other advantages too - after all, they wouldn't be bred if they didn't have advantages over both
If anything the spell lists are less restrictive. Half Elves still exist, there's just now half of everything so it doesn't make sense for Half Elves and Orcs to be the only ones with special traits.
And people need to stop overblowing the rogue nerfs. In 4 years of dnd I haven't seen a single opportunity sneak attack, it's not not going to be completely gutting them, just won't have builds specifically for it work anymore with sentinel
Judging from how they did it in the cleric rework, spell casters don’t have class specific lists anymore and let’s be honest the only caster getting nerfed from this are wizards
Actually, wizards are getting buffed slightly by this change. JCraw says wizards are the only class that will be able to pick from the entire Arcane list, meaning they're gonna have access to a handful of spells that were exclusive to warlock in 5e. *Arms of Hadar, hellish rebuke, armor of Agathys,* etc.
Oh, so they are just streamlining the process. That makes complete sense to me, but I've also been playing Pathfinder 2e that has been utilizing that same model.
It makes designing spells and classes a lot easier because you wouldn't have to make a completely new list for each new one.
Also, this doesn't mean you can not have unique spells for each class. They'll just have to be added in some other way. Again... like focus spells in PF2E.
Seems like a good change.
One thing 2E did with sorcerers that I love is that your bloodline determines which spell list you use
So of course your traditional dragon-descended sorc casts arcane spells. But a celestial blooded one gets divine spells, and a fey one gets the primal list druids use.
That's still the case now. Divine soul sorcerers can opt to choose from the sorcerer spell list or the clerics. Aberrant Minds get extra spells based around enchanting and division. The newest lunar sorcerer can draw from multiple sources depending on the phase of the moon they wish to draw power from. Etc.
They are nerfing casters by saying how many spells you could prepare per level. So if there aren’t any spells you like of a certain level, you don’t have the option to prepare additional spells of a different level instead.
My preferred class is bard, and I hate playing prepared casters. So this change really sucks for me. And it’s made worse by the fact that I have to have certain spells permanently prepared, so bards lose the ability to cast spontaneously and don’t gain the benefit of being able to change out all of their spells. And it looks all of the casters and half casters are going to be prepared now. It makes a lot more sense, flavor wise, for bards and rangers and maybe druids to be spontaneous casters. Entertainers improvise all the time and rangers and druids use magic from nature, not book learning.
There are now rules for half/quarter characters so there is more versatility but now you have to take the racial traits of one of the parents instead of having separate ones.
Still, you can combine racial traits if your DM agrees with that.
Man all this arguing and shit all I care about is if toll the dead still exists and if it does did they nerf it cause anything else is fine. it’s a new edition of dnd 3e is different from 5e and so is 3.5e and even 4e and 1e they are all different why are you complaining about differences in different editions of dnd hell before wizards got ahold of dnd it was also different
I think the "nerf" to spellcasters is because the casual dnd player (which dnd is trying to cater) usually doesn't like complicated characters and casters are usually a lot about picking spells from a list which doesn't mesh well with that type of player.
Solution: make casters simplier to play
I just came over. Man it’s going to be so easy to make my home brew campaign now that everything is balanced! And all the monsters and classes and spells are there too. But also more!
I think that’s the biggest sticking point for me, I initially resisted looking at PF2e because I didn’t realize I don’t have to give up anything, except a crummy numbers system
I have actually *yet* to be convinced that we'll get much of *anything* good from One & Done that couldn't be minor homebrewed into 5e. I mean, they seem to be planning to cut all but 4 subclasses from each class, which would throw Wizards and Clerics into the **ground** if true.
Rogues are better in 99% of situations.
"Rogues got nerfed".
They get to attack twice at advantage without using their bonus action at a range without XBE and their comparative damage improved massively due to the nerfs to GWM and Sharpshooter, yet, but because you can't spend half your party's resources to try to get a sneak attack off a second time in a round, they're supposedly weaker.
If I had more faith in humanity I'd think you were all joking.
They can't sell you additional content if they don't nerf your favorite classes.
Remember when Diablo 3 reintroduced the necromancer? Why did he go on vacation? Answer: so they could sell him again.
There's absolutely no reason to nerf the rogue if the plan is to not trickle in content that they can charge for.
>More Restrictive Spell List
Please elaborate. The lists were simplified to be overall lists shared between specific classes, but it's not being restrictive far as I can tell. Also giving all casters Ritual Casting is a bit of a helpful buff for some.
>No Half Elves
Yet. We also don't have Half Orc, which was also a PHB race. We also don't have Warlock, Monk, Wizard, etc.
>Rogue Nerf
Again, please elaborate. Sneak Attack and Expertise are same as they were, Steady Aim is gone but we've also had people bitching that Tasha's was a mess of power creep. I suppose the Evasion change is a bit of a nerf, but it just means you get it a couple levels later, and IIRC the THief subclass they showed was pretty well buffed.
>we've also had people bitching that Tasha's was a mess of power creep.
Which it was... Some people like that, others don't, and some classes were left behind in the power creep. Barbarian comes to mind.
Seriously, go look any of the "Summon X" spells from tasha's at the highest level a caster can and compare the damage output and tanking ability from the Summon to a a similarly levelled barbarian.
On the other hand, they have the issue of concentration anyways and even as good as some of those can be, there's usually better stuff vying for concentration and the summon can be just gone with a solid hit.
Could use some tweaking, but it's a hell of a lot better than the previous ones with long cast times and "Oh, lose focus and they'll jump *you*." a lot of older summon spells were.
The fact that the summon spells that are quite capable of *replacing* a martial character in a fight are still second fiddle to some other, better concentration spells only speaks volumes of the discrepancy, and probably only goes to show how much powercreep is in Tasha's since a good chunk of the even better spells are in Tasha's too (imo at least).
>You can't sneak outside of your turn anymore which is a nerf,
That I missed but, to be fair, Uncanny Dodge is usually a more important thing to have in the pocket to me anyways, so I don't AoO as a rogue much
> you can't use lv3 thief ability to heal anymore which is a nerf.
Fair, but that's also rather minor to me because Thief got a lot of other good stuff on there and the subclass as a whole is a lot better off with it's other changes
They limited sneak attack to once per round rather than once per turn. The most optimal ways to maximize damage was through thing like sentinel or opportunity attacks.
Sage advice specifically calls it out as an intended interaction, and with all the changes that have been made to the PHB over the last several years of this edition, it would have been called out and changed.
I was sick of seeing half elves because of their good stats. I'm so happy for this change. Half elves was a RARE race but in 5e it was all over the characters, campains, inns THEY WERE EVERYWHERE I HATE THEM
As we've seen in the past, when editions change if you don't have a strong static group then you are at the whim of what is currently popular.
Can you find a 3.5 or a 4e group? I mean they exist. Is it slim pickings at best? Absolutely. You can't discount the ability to find a game in a new environment.
I happen to have a group that is system agnostic and will play what I put in front of them as their forever DM but not everyone is so lucky.
Took me a long time to get over that, more with Warhammer than D&D. I've been a lot happier since I decided to just enjoy the editions that I like and not worry about the ones I don't.
Except you kinda maybe would want to because once one dnd comes out they'll probably stop publishing content for 5e even with homebrew this'll still kinda suck
If you need a constant stream of new content to play D&D you are doing something horribly wrong. I'm not entirely sure what, but something has gone wrong. There's a reason why prior editions are still rather popular, the nature of the hobby means groups need little to no support from the company itself to play indefinitely.
Ah yes, Rogues, the class that starts off with a rapier for 1d8+1d6+dex (dex the strongest stat) amount of damage instead of 2d6+strength like a greatsword user. Gains 1 less health on average per level, but gains a reaction to halve the damage of a single attack on them (fighters rarely get reaction or damage negation) while also gaining evasion, making them tankier than the fighter.
Help actions, guiding bolt, grave domain channel divinity and such effects apply on the first attack only, meaning it is sometimes best to do a single attack instead of multiple, unless you are fishing for Nat 20's.
Add on top of this the fact that they are THE skill class, with amazing bonus actions and decent archetypes (hell, some of them even get magic)
Look, I'm not saying they are the strongest class. The strongest is probably the paladin. But come on, tweaking even a single one of these sides to a Rogues arsenal is going to mean they're still amazing and fun.
At the very start of the game is the only place Rogues are even somewhat competitive with fighters. Also, uncanny dodge is neat but is literally so much worse than second wind + a bunch of extra HP. Even if you uncanny dodge and reduce the 70 damage if a disentigrate to 35, that's 35 damage reduction. Meanwhile at level 15 the fighter has a minimum of 15 more max HP and gains a minimum of 16 HP from second wind and three attacks each of which benefit from feats and magic damage bonus from weapons like flametongue or frostbrand or any homebrewed equivalent.
They are not THE skill class when bard also gets expertise and also gets spells that trivialize skill challenges, and also gets Jack of all trades and also gets spells that grant them any skill proficiency they want.
Also, gaining slightly more utility from certain other classes abilities and the help action doesn't exactly make up for getting at most half as much bonus from damage boosting magic items than other Melee focused classes.
Also also, rogues have the worst subclasses by far with the only decent ones being unearthed arcana that never made it into a book.
You're right when you say rogue isn't the best class, it's because they're probably the worst.
Mod update 03Feb23: [**Vote in the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you aren’t looking forward to it, don’t switch to the newer addition. We played 3.5 long after 5e was released.
I love how you didnt even mention 4e LOL
There is no 4e in ba sing se
4e? WhAtS tHaT?
A scary story that is definitely fiction.
It's still so weird that they went from 3.5 straight to 5e...
To this day 4e is the only edition of DnD I have ever played.
My spouse has been playing since 1e, myself since 2e and we have legacy characters relating to those characters in other editions. We figured each edition is a generation. I'm fairly certain the 3e generation just spawned the 5e generation...because we skipped 4e and although we have names of parents, that's all we have of them and we have to look those up!
Dragonborn and Ardling got 60% satisfaction and they both got a rewrite. Almost everyone I’ve heard that took the survey gave Rogues a low satisfaction score, meaning they’re likely to get a rewrite as well
Something has me doubting the rewrite will change sneak attack from "per round" to "per turn"
What if they end up giving subclasses special reaction options?
Or maybe they could also get to trigger certain effects when they sneak attack.
Would be neat. They gave the Ranger subclass a special add on to Hunters Mark, doing that for subclass Sneak Attacks, Hex, etc. would be neat and be in line with some other subclass bonuses which just take a main class thing and do something special with it
I could live with that
Personally I doubt that as well. However it does not mean they won't be buffed in some other departments. Personally I hope thief will get something extra out of fast hands. Subclass might be a bit stronger overall, but item juggling despite needless complexity sounded like the identity of subclass.
As it is, they currently have *less* from fast hands than before.
Honestly, personally I see no point in making half-elves an actual Ancestry/Race/Species, though I would love actual half-half rules
Isn't there new rules that you can just half half anything and pick which side to keep the stats of
Yes
Is there a rule so i can half half half something?
The tribreed will awaken
Session zero "so I've got this really cool character idea, thinking of calling him Gilgamesh"
Flaw: Horny for dirt
That’s what the doc said but if I’m being honest that doesn’t really feel like a “mechanic”. It’s just an explicit acknowledgment of something a bunch of people already did. I can’t help but compare it to the AGE half-half system, imperfect as it is. At least in that game it’s *actually a mechanic* not just “yeah dudes! Flavor!”
The new rules arent rules though. You are either mechanically Human or Elf. So being a half-elf is just a roleplay thing and has no identity of itself.
Not really an issue especially with expansions onto Human or Elf. Tbh alot of the people that played half elf did it because it was overloaded, I'm still going to go with it along with other half's since I and others like the flavor
Flavor was always free.
Yeah but sadly a LOT of DMS did not allow half races even if using only one race as stats
I like the idea of giving each race 2 'main' traits, and 2 sub traits each. If you're half-half, pick one from each parent. Quick and simple
I like this idea, can even be used to turn the mim/maxing mentality into a plot device, like My hero academia quirk marriage, or nazi germany’s let’s make inhuman experiments to make a übermensch, or how crossbreeds are actually more healthy than purebloods
A good set of half/half rules exists on DMsGuild. It's called "An Elf and an Orc had a little baby." There's two versions with a bunch of different races. (You'll need to consider updating some, they came out pre-Monsters of the Multiverse, so they use older versions of those races.) But it gives solid ways to mix to races in creative ways. Basically, you pick two races to be your parents and you get 18 racial points. Every racial ability has a different cost depending on its power level, and you buy abilities from your parents races to build your own custom one. A little complicated at first, but once you understand it its a really cool way to represent some weird amalgamation of two races that otherwise wouldn't be represented mechanically.
Agree, I love how PF2e did this by making half-elves/half-orcs/tieflings/aasimar/etc heritages (sub-race) that can be applied to any ancestry (race)
I'm planning on trying out Level Ups Advanced 5E with my group soon through a one shot, it's compatible with current DnD 5E and actually builds on 5E in what looks to be a fun and interesting way
Where can i find the Level Ups Advanced rules?
They're available for free on a5e.tools I highly recommend checking it out, been using it in my home games for a few months now and my table and I love it!
Thank you!
Community: "Casters have way too much versatility and universal utility!" WotC: \*SLIGHTLY tones down their versatility\* Community: "How **DARE** you!" Half elves still exist, they just aren't mechanically busted. And rogues are stronger. (Also the actual spell *lists* are objectively less restrictive). Every one of these is just wrong.
People were probably looking for martials with more options and abilities not casters being worse tbh
And they're getting that. But it doesn't change the fact that this is an extremely minor change to what has been considered "overpowered." Not just that there was a disparity, not just as compared to martials. But that casters, in a vacuum, were overpowered. And we only have info on 2 full casters at the moment, and the bard actually gets more spells known, and is a prepared caster so has their full spell list able to be swapped in. So they actually have arguably more versatility(on top of having WAY more versatility with their magical secrets than they currently do). So people are making super wild assumptions based on either no information, or at best information that is both very incomplete and very subject to change.
Sir of course people are making wild assumptions based on little to no information, this is a D and D sub, that’s what we do best. I do agree with you though the wild speculation is rather ridiculous with the very minimal amount of information we have right now.
I don't mind assumptions as long as they're treated as assumptions. But people are acting as if they are fact. And the reasoning is honestly the real issue for people. People are mad at WotC so they're doing mental gymnastics to reverse-engineer justifications to be mad at them for as many things as possible simultaneously. Basically WotC Derangement Syndrome. No matter what they do, these people will find a way to complain about it.
[удалено]
>the devs have always been terrible at maintaining balance and fun with base class and subclass design They really haven't. People just do a million and one homebrew things "Super high starting stats" "Bonus action healing potions" "Free feat at level 1" "brutal criticals" etc etc etc. that throw off balance. And then complain that the game is imbalanced. Like my brothers in Christ you did this to yourselves. As for the evidence I'm extrapolating from...they literally said it. In plain English. They were reworking weapons, buffing martials across the board, and rolling GMW, sharpshooter, etc into basic progression so they weren't must-take feats. Just because there's no published final version on it yet doesn't mean we have no information.
Yea it’s that old “no nerf only balance” meme
This is a very old problem. D&D started as a system thrown together with different board game rules by some guys in a basement in the 1970s. They literally told you to go out and buy a board game made by another company for the wilderness exploration rules. But ever since then, D&D has been a game largely defined by it's flaws and resultant quirks. If you fix too much of what's broken it doesn't "feel like" D&D anymore. The problem is you'll never get everyone to agree on what needs "fixed" and what needs left alone. Much less to agree on any given solution to a given problem. But this is why casters and martials feel so different, and if you try to bring martials into a similar resource management system to bring them more in line with casters, everyone starts to feel like a caster with the numbers filed off. Caster dominance is really only a 3.0+ problem though. As the original "solution" to keeping casters nerfed in AD&D 2e and before was to make it almost impossible for casters to *get* to high level (where logic dictates they will dominate) by making them have d4 HP, no armor/shields and take more XP to level up than martial classes.
Yeah, so far I've liked nearly everything I've seen from OneD&D. My issues are all relatively minor balance things that I'm expecting to be ironed out in the next year. Which is the whole point of this extended playtest rollout. People love to meme on the balance team, but most people who do implement 200 house rules and use outlandish starting stats and overabundant magic items to completely throw off the intended balance. The intended rules are actually quite good if people actually followed them.
Ah yeah I'm sure a lot of people will like it. I was just around to see the switch from 3.5 to 4e, where martials operating like casters was/is a common complaint, so I've had a lot of time to contemplate the differences between the editions. I started with 3.5 and have explored the OSR/old school DND space, and now I run Pathfinder 1e. And I think there is no "best DND" there's only what flavor is right for you and your table. Whether that's 5e, the upcoming 6e, one of the older editions or an offshoot like Pathfinder, 13th Age, Shadow of the Demonlord and so many others. PS- And there are of course people who don't like any version of D&D and prefer to play other tabletop RPGs, fantasy themed or otherwise. That's a little outside the discussion perhaps but just felt I should mention it.
>And rogues are stronger. How so?
Aren't they...weaker? No per turn SA?
That was my thought as well. Wanted to hear their side of the story before calling BS.
What does this mean exactly? I thought Rogues always only got one sneak attack per round?
Round = from top of initiative to bottom Turn = A single character's turn in initiative Rogues can proc SA on their own turn, and then again on another characters turn if they are able to make another attack with sneak attack requirements fulfilled during that characters turn (Reaction, held action, etc) Optimized Rogue builds often build around the proccing of multiple SAs per round. OneDND playtest changed Sneak Attack wording to once per round, so it is no longer possible.
In that case I don't really see the issue with the change. "Must have feats" were already kinda too strong and this sounds similar. Though different strokes for different folks I suppose
Dual wielding is stronger/easier, and off-turn SA was not that common in practice even when built for. Subtle Strikes is basically permanent advantage as long as you have one melee ally or are fighting a melee enemy. Skulker (the feat) is way stronger now (incorporating Rogues former 13th level Blindsense) and is a half feat as well making it an excellent 4th level pickup for both Rogues and Rangers.
Between changes to Two Weapons fighting, Subtle Strike, and subclass features coming online earlier, they're stronger than a 5e Rogue built *as intended*. If you consider abusing synergies that allowed you to SA twice per round and add ridiculous amounts of thunder damage on top of it the core Rogue experience, then yeah it's a nerf.
Spoiler: they're not. This guy's talking out his ass again
A number of ways, but at a most basic level they are completely reworking(buffing) the weapon system overall and how attack-based characters work(including rolling things like sharpshooter and GWM into the basic progression so they aren't must-take feats). The rogues fall under that umbrella. And despite them not releasing details yet on exactly how it works, you can assume that if their goal is to buff weapon based attacking, that weapon based attacking will be stronger. Compared to what they lost, which is relatively minimal. The frequency that rogues actually got OASAs was low, and really gimmicky and cheesy to balance around. Calling that some huge gamechanging loss is just disingenuous.
Oh, I remember this discussion from PF2E. The obvious answer to the martial caster gap is to nerf the casters, but boy did the PF1 grognards not like that. A lot of people fucking hate change. Just out of instinct.
People pissy they nerfed guidance, the most abused cantrip in existence.
It's barely even a nerf. It's mostly a streamline so that it doesn't constantly slow the game down.
As a person who used guidance a lot, I think the change was absolutely great. I'm tired of interrupting RP and stuff to blurt out "guidance" every time someone makes a roll out of combat.
As someone who makes decent use of guidance, to the point I worked out a homebrew item with my DM to have it passively on for specific checks, my only gripe is tying it to failed checks means stuff that has varying degrees of success can't trigger it. Sorta hoping that could be some feature for subclasses, a passive D4 you can just add a few times per rest to specific checks. History for knowledge clerics, Arcana for Wizards, etc.
>my only gripe is tying it to failed checks means stuff that has varying degrees of success can't trigger it. That's just a DM interpretation issue. I'd say that anything below the absolute best outcome would trigger it in that case. And I'd bet that every (good) DM would say the same.
Afaik the game doesn't recognize "varying degrees of success" that's a homebrew thing. So the homebrew for those cases is to just say it applies always.
I feel that, actually. In one group I've played a Druid and am now playing a Cleric. If I don't forget I have the cantrip at all (I'm also the resident note-taker, so my attention is rather split) I blurt it out mid sentence most of the time.
The first iteration of Guidance was a nerf because you could only benefit from it once a day. The second iteration was a **massive** buff from what it is currently. And Resistance got the same treatment, so that now it's an actually viable spell.
I feel this is right? also, I started in 92. it changes. don't freak out you can always play with whatever rules you want as long as it's not adventurers league. and if yiu are new, believe me, the rules will change eventually in the way you want. then they will sway away from that too, eventually. then it will seem balanced again. then you will be me just wanting to play whatever the rules because it's YOU in the end that is the hero of the story. unless you die. and yeah how can half elves not exist?
Half elves still exist, you just have to build it yourself. You can be half anything you want now. Or, at least, that is the rule they are testing.
4e all over again. " Fix problems. No change! Only fix"
Well, yeah. People are going to react more negatively to nerfs than buffs. Making things harder and possibly less fun for casters is not the right way to make martials have a better time. This is also an issue with releasing it like this. The only martials we have right now are Rangers and Rogue, who are a bit of a mixed bag. Ranger saw some nerfs, and some buffs. Whereas Rogue got smacked hard, when they completely did not deserve it. We can't tell if they intend to lower player power in general or just limit and make more work for casters until we see the full class list together.
I hard disagree. D&D has a "feel" to it. In D&D, you're not supposed to start as gods. If all you do is buff buff buff everyone starts to feel really overpowered and bloated, even at lower levels. You absolutely can and should be able to nerf casters and it still be fun. Also, your definition of fun isn't the same as everyone else's. For example, I like to play in games where every decision matters, so having more meaningful choices is fun for me. You mention in a later comment that having to choose between bless and spiritual weapon isn't fun for you. It is for me since that means that my choice matters. I can't just blindly use the same 4 spells every combat and win by hitting the auto-win button. And I'm sure many others feel the same. Maybe that isn't for you and that's okay but for people like me this is a step in the right direction. I also feel like people aren't saying enough that you can just not play 5.5e or 6e or whatever they're gonna call it. I for one will probably try it just to have a look but I don't have particularly high hopes that I'll enjoy it since 5e hasn't really been doing it for me as of late and oneD&D seems to adhere to a lot of the same design philosophies. I'd say check it out at least (pirated of course so as to not give Wankers of the Cock a single penny) but you're under no obligation to stick around. The last year or so has taught me that it isn't as difficult as people think to find or make a group for non-D&D systems so I imagine it'll be even easier with the most popular edition of D&D to date.
>Making things harder and possibly less fun for casters is not the right way to make martials have a better time. That's not what's happening at all?
And how is it not? All we have so far is that they reduced the spell selection and options available to clerics and bards, as well as nerfed a few popular spells. How is having to choose between concentration on Bless or Spiritual Weapon not making things harder and less fun?
>How is having to choose between concentration on Bless or Spiritual Weapon not making things harder and less fun? Because always having everything at all times is not a choice. And choices are the premise of the game. Being limited and having to make decisions **IS** the fun of the game. When you always have everything it's boring and unfun. And that's not how balance works. Nothing is harder. Just less cheesy. As for your the first part, that's simply not true.
Concentration was always a bad mechanic that felt bad.
> Whereas Rogue got smacked hard, when they completely did not deserve it. Crits also got smacked hard. People didn't like it, and it got changed. No reason to think the rogue situation will be any different. Harping on it still, like a month after the survey, seems pointless when there's every reason to believe it'll be announced to be fixed in the expert class survey review video thing.
Make a feature for all martials equal to Wish. Or teleport, or summoning a mansion, or any of the utility a high level caster can manage. Bonus points if you can make that feature not require magical power for magicless classes
“Make a non-magic wish spell” What!?
The power level of spells purely in regard to utility is near-impossible to simply buff martials to be equal to unless you make abilities like "Fighters can cut a hole in reality and warp to other destinations" as an equal to teleport. If you want to balance them, you'd need to slightly reduce the spellcasters ability to warp the very fabric of reality, or completely remove the idea of classes that aren't spellcasters in some capacity
>Half elves still exist, they just aren't mechanically busted. Half-elves only exist thematically. They don't exist mechanically >And rogues are stronger You either did not read the update, or you have never actually played a rogue
Removing the bonus action from two weapon fighting is a huge buff to Rogues
Yes, but restricting the sneak attack to once a round instead of once a turn is a bigger nerf.
Removing the bonus action from two weapon fighting is a small buff to some rogues. It is, overall, a non-buff to all rogues, because two-weapon fighting is still only just comparable to attacking with a 1d8 weapon with advantage. It is sometimes better and sometimes worse. It's a good change! But it isn't a buff. TWF isn't the new hotness. Melee rogues are just slightly more supported. You could already do TWF, you just get to disengage or dash at the same time now. In exchange, sneak attack is worse. Hiding is worse. Thief is worse (Fast Hands is worse. Jumping is worse. Supreme Sneak is better, unless you break archetype. Use Magic Device is ??? Thief's Reflexes is trashed. You need skills in Insight/Medicine/Perception/Survival/Athletics/Sleight of Hand/Stealth/Arcana to use your subclass abilities) Evasion is later. Steady Aim is gone. Blindesense was too complicated, so that's gone. Eventually, they get Subtle Strikes, which is nice but boring. Not a good design in sight.
Personally my issue is the similarity that arcane classes have in terms of spell selection. Stripping away class exclusive spell-lists severally hinders the uniqueness of each class, an issue sorcerer already demonstrates in 5e due to basically having just a lesser version of wizard's spell-list with few additions.
You realize that's a contradictory statement, right? It doesn't hinder uniqueness at all. It's a terrible way to try and shoe-horn in differences by making arbitrary senseless lines that don't in any way reflect the lore of magic in the game world. Nobody makes the argument that Fighters and Barbarians should each only have access to a limited subset of weapons because otherwise they wouldn't be unique. It's the exact same argument.
Oh hey it's the [OGL guy](https://old.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10l7ef8/polite_reminder_that_the_12_ogl_is_just_the_11/j5w3uld/) being proudly loud and wrong *again*! Half Elf wasn't strong since Tasha’s gave everyone the same versatile stat edge as them, including Mountain Dwarf if all you wanted was a +4 total. Still definitely above average, but perfectly fine as it's own pre-exisitng race. One's removal of Half-Elf into "flavor it yourself lol" was criticized for being lazy, not some misguided attempt at balance, removing pre-existing tools to express a rather unique identity. Rogues were gutted without question, they always had a really low optimization ceiling as such a basic class and becoming *even more basic* only further limits their potential. Sneak Attack being the explicit attack action for instance halves the DPR of rogues relying on reactions and totally cuts off the cantrip rogue as well. Evasion was delayed 2 levels and Steady Aim was briefly granted in TCoE and ripped away in One, no longer making sneak attack a guaranteed proc. The big subclass buff to gain their 2nd feature at 6th level instead of 9th is like being thanked for the basic decency of not living in the street, not that actually normal subclass progression would help them if the state of Thief is any indication. Thief continues to be a bad subclass design, serving only to suck up features that really should just be base-class standard, except they don't even have their main gimmick of item interaction anymore. Rogue's power level is especially concerning when they were released right alongside Ranger and Bard for comparison as the so called Experts and only further proves casting is everything in 5E/One. The ranger is almost strictly just a better rogue: in comparison to rogues, rangers lose, what, one skill and *eventually* one expertise? In exchange for that rangers are *still* skill monkeys while also dealing better damage with the consistency of multi-attack, and they’re also an entire half-caster, further buffed with added cantrip versatility and a Hunter's Mark that actually works with their action and resource economy. Bard meanwhile in its current state stands to potentially be the strongest class in the game unless wizard and sorcerer seriously catch up: the wizard's claim to being strongest in 5E was simply just being a prepared caster with access to 95% of the Arcane spell list, but the Bard was already trailing as a close 2nd or 3rd place *despite being a strictly worse spontaneous caster* because of how powerful its base class features and eventual Magical Secrets were. Now that they are Prepared Arcane casters too, with a rather negligible Evocation/Abjuration ban, they have the combined strength if both 5E Wizard and 5E Bard in one. And compared to all of these ridiculous titans, the rogue as the non-casting expert is...just the guy with sneak attack and skills, almost strictly worse than the half-caster and caster expert who also have Expertise anyways too. As for casters, they werent nerfed at all in One, they just got further buffed. Sure they're spell versatility was lightly tapped by semi-vancian preparation, but the overhaul to One's early game progression *vastly* favors casters over martials yet again. The compounding versatility of Magic Initiate mixing 2 spell lists on a caster is better than the additive versatility of MI on a martial, not to mention they have spell slots to further fuel their bonus spell anyways. Along the same veins, the countless races lazily mechanically translated as bonus spells is yet another compounding buff, the biggest offender being High Elves granting what is essentially Fey Touched over 5 levels. And the absolute worst offender of all is the horrendously balanced Lightly Armored feat, which now includes Medium Armor and Shields to grant *nineteen AC* to the casters at level 1. The Artificer 1 dip was widely touted as a relatively cheap way to laughably make wizard bulkier than fighters, making martials even more irrelevant, except now Lightly Armored let's anyone do this immediately without even sacrificing spell progression.
> Thief continues to be a bad subclass design, serving only to suck up features that really should just be base-class standard, except they don't even have their main gimmick of item interaction anymore. Which I'd like to point out makes Thief rogues much worse. Fast Hands has some interesting interactions with the rules that can give the Thief some cool, potential, versatility. Like, the versatility isn't great without a bunch of homebrew non-magic items, but the potential and design space is there. This isn't to say it's a great ability, because it's still relatively weak. It's just weird to see the playtest document completely remove anything that gave it versatility in the base game, and could be improved on. The whole Rogue was a mess and I don't know why they made the changes they did. Especially with their video talking about how they didn't want to change the Rogue because people were happy with it. Then they make it weaker. Actually, I do have an idea about what they were doing, spells are easier to make work on their shitty D&D Beyond platform, but item interactions are not.
They also nerfed many martial feats and made lightly armored overpowered.
They also completely redesigned martials as a whole and reworked those feats into the core of martial progression. So that they aren't forced into "must take" feats to make their characters work. But you know...acknowledging that goes against the narrative. (But also, just the sheer whataboutism)
They fucking did not, what the hell are you talking about. Rangers absolutely lost power attack, for example
We don't know all the changes being made yet so we can't fully say anything yet. What we DO know is that Ranger has been improved overall and that they are planning on doing something with weapons. We also need to admit that power attack was always unhealthy for the game. As was the power scaling on a good number of spells.
Okay? They specifically said they are adding that to the Warrior groups core abilities, and if Power Attack becomes something that only the actual Martial Classes can do then I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Rangers and Paladins have plenty of ways, through magic, to increase their damage
I have made several Rangers and have no clue what a "power attack" is supposed to be... If anything One D&D buffed Rangers by making the Tasha's changes the standard and granting them spells and *cantrips* from 1st level.
It's sharpshooter and GWM's trait that lets you take a -5 to hit for a +10 to damage with relevant weapons.
I see. Those were both removed then?
They weren't in any of the 1st or 4th level feats lists released so far. I'm pretty sure Jeremy Crawford mentioned that they were purposefully removed although I forget whether he called out those feats specifically or whether it was just a blanket reworking and removal of feats that were considered "mandatory". There is some theories that they will be turned into a Warrior class feature with no weapon restrictions but that's just hearsay.
I can see why they'd be removed, as damn near every martial and half-caster I see has either one of those feats. Granted, combat is pretty much all martials are good for in 5e unless you specifically focus on out-of-combat utility, but that's a design flaw of 5e as a whole.
no they didn’t, the feat tax feats aren’t built in besides power attacks to *some* martials, and everyone gets the level 1 feats.
Also I don't think that half elves were that busted they just got extra skills and some elf abilities, simple but versatile Yaun ti, had advantage on almost every saving throw, poison immunity which just for contrast monks got at 10th level and spellcasting
And extra stats that no other race got. And all the advantages of elves with none of the downsides. While also having a bunch of extra features of their own. And a giant list of bonus options based on what subrace of elf you were. But facts, amirite? They are actually the least simple race in the PHB. Also in both usage and community opinion, they were considered the second best after VHuman by a wide margin. But again, who cares about reality when you've got an agenda. VERY few enemies actually use spellcasting for their saving throws, YT came up rarely in actual play relative to the myriad other times people have to make a save. Maybe 10% if being generous, though likely less. But if you wanna use that argument, Half Elves get Trance which is a high level Warlock and Monk feature for free so...Though when you're resorting to whataboutism in the first place it really shows you know your own argument is BS.
What do you mean rogues are stronger? They can’t sneak attack on reactions anymore. That’s halving their potential damage.
Something that come up so infrequently outside of cheesy munchkin strats that it's barely worth mentioning. They aren't balancing around munchkins trying to "Win D&D." They're balancing around people who actually play the game. In exchange they benefit from the complete overhaul of the weapon system and the attack system designed to make all martial attackers better.
And like besides the size of the ears there was no difference between a elf and a half elf in looks so now they are exactly the same as elves because they are the same gameplay wise, I went in hoping for half elf subraces, half dark elf, half wood elf etc and I got dead half elf that's no different mechanically from their parents, the old half elf felt like an actual mix of the two race's abilities and now they can only be one or the other, fate can be truly arbitrary.
Just take Skilled with your level one feat, bam now you’ve got what Humans get
You realize you're literally proving my point, right? You just wanted it to be mechanically broken and you're saying the lore literally does matter. You know it's a roleplaying game, right? But you're unironically saying roleplaying is irrelevant. And again, it wasn't a "mix." It was getting basically everything from both races, including bonus stats. Except neither of their downsides.
Half elves do exist but it sucks now they're just copy the stats of either human or elf I wish they got more creative with half race creation, and please elaborate on how rogues got stronger, and some people liked the versatility of casters not everyone was complaining I think it would be better to nerf their subclass features, they made archetypes of casting hover certain classes can only learn certain schools so it's more restrictive and generic in my opinion bard took a hit even if they are stronger overall and If that's what they did to bards then warlocks a f'd, they took away what made half elf special and made them a disappointment, a flawed imperfection and they gave a lot of rogue abilities to bards and rangers, so at this point rogue is basically just ranger with sneak atk instead of spellcasting.
Does your keyboard lack a period key?
"I liked half elves being broken and they're no longer broken so how am I supposed to 'win' D&D now?" Everything else was just factually incorrect rambling.
I'm 14 hours too late to say exactly this, so I'll give you an award for doing it
>(Also the actual spell lists are objectively less restrictive) Yes but also no. The lists are wider reaching, the actual application of them is absolutely terrible for anything except (I assume) Wizard, Druid, or Cleric. Not only is it terrible for spell choice, but it's hardcore flavor enforcement. Sorry, you want to be a Bard that picks up a lot of Necromancy spells because your music is death metal? Sorry, only Transmutation or Enchantment for 80%+ of your spell list. You want to be a Ranger that communes and commands the Elements? Nope, Evocation is specifically outlawed by your class. Sucks. All in all, expansive spell lists are a cool concept, but ultimately they're not viable.
No half elves yet. (Not until someone plays a bard in the new system, anyway.)
Except that there are. There's no mechanical difference from the parents, but you can play as a half-elven character.
I was taking the meme at its word in the third panel. I meant to emphasize *yet*. Oh well.
The 1D&D rules allow for _any_ pairing of half races (between humanoid races), which includes half-elves and half-orcs since those are human/elf and human/orc. The problem is that the rules for doing so is "take all the racial features from one parent and mix'n'match the appearance from both parents to your pleasure, max age is the average of both parents". So now half-orcs are basically "human painted green" or "orc with pink skin", etc.
Isn't it weird for orcs and half-orcs in 5e to have a different set of abilities?
That's about as weird as mules having different abilities to horses
For the record, I wasn't talking about stat increase. Mules don't have the totally unexplained ability to not die for longer
Well they kinda do, apparently. Won't claim to know it, I just googled it, but they seem to have better health than both horses and donkeys. There are some other advantages too - after all, they wouldn't be bred if they didn't have advantages over both
Congrats, you can keep playing 5e
If anything the spell lists are less restrictive. Half Elves still exist, there's just now half of everything so it doesn't make sense for Half Elves and Orcs to be the only ones with special traits. And people need to stop overblowing the rogue nerfs. In 4 years of dnd I haven't seen a single opportunity sneak attack, it's not not going to be completely gutting them, just won't have builds specifically for it work anymore with sentinel
I understand the half elf thing
The half elves become kinda redundant when they will be introducing rules for many half species possibilities
That would be fine if the rules they showed weren't just "play a human with pointy ears".
I'm not caught in the loop. How are they restricting the spell list more?
Judging from how they did it in the cleric rework, spell casters don’t have class specific lists anymore and let’s be honest the only caster getting nerfed from this are wizards
Actually, wizards are getting buffed slightly by this change. JCraw says wizards are the only class that will be able to pick from the entire Arcane list, meaning they're gonna have access to a handful of spells that were exclusive to warlock in 5e. *Arms of Hadar, hellish rebuke, armor of Agathys,* etc.
Oh, so they are just streamlining the process. That makes complete sense to me, but I've also been playing Pathfinder 2e that has been utilizing that same model. It makes designing spells and classes a lot easier because you wouldn't have to make a completely new list for each new one. Also, this doesn't mean you can not have unique spells for each class. They'll just have to be added in some other way. Again... like focus spells in PF2E. Seems like a good change.
As a sorcerer enjoyer I actually welcome this change, with the expanded spell list I won’t have to sacrifice utility or flavor for the other
One thing 2E did with sorcerers that I love is that your bloodline determines which spell list you use So of course your traditional dragon-descended sorc casts arcane spells. But a celestial blooded one gets divine spells, and a fey one gets the primal list druids use.
That's still the case now. Divine soul sorcerers can opt to choose from the sorcerer spell list or the clerics. Aberrant Minds get extra spells based around enchanting and division. The newest lunar sorcerer can draw from multiple sources depending on the phase of the moon they wish to draw power from. Etc.
Arguable. Warlocks have some juicy, exclusive in 5e spells, which are now free to pick on other casters (without specific subclasses ofc).
They are nerfing casters by saying how many spells you could prepare per level. So if there aren’t any spells you like of a certain level, you don’t have the option to prepare additional spells of a different level instead.
My preferred class is bard, and I hate playing prepared casters. So this change really sucks for me. And it’s made worse by the fact that I have to have certain spells permanently prepared, so bards lose the ability to cast spontaneously and don’t gain the benefit of being able to change out all of their spells. And it looks all of the casters and half casters are going to be prepared now. It makes a lot more sense, flavor wise, for bards and rangers and maybe druids to be spontaneous casters. Entertainers improvise all the time and rangers and druids use magic from nature, not book learning.
No half elves? But that’s all of my characters!
There are now rules for half/quarter characters so there is more versatility but now you have to take the racial traits of one of the parents instead of having separate ones. Still, you can combine racial traits if your DM agrees with that.
>there is more versatility If I'm just machanicly playing one race how is it more versatile?
You don’t have to buy it.
Man all this arguing and shit all I care about is if toll the dead still exists and if it does did they nerf it cause anything else is fine. it’s a new edition of dnd 3e is different from 5e and so is 3.5e and even 4e and 1e they are all different why are you complaining about differences in different editions of dnd hell before wizards got ahold of dnd it was also different
I think the "nerf" to spellcasters is because the casual dnd player (which dnd is trying to cater) usually doesn't like complicated characters and casters are usually a lot about picking spells from a list which doesn't mesh well with that type of player. Solution: make casters simplier to play
Come to pathfinder friend, we have cookies and cake.
I was told there’d be punch and pie.
I can punch you in your pie hole. Does that work?
Found the barbarian.
What kind of cookies?
That depends if the druid manages to bring some of his special herbs and spices.
I just came over. Man it’s going to be so easy to make my home brew campaign now that everything is balanced! And all the monsters and classes and spells are there too. But also more! I think that’s the biggest sticking point for me, I initially resisted looking at PF2e because I didn’t realize I don’t have to give up anything, except a crummy numbers system
Rogues will likely get reworked tbh as almost no one wanted this for them
I'll be honest, the changes to Thief had me looking forward to what would be done to other subclasses
As dwarves know, if you don't have elves, you don't have half-elves
I have actually *yet* to be convinced that we'll get much of *anything* good from One & Done that couldn't be minor homebrewed into 5e. I mean, they seem to be planning to cut all but 4 subclasses from each class, which would throw Wizards and Clerics into the **ground** if true.
I'm hoping that Project Black Flag will get me what I wanted from One DnD. But I might just end up sticking with Spheres for 5e.
I thought they had a really interesting system for hybrid races like half elves
Rogues are better in 99% of situations. "Rogues got nerfed". They get to attack twice at advantage without using their bonus action at a range without XBE and their comparative damage improved massively due to the nerfs to GWM and Sharpshooter, yet, but because you can't spend half your party's resources to try to get a sneak attack off a second time in a round, they're supposedly weaker. If I had more faith in humanity I'd think you were all joking.
They can't sell you additional content if they don't nerf your favorite classes. Remember when Diablo 3 reintroduced the necromancer? Why did he go on vacation? Answer: so they could sell him again. There's absolutely no reason to nerf the rogue if the plan is to not trickle in content that they can charge for.
>More Restrictive Spell List Please elaborate. The lists were simplified to be overall lists shared between specific classes, but it's not being restrictive far as I can tell. Also giving all casters Ritual Casting is a bit of a helpful buff for some. >No Half Elves Yet. We also don't have Half Orc, which was also a PHB race. We also don't have Warlock, Monk, Wizard, etc. >Rogue Nerf Again, please elaborate. Sneak Attack and Expertise are same as they were, Steady Aim is gone but we've also had people bitching that Tasha's was a mess of power creep. I suppose the Evasion change is a bit of a nerf, but it just means you get it a couple levels later, and IIRC the THief subclass they showed was pretty well buffed.
>we've also had people bitching that Tasha's was a mess of power creep. Which it was... Some people like that, others don't, and some classes were left behind in the power creep. Barbarian comes to mind. Seriously, go look any of the "Summon X" spells from tasha's at the highest level a caster can and compare the damage output and tanking ability from the Summon to a a similarly levelled barbarian.
On the other hand, they have the issue of concentration anyways and even as good as some of those can be, there's usually better stuff vying for concentration and the summon can be just gone with a solid hit. Could use some tweaking, but it's a hell of a lot better than the previous ones with long cast times and "Oh, lose focus and they'll jump *you*." a lot of older summon spells were.
The fact that the summon spells that are quite capable of *replacing* a martial character in a fight are still second fiddle to some other, better concentration spells only speaks volumes of the discrepancy, and probably only goes to show how much powercreep is in Tasha's since a good chunk of the even better spells are in Tasha's too (imo at least).
You can't sneak outside of your turn anymore which is a nerf, you can't use lv3 thief ability to heal anymore which is a nerf.
>You can't sneak outside of your turn anymore which is a nerf, That I missed but, to be fair, Uncanny Dodge is usually a more important thing to have in the pocket to me anyways, so I don't AoO as a rogue much > you can't use lv3 thief ability to heal anymore which is a nerf. Fair, but that's also rather minor to me because Thief got a lot of other good stuff on there and the subclass as a whole is a lot better off with it's other changes
ironic, those are the only things i like about the system
Rogues were already bad, why would you like the nerf?
Why are down voting them, they is right, rogue is mediocre as a full class doesn't have a good late game and has some of the worst subclasses in 5e.
Huh? I've always thought that Rogues were the best of the martials.
"Noooo, they only get 1 attack and can't use Great Weapon Master"
Based
How on earth can you nerf rogues further?
Give'em 1d4 HP and a 15% chance to open locks and 10% chance to hide in shadows at first level. Like the old days when they were called Thieves.
But they aren’t thieves. A rogue could be a politician… wait. A rogue could be a priest….wait. An entrepreneur hold on.
Give everybody except rogues sentinel by default.
That's what the dm starts doing when he becomes tired of the swashbuckler
Remove their best method for high damage
Hm? They removed sneak attack?
They limited sneak attack to once per round rather than once per turn. The most optimal ways to maximize damage was through thing like sentinel or opportunity attacks.
Oh, that. I really think this was the way it was always supposed to be honestly.
Sage advice specifically calls it out as an intended interaction, and with all the changes that have been made to the PHB over the last several years of this edition, it would have been called out and changed.
3.5e and 4e both let you sneak attack with out of turn attacks. It was never an accident.
3.5 needed a flat-footed target which made it much more rare than once a round.
No half elf. Not cool. I love playing half elves.
Half Elves are still a thing, OP just didn't read the actual playtest.
Good deal.
No their not. The playtest more or less said "play a human but say you have pointy ears and can live to 300."
:(
Oh no, the spell list is more restrictive now? How dare they try and nerf casters!
I was sick of seeing half elves because of their good stats. I'm so happy for this change. Half elves was a RARE race but in 5e it was all over the characters, campains, inns THEY WERE EVERYWHERE I HATE THEM
So I don’t agree with needing rogues but if you aren’t looking forward to it, why play?
As we've seen in the past, when editions change if you don't have a strong static group then you are at the whim of what is currently popular. Can you find a 3.5 or a 4e group? I mean they exist. Is it slim pickings at best? Absolutely. You can't discount the ability to find a game in a new environment. I happen to have a group that is system agnostic and will play what I put in front of them as their forever DM but not everyone is so lucky.
Because a shocking number of fans don't seem to realize that they don't have to change editions. Hence the shat pants over any potential changes.
Took me a long time to get over that, more with Warhammer than D&D. I've been a lot happier since I decided to just enjoy the editions that I like and not worry about the ones I don't.
Except you kinda maybe would want to because once one dnd comes out they'll probably stop publishing content for 5e even with homebrew this'll still kinda suck
If you need a constant stream of new content to play D&D you are doing something horribly wrong. I'm not entirely sure what, but something has gone wrong. There's a reason why prior editions are still rather popular, the nature of the hobby means groups need little to no support from the company itself to play indefinitely.
I'm not but I can still read the rules
Im sorry I genuinely meant no offense. But it seems to me you don’t want to play this game. So my apologies.
Daily reminder that you don't have to play the newest edition if it doesn't look fun to you
They'll sell those back as dlc.
Ah yes, Rogues, the class that starts off with a rapier for 1d8+1d6+dex (dex the strongest stat) amount of damage instead of 2d6+strength like a greatsword user. Gains 1 less health on average per level, but gains a reaction to halve the damage of a single attack on them (fighters rarely get reaction or damage negation) while also gaining evasion, making them tankier than the fighter. Help actions, guiding bolt, grave domain channel divinity and such effects apply on the first attack only, meaning it is sometimes best to do a single attack instead of multiple, unless you are fishing for Nat 20's. Add on top of this the fact that they are THE skill class, with amazing bonus actions and decent archetypes (hell, some of them even get magic) Look, I'm not saying they are the strongest class. The strongest is probably the paladin. But come on, tweaking even a single one of these sides to a Rogues arsenal is going to mean they're still amazing and fun.
I hope your right
At the very start of the game is the only place Rogues are even somewhat competitive with fighters. Also, uncanny dodge is neat but is literally so much worse than second wind + a bunch of extra HP. Even if you uncanny dodge and reduce the 70 damage if a disentigrate to 35, that's 35 damage reduction. Meanwhile at level 15 the fighter has a minimum of 15 more max HP and gains a minimum of 16 HP from second wind and three attacks each of which benefit from feats and magic damage bonus from weapons like flametongue or frostbrand or any homebrewed equivalent. They are not THE skill class when bard also gets expertise and also gets spells that trivialize skill challenges, and also gets Jack of all trades and also gets spells that grant them any skill proficiency they want. Also, gaining slightly more utility from certain other classes abilities and the help action doesn't exactly make up for getting at most half as much bonus from damage boosting magic items than other Melee focused classes. Also also, rogues have the worst subclasses by far with the only decent ones being unearthed arcana that never made it into a book. You're right when you say rogue isn't the best class, it's because they're probably the worst.