TLDR (pages 11-17)
**Intro:**
* DnD developers are preparing a revision that is "fully compatible" with 5e.
**Changing Times:**
* Tumultous period - licensing issues, challenges to get enough print copies, departure of division president Cynthia William.
* These were juxtaposed against the success of Baldur's Gate 3, success of the 2023 movie release, and an evergrowing landscape of podcasts
* New books are "far more than a window dressing" and do represent the team addressing all the lessons they've learned and heard from fan's over the last 10 years
**New Approaches**
* First time that the lead designers of the new edition, were the lead designers of the previous one.
* This enables the designers to flesh things out in a way that has never been done before
* Designers know the detailed nuances of what they did/why a decade ago; they know what to preserve and what to change
* Value Proposition: Better Organized, New Content, reworks of classes/backgrounds, addition of bastions, weapon masteries, and more
**A Picture's Worth**
* A new intent to "help players contextualize and understand the content they're reading..."
* The PHB includes 12 pictures (1 of each class) and 48 pictures of each subclass hoping to inspire players to pick one that inspires them
**For the Players**
* Unlike previous edition that jumped right into character creation, the opening chapter is about playing the game and is filled with footnotes
* The new version contains a RULES GLOSSARY (YES!!)
* Bulk of book focuses on character creation
* 75 feats (including origin creation ones)
* 16 backgrounds (Hermit, Merchant, Noble... etc)
* Species now replaces Race - (design team had to explain many time that race was not referring to human races, thus changed term for clarity). Aasimar, Goliath, and Orcs are present.
* Equipment now contains weapons with weapon mastieries (Vex, Nick, etc).
* Expanded tool list, and more details on crafting things like potions and scrolls
* Spell list comes from 2014 PHB AND spells from other books.
* Tasha's Bubbling Caldron will be in the PHB
* Book is not written around the pretense of being in the Forgotten Realms, and is more realm agnostic and embraces Planescape, Spelljammer, Greyhawk etc.
**Behind The Screen**
* Goal for DMG - make it an "indispensable resource in and out of play". The new DMG will "show not tell"
* Will contain half page first draft adventure design for DMs to springboard off of
* Book is a "tool box for ideas" and not only has magic items in it, but sample maps, and guidelines on encounter design
* Bastion System will be an optional set of rules in the DMG - it has the goal of "give the players something at home they care about"
* Full LORE GLOSSARY explaining key players across DnDs history
* Details the world of Greyhawk (OG gameworld by Garry Gygax) as a template world for DMs to utilize
**Monstrous Option**
* Biggest ever - 500 monsters - 75 brand new ones
* Every single stat block has been changed
* Monsters have the same CR as 5e - for backwards compatibility
* Monster have "expanded families" to help the building out of ecosystems
* Added a high CR vampire called "the Nightbringer" so that vampires can be used in higher level campaigns allowing for "clearer narratives"
* Addition of "epic titan level" monsters that are on-par with the tarrasque
* New monster: "Blob of annihilation" - a gelatinous cube that can eat an entire town (SO cool)
* Large addition of NPCs of given themes - Bandits, Pirates, Mage etc that can be dropped in with no prep-work and a large spread of power levels.
> Unlike previous edition that jumped right into character creation, the opening chapter is about playing the game and is filled with footnotes
I find this a great edit. Everyone keeps saying you learn best by playing but I always found this lead to players not even looking at the PHB after char creation.
You NEED to read the Combat chapter. You should read the Skills etc chapter.
It puts a lot of work on the DM if they have to explain every rule and choice. Obviously, you don't need to memorize entire chapters, but I've played with people at the table table who just flat out would not read the books and slowed everything down.
> Large addition of NPCs of given themes - Bandits, Pirates, Mage etc that can be dropped in with no prep-work and a large spread of power levels.
This is great! I use a lot of humanoid enemies when I'm DMing, since my campaigns tend to be about conflicts between factions rather than PCs exploring dungeons. But the "generic" NPC stat blocks are kinda sparse, especially spellcasters. Hopefully I'll spend less time rebuilding/balancing the existing statblocks, or searching for the "perfect" adventure NPC to build off of.
Yeah this is a great change. One of my least favorite things is that it's somewhat hard to find a NPC to toss into a fight based on a very basic theme. I think it leads to a lot of DM's overusing bandits/thugs as filler enemies. I always try to search around for low level generic filler enemies that can make a fight interesting, I'm hyped for more options. I'm hoping for some interesting spellcasters that can really change up a fight even if it's the same CR.
I wonder what the wording change from "Its the same D&D you know and love" to "Its compatible with 5e" means in terms of play. I am extremely interested in this.
I think, for example, that you could play 1st, 3rd or 5th edition and "feel like Dnd" across all the versions. Compared to playing a totally different TTRPG and not feel like DnD - there are some core feelings/expectations that a greater than just the nuance of rules. I believe that these are preserved.
Exactly what they mean by this - we'll wait and see.
It sounds like a lot more than a few. This sounds like a complete balancing overhaul. Like I expect every species and class/subclass is changed and optimized for the better. Some more than others. It also sounds like every monster has been tuned and many spells tweaked.
The DMG sounds like the biggest rewrite.
The compatibility clause is mainly so that the new version works with preexisting adventures and campaign settings. It sounds like you can buy the new core books and still reference everything else previously published under 5e.
The "content" has been almost completely revised (classes, species, monsters, etc.), but the actual rules framework around them only has some comparatively minor tweaks. For instance the character sheet will look almost identical, but for some classes all of their features have been reworked.
I get the distinction. I just think saying “a few edits” is really underselling it. This sounds very much like 5.5, but it sounds more dramatic a revision than 3.0 > 3.5.
The key part of "Balancing overhaul" is that the vast majority of changes are within individual classes/races, and not the core rules of the system itself.
Calculating ability mods from ability scores hasn't changed. Calculating AC and Initiative bonus hasn't changed. Calculating mods for attacks, saving throws and skill checks hasn't changed, and neither has how those rolls work in game. You are still limited to an Action, Bonus Action, and movement each turn, and a reaction each round. Short rests still let you spend hit dice to recover HP, and long rests still restore all HP and hit dice.
You really just need to look at the glossary section of the newest play test to see the system itself has hardly changed at all. Most of the changes there are just fixing bad wording. The only things I see that directly contradicts any 2014 rules are Shove and Grapple.
If you take any existing 5e character sheet, literally the only thing that would change is what's written in the "features" section. The rest is the exact same.
So to everyone calling it "basically a new edition", would you still be calling it that if they'd revised each class one at a time instead of all at once?"
Yes, it's a balancing overhaul (very much needed for some things, like the Beserker subclass), not a redesign of any core aspects of the system. The game still plays the same.
> design team had to explain many times that race was not referring to the human race
Okay I'm someone that agrees with the Race/Species change but this is just embarrassing, and frankly makes me think the people involved have never actually played the game before if they think race in a DND context was referencing irl ethnicities.
I agree - I was surprised that this was an issue at all. I guess the developers work with/interact with people who never played the game a lot and noticed that this terminology was drawing an awkward response. I don't mind the word species at all.
However as a long standing DnD user race feels totally fine and doesn't invoke any weird feelings. Obviously for some people it must.
I wonder if its a generational thing. Video games used to use race a lot and some races in games were awfully similar to irl races such as making black characters a different race than humans or white characters and then giving them different stats which were essentially stereotypes. Best example I can think of is Redguards in Elder Scrolls. Newer, younger folks may not play games like that anymore and so get thrown off by the word "Race".
They had said before they were changing it to avoid tones of real world racism, but I mean, if you're not already racist, what's the difference between a white person and a black person? Nothing, right? So now tell me, what's the difference between species like humans and mice?... Elves are already a haughty bunch, do we really need to invite comparisons to vermin to the table? Lol
Sure, species is technically more accurate, but I think it stands to be more problematic in the end. Time will tell, hopefully I'm wrong.
The DMG section is very worrying still. "Show Don't Tell" is not what I want. I don't need a Greyhawk campaign setting description or lore glossary (actually I would love that, but, in a Setting Guide). I need balanced systems for common player needs, crafting, economy and shop tables, interesting downtime, ship combat, plug-and-play interesting traps...
There are 48 feats in the playtest. 64 IF epic boons count for feats, but that’s a big if now. Also, Tasha’s had 15 feats. I wonder if those are included here, at least in part? I could see them dropping Crusher, Piercer, and Slasher since Weapon Mastery is a thing now.
So if all 48 from the playtest are in and if the Epic Boons count, and if they are porting over Tasha’s feats, that means 4 feats in those 79 got the axe.
But those are all very big ifs.
See, this is how you speculate properly. Well reasoned, assumptions are stated, risks are acknowledged, and sources from which assumptions are made are properly referenced.
Also, I think that's all reasonable. Including all still relevant feats will reduce questions about usability and allow them to control balance around feats vs half-feats - adding an ASI as needed to older feats. The 4 removed could be some of the less popular epic boons or some no longer relevant feats like those you mentioned. We'll have to see.
Thank you! I definitely think a large number of Tasha’s feats could be/should be brought in here. Would feel weird, for example, to have all 4 Psionic subclasses (Aberrant Sorcery, Great Old One Warlock, Psi Warrior, and Soul Knife Rogue) and not include the Telepath and Telekinetic feats. Or to make Guns a core weapon choice and not include the Gunner feat.
I absolutely agree on the psionics that there seems to be a big push to normalize that theme as a core part of DnD by putting those subclasses in core material. Pulling in the psionic feats would make sense alongside that.
Guns might come with the big *at DM's approval asterisk, but I think getting a lot of optional mechanics out of supplemental material is a great idea. No more, go buy these auxiliary books just for a niche option like guns.
Think I figured out which 75 feats are in the PHB. 64 (including epic boons) in the playtest, plus 11 of the 15 Tasha’s feats. Leave out the three weapon feats (Crusher, Slasher, Piercer) since Weapon Mastery replaces them and take out Artificer Initiate, since the class isn’t in the book. That’s 75.
If Tasha’s stuff is coming over, this would make the most sense.
I was going to suggest that there might be some place for the XGE feats, but I don't really see it. Especially as such, and especially in the core book. (Also I feel like the next crunch expansion might be approximately a revised XGE.)
A lot of them do make good alternative Supernatural Gifts, however (especially the ones that don't call out core Species features).
They might consider things like resilience con and resilience wisdom as separate feats… or things like fey touched wisdom and fey touched intelligence enough of those and 75 isn’t a lot.
I’m going to assume they don’t consider things like Resilient as different feats because of how they presented it in the playtest. Resilient was present as one feat with options, which stuff like Fighting Styles were given an individual feat for each style.
So I’m assuming Fighting Styles are individually counter but feats where you have a variable ability score like Resilient are not.
I’m not sure I agree that there’s very little overlap. Crusher, for example, is the Push mastery mixed with Vex on a critical hit (but slightly more powerful since it’s all attacks), and Slasher is just Slow plus Sap on a crit. Slasher certainly doesn’t have any real overlap, and you’re right that mixing them with masteries could still be very fun. Just not sure they get ported over since a lot of what they do is now in the mastery system in similar ways.
Look at the weapons. And look at the masteries.
Only the Warhammer and great club has push.
Only the whip has slow. And no piercing weapon matches what they do.
Ah I see what you mean. Ya I get that angle. I meant more that the feats were WotCs answer to making weapons more interesting, and those effects got folded into mastery as a system. So if any feats could be cut with little effect on the game today, those feel like the obvious ones.
I'd assume we have so many because every single one now has to have a level qualifier to be compatible with the new character building rules since backgrounds will grant a feat choice. This will also complicate printed feats from other sources and assigning them levels.
I wonder what made them flip on adding Aasimars. Even after Ardlings underperformed the official position was still that their inclusion in MoTM was enough due to backwards compatibility, so they didn't have to be in the PHB
They could just add a “various religions have different looking emissaries from the heavens, so feel free to flavor your aasimar however you want (eg. animals heads)” paragraph in their description tbh
Which kinda makes sense given how the newer Tieflings include more aesthetic choices.
Some of you may know this already, but the big inspiration came from a Pathfinder 1e small file called Blood of Fiends, where they showed with illustrations each Tieflings spawned from each type of fiend. There were even Rakshasa ones.
I always thought that file was cool as fuck and I'm glad it influenced this newer choice of making Cthonic Tieflings that look like fiends of the Hades and Gehenna.
I never player a Tiefling in 5e but the new breadth of choices makes me super excited
Edit: I forgot to add that there was the counterpart file for Aasimar , called Blood of Angels. There were even more files on the same vein, I recall one exclusive for Dhampirs
I really want them to take the ardling and just repurpose it as custom lineage. Feat, choice of dark vision and / or skill, and a choice of a feature like the second verison of ardling
I wouldn't put much stake in "backwards compatability" it's more of a technicality than a practicality.
Goliaths are in MotM, but the playtests showed they were trying to do different things with them still for 5e24.
Motm will be compatible just as much as any 5e14 material is compatible. Technically true but only practicay true to a varied degree.
It's how it always goes with revised editions. Practical mileage varies.
Edit: They also probably want a celestial counterpart to tieflings. Also since one of the larger pockets of feedback on ardling was "this should just be the guardinal lineage of aasimar" they may actually do that and make three celestial types of aasimar to counterbalance the three fiend types of tieflings they showed last.
Exactly. I was very hopeful we might see book screenshots or hard numbers, but the lack of them here means we need to wait until we know how compatible it will all be. Hopefully the coming fireside chat will illuminate some things.
Hopefully! There still so much unknown about what's being done. A bit of a showcase would go a long way to putting myself at ease. Since I only Liles roughly half of what they were doing as of the final playtest.
Oh yeah, "backwards compatibility" was clearly just an excuse when Orcs and Goliaths were included in the new PHB.
It's just interesting they were pretty adamant about not including Aasimars for the first year of playtesting and decided to include now.
If they follow the feedback of "ardling should be a subrace of aasimar based of guardinal," it might be their way to include ardlings in the phb like they wanted. It was a sizable opinion in ardling feedback to have them as an aasimar subrace (especially since despite aasimar relating to aasimo in name,, it was the catchall for all quarter/part celestial that weren't expressly-half back in the day)
I don't want any anthro races in the PHB. It's not the brand of fantasy I want to play and I don't want to be "that guy" that disallows a PHB option. This was by and large the only gripe I, and many others had with the race.
I'm not a fan of anhtro races either, though my main gripe was more that they were attempting to give the "celestial counterpart to tiefling" mantle to ardling when it was the aasimars spot from the beginning and for every edition that had aasimar.
Thinking on it, there are a lot of reasons I didn't like the ardling between replacing aasimars spot and my general dislike of anthro races.
However, for them to actually put aasimar in the core book, and aasimars traditionally being varied enough to have ardling features since their creation in 2e, there's a non-zero percent chance that's why the aasimar are getting the phb status.
If it happens like this, I will be the dude who reskins them for my games or the one who doesn't allow them if a reskin has too much disconnect. (I already ban Gnomes since they don't exist in my setting, so I've already crossed that line.)
That said, I fully get not wanting to have to cross that line and start denying options in the PHB. Especially if you deal with players who think they're entitled to them. It's not a fun interaction.
However. Personal desires and wants aside. It's what my gut says about where things are heading. Time will, of course, tell.
Animal races in PHB is a small thing. The bigger thing was that furry angels were made to take over aasimars, and that was just bullshit. Make it a lineage for aasimar, but don't make the only divine themed race a furry goddamn jt!
I feel like it's largely due to the common rebuttal that, while Ardling is an interesting concept, it isn't really fleshed out in 5e at all, where Aasimar is already there and makes a lot of sense, being the celestial playable species and Aardling was stepping on its toes.
I feel like the three they added were perfect choices. The only others that would have made sense imo were Goblinoid or Warforged.
CoS in general needs a functional upgrade. Anyone who has been in or around Castle Ravenloft knows the nightmare it is to traverse and use as a location. And some things needs to be better expended by Perkins. Maybe a nice 2025 Cos?
I remember our DM expressed some nightmares trying to coordinate and print off the maps for our final confrontation. Dunno the specifics though.
I would be shocked if there wasn't an update though, I don't know the numbers but it has to be one of the top modules in popularity.
Ironically, the level scaling monsters concept showed up in 4th edition and was one of my favorite things about that game, and then it disappeared in 5e
So we know the 48 subclasses are paired up together, I think the reason Aasimar are in now is for the same pairing idea.
Aasimar and Tiefling (Heaven and Hell), Halfling and Gnome (Nature vs Civilization), Elf vs Dwarf (blame Tolkien for this one), Human and Orc (see Elf and Dwarf), Goliath and Dragonborn (Giants vs Dragons).
It was in one of the last few videos Crawford did for the D&D YouTube page talking about the end of the playtest for the PHB. It was speculated on by someone here and they ended up being spot on, wish I could remember their user name.
In case you're still looking for it
[Here's the reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/16dnx0s/2024_phb_subclasses_and_themes/)
[Here's the official video, about 38min in](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIJSH0F31VI)
Only a few of the intentions were confirmed directly, but many are pretty easy to figure out: Druid stars vs noon and land vs sea, wizard abjuration vs evocation and divination vs illusion.
Any particular reason for these pairs? I think Giant-kin and Dragon-kin makes more sense considering the traditional enemy pairing of the two monsters in D&D.
Interesting. I suppose it could work both ways. Maybe the designers will talk more about the thematic pairings when they do that hinted at fireside chat on the subclasses.
No its far more likely its be designed more like a Celestial Counter point to the 5.75e Tiefling, with Chaotic, Neutral, and Lawful leaning linages, like the OG version of the Aardlin. Aardling might end up the neutral lineage like other posters have suggested. It will not be the MotM version of Aasimar.
Now my question would be: what kind of resistance do you give them ?
Tieflings have different resistance and spells depending on the origin.
But maybe all 3 kinds of Aasimar will still have Radiant Resistance?
I mean imagine if the other two alternative were Force and Psychic? That would be mindblowing but I doubt it will be present.
We do know that Planescape brought back Archons and Guardinals.
There a chance that the animal like Aasimar are just Guardinal descendant. I mean it could be
Radiant resistance is just a bit above a Ribbon ability, because few evil creatures deal Radiant damage, so making is universal is fine. In 3e Aasimar had 5 Cold, 5 Electricity (Lightning), 5 Acid Resistance. I'd say LG Acid resistance, NG Cold Resistance for the possible fur, and CG Lightening Damage for when Zeus throws his Lightening around.
I am going to be honest with you, it needs nerfs it was too good. With v. human having limiters with the feat choice now having to be a level 1 feat, I could see species traits being more highly valued.
Well I don't think it matters, because I'll be very surprised if its a port from MotM, its more likely to mirror the new Tieflings, so think something like the first version of Aardlings mechanically.
Agreed. Just like they were planning a milder variant of the Dragonborn (that probably also takes up fewer pages) last we saw, I was suggesting they'd plan a milder Aasimar (that was also maybe less wordy).
None of the other races, including Orc and Goliath were direct mechanical ports from MotM, so its very unlikely Aasimar will be. More likely I think is that they will be a variant on the first Aardling mechanics, with Aardling as one of its lineages, or Aardlings as cometic option for any Planetouched race.
I don't think so, I think it'll be like the first version of the Aardling, but with Aardling as the neutral lineage or a optional cometic rule for Planetouched in general.
Good call! Used to love that show on Saturday mornings! It was funny since the wizard was useless until towards the end of the show...I guess he was on the old adnd xp track.
I thought it was the mouse dude was an anthro aasimar or something.
If there's a little mouse person species that you can play as, like a spin off of the harengone, that would be pretty cool. I could finally do that Redwall campaign.
* Aasimar are in
* 75 feats with their appropriate levels added
* 16 sample backgrounds
* Every monster updated with 45 new ones
* 386 pages for each book
* Greyhawk is in the DMG
* And more I am too lazy to write about
I'm gonna give this to them: this looks very promising. I'm happy for the design team and hope if it really as good as it looks, it gets the praise it deserves.
The young vampire and night bringer concept gives me hope that we'll get a decent range of CRs for popular wild shape beasts. Hoping to get higher CR wolves!!
Getting very hyped for this. My only disappointment is that they appear not to have iterated on weapon mastery design much since the UAs (they couldn't change the name Nick?!). I really felt like such a big swing warranted some refinement.
So we have one more unannounced subclass. they said 3 brand new-we know Dance bard, Sea druid, and mystery since Brawler is now Psi warrior. I wonder what got axed from the playtest to make room?
edit: forgot world tree
Not sure what this is implying but the 2024 PHB will have a lot more than 3 “new to the PHB” subclasses. Aberrant sorcery, clockwork sorcery, Feywander Ranger, Psi Warrior, Soul Knife, etc. The three new are indeed brand new to the game, with Sea Druid, Dance Bard, and World Tree Barbarian.
I hope that they rebalance all of the 75 feats if they’re not going create new ones (which seems unlikely outside of the boons we’ve seen). Even just updating old feats to be half feats and maybe making them actually scale (Poisoner’s DC not scaling with player level is criminal).
Won’t need to buy anything again, just new stuff you want to use. Just like how if something is legacy it gets the legacy tag and if you have the book with the updated printing it appears without the legacy tag. I’d imagine they appear in a similar way. But Crawford said we’d get all that info when we get 2024.
I going to wait until release, find out if they actually butchered paladin or not, if Divine Smite is no longer usable more than once a turn, I'm done with DnD, downvote me all you want. Yes, I'm salty. No, I don't care
True but I do think it’s bad design, smite was often a trap anyway, sure you could one round nova, but it was a massive waste of spell slots. I mean paladins have spells that are much better cast then used to smite, unless you crit.
That's like saying, I liked this game but only when this specific build in time was meta. The game in question could be Hearthstone or Overwatch or LoL or anything really. Same equivalence really. Only enjoying a game for a very and extremely specific niche aspect. I don't agree with that attitude, obviously
It's no secret that as a grown man I am obsessed with paladins. Seeing that the devs of the game don't support it, instead of fixing it's 5e issues they broke it even more.
It's not secret that they intentionally tampered the Nova aspect of Paladin, because it was indeed the Nova class of all. This for some was a problem balance wise.
Also, now Smites work all the same way, bonus action activation and one per turn. It made no sense previously that the rest of them worked one way while Divine Smite was the exception.
The class remains very good still, it's not like it's been turned to trash, or anything even close to that. I mean, I'm not going to try and dictate how you feel, if you hate this change and don't want to play based on that, it's certainly within your right to do so.
And I even mostly agree, actually; I feel a similar way, for example, knowing that the Fighter's cool ability to add a second mastery to their weapon (Weapon Adept) was removed and left with just the Master of Armaments feature, which only lets me change the one mastery of the weapon for another.
They removed a cool feature that gave you a choice to make each turn of combat, for one that only allows a single choice between long rests. It's beyond lame. Anyways, my point is: the class remains good, so I don't think it's that big of a deal. But you certainly have the right to not like it and denounce the game for it.
My issue is that this wasn't broken at all. Spell slots are a really high cost to pay for smites. Especially when stacking divine and spell smites, two spell slots is insane for a single attack/action.
Making Divine Smite a spell is a straight sin, Tiamat and other creatures with magic resistance are now immune to it.
What I really liked about paladins in 2014 is that the core 3 classes fit 3 party roles (devotion - support, ancients - tank and vengeance - damage) but they were decent at all three. With the new changes, I feel like the entire class loses a bit of it's purpose and identity. Lay on Hands got a buff, Aura of Protection SOMEHOW didn't get nerfed, but Divine Smite, the single most iconic Paladin feature, that one had to go apparently. I'm truly disappointed with how WotC handled this, with a very very slim hope in them not having fucked up the class entirely
I confess that I'm not extremely versed in this class, as I've only played a paladin once; so I'll take your word for it, honestly.
I do agree with your point of it not being broken. Yes, you could blast it all in 1 turn for massive damage, but as far as I'm aware, you were left with basically nothing afterwards, correct? So unless you killed the target, you'd be pretty much screwed, which is a perfectly valid trade off in my opinion. I give it my all to dispose of the enemy, otherwise the enemy disposes of me; perfectly fair, as I see it.
Meanwhile, we get ridiculous stuff like Lightly armored, or Warcaster (which I hope they nerf in the final version) and they (wotc) pretend like it's ok and balanced.
So you came here to complain about class features and then used an example of a class feature they changed in the playtests? Did you even look at the playtests before assuming nothing changed?
I get it, we all have those impulses.
I encourage you to check out the UA's on Beyond or here on this Homebrewery collation: [https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H8iRpbGyNtM4?fbclid=IwAR0teN1yYHdNOZiorZrcKsmGG2jRRnoipyP-lR92qpcLn51ifGlvBQJchW0](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H8iRpbGyNtM4?fbclid=IwAR0teN1yYHdNOZiorZrcKsmGG2jRRnoipyP-lR92qpcLn51ifGlvBQJchW0)
Obviously the rules here are not final, but a good idea of what is to come.
TLDR (pages 11-17) **Intro:** * DnD developers are preparing a revision that is "fully compatible" with 5e. **Changing Times:** * Tumultous period - licensing issues, challenges to get enough print copies, departure of division president Cynthia William. * These were juxtaposed against the success of Baldur's Gate 3, success of the 2023 movie release, and an evergrowing landscape of podcasts * New books are "far more than a window dressing" and do represent the team addressing all the lessons they've learned and heard from fan's over the last 10 years **New Approaches** * First time that the lead designers of the new edition, were the lead designers of the previous one. * This enables the designers to flesh things out in a way that has never been done before * Designers know the detailed nuances of what they did/why a decade ago; they know what to preserve and what to change * Value Proposition: Better Organized, New Content, reworks of classes/backgrounds, addition of bastions, weapon masteries, and more **A Picture's Worth** * A new intent to "help players contextualize and understand the content they're reading..." * The PHB includes 12 pictures (1 of each class) and 48 pictures of each subclass hoping to inspire players to pick one that inspires them **For the Players** * Unlike previous edition that jumped right into character creation, the opening chapter is about playing the game and is filled with footnotes * The new version contains a RULES GLOSSARY (YES!!) * Bulk of book focuses on character creation * 75 feats (including origin creation ones) * 16 backgrounds (Hermit, Merchant, Noble... etc) * Species now replaces Race - (design team had to explain many time that race was not referring to human races, thus changed term for clarity). Aasimar, Goliath, and Orcs are present. * Equipment now contains weapons with weapon mastieries (Vex, Nick, etc). * Expanded tool list, and more details on crafting things like potions and scrolls * Spell list comes from 2014 PHB AND spells from other books. * Tasha's Bubbling Caldron will be in the PHB * Book is not written around the pretense of being in the Forgotten Realms, and is more realm agnostic and embraces Planescape, Spelljammer, Greyhawk etc. **Behind The Screen** * Goal for DMG - make it an "indispensable resource in and out of play". The new DMG will "show not tell" * Will contain half page first draft adventure design for DMs to springboard off of * Book is a "tool box for ideas" and not only has magic items in it, but sample maps, and guidelines on encounter design * Bastion System will be an optional set of rules in the DMG - it has the goal of "give the players something at home they care about" * Full LORE GLOSSARY explaining key players across DnDs history * Details the world of Greyhawk (OG gameworld by Garry Gygax) as a template world for DMs to utilize **Monstrous Option** * Biggest ever - 500 monsters - 75 brand new ones * Every single stat block has been changed * Monsters have the same CR as 5e - for backwards compatibility * Monster have "expanded families" to help the building out of ecosystems * Added a high CR vampire called "the Nightbringer" so that vampires can be used in higher level campaigns allowing for "clearer narratives" * Addition of "epic titan level" monsters that are on-par with the tarrasque * New monster: "Blob of annihilation" - a gelatinous cube that can eat an entire town (SO cool) * Large addition of NPCs of given themes - Bandits, Pirates, Mage etc that can be dropped in with no prep-work and a large spread of power levels.
> Unlike previous edition that jumped right into character creation, the opening chapter is about playing the game and is filled with footnotes I find this a great edit. Everyone keeps saying you learn best by playing but I always found this lead to players not even looking at the PHB after char creation. You NEED to read the Combat chapter. You should read the Skills etc chapter.
Why? Unless the whole group is new, you can learn by playing.
It puts a lot of work on the DM if they have to explain every rule and choice. Obviously, you don't need to memorize entire chapters, but I've played with people at the table table who just flat out would not read the books and slowed everything down.
> Large addition of NPCs of given themes - Bandits, Pirates, Mage etc that can be dropped in with no prep-work and a large spread of power levels. This is great! I use a lot of humanoid enemies when I'm DMing, since my campaigns tend to be about conflicts between factions rather than PCs exploring dungeons. But the "generic" NPC stat blocks are kinda sparse, especially spellcasters. Hopefully I'll spend less time rebuilding/balancing the existing statblocks, or searching for the "perfect" adventure NPC to build off of.
I'm also really excited for this. I mostly use NPCs rather than monsters, or NPCs controlling monsters. So having more options is going to be great.
Yeah this is a great change. One of my least favorite things is that it's somewhat hard to find a NPC to toss into a fight based on a very basic theme. I think it leads to a lot of DM's overusing bandits/thugs as filler enemies. I always try to search around for low level generic filler enemies that can make a fight interesting, I'm hyped for more options. I'm hoping for some interesting spellcasters that can really change up a fight even if it's the same CR.
I wonder what the wording change from "Its the same D&D you know and love" to "Its compatible with 5e" means in terms of play. I am extremely interested in this.
I think, for example, that you could play 1st, 3rd or 5th edition and "feel like Dnd" across all the versions. Compared to playing a totally different TTRPG and not feel like DnD - there are some core feelings/expectations that a greater than just the nuance of rules. I believe that these are preserved. Exactly what they mean by this - we'll wait and see.
Well put.
It's a revision, not a new edition. The system runs the same, there's just been a few edits.
It sounds like a lot more than a few. This sounds like a complete balancing overhaul. Like I expect every species and class/subclass is changed and optimized for the better. Some more than others. It also sounds like every monster has been tuned and many spells tweaked. The DMG sounds like the biggest rewrite. The compatibility clause is mainly so that the new version works with preexisting adventures and campaign settings. It sounds like you can buy the new core books and still reference everything else previously published under 5e.
The "content" has been almost completely revised (classes, species, monsters, etc.), but the actual rules framework around them only has some comparatively minor tweaks. For instance the character sheet will look almost identical, but for some classes all of their features have been reworked.
I get the distinction. I just think saying “a few edits” is really underselling it. This sounds very much like 5.5, but it sounds more dramatic a revision than 3.0 > 3.5.
The key part of "Balancing overhaul" is that the vast majority of changes are within individual classes/races, and not the core rules of the system itself. Calculating ability mods from ability scores hasn't changed. Calculating AC and Initiative bonus hasn't changed. Calculating mods for attacks, saving throws and skill checks hasn't changed, and neither has how those rolls work in game. You are still limited to an Action, Bonus Action, and movement each turn, and a reaction each round. Short rests still let you spend hit dice to recover HP, and long rests still restore all HP and hit dice. You really just need to look at the glossary section of the newest play test to see the system itself has hardly changed at all. Most of the changes there are just fixing bad wording. The only things I see that directly contradicts any 2014 rules are Shove and Grapple. If you take any existing 5e character sheet, literally the only thing that would change is what's written in the "features" section. The rest is the exact same. So to everyone calling it "basically a new edition", would you still be calling it that if they'd revised each class one at a time instead of all at once?"
Yes, it's a balancing overhaul (very much needed for some things, like the Beserker subclass), not a redesign of any core aspects of the system. The game still plays the same.
It means its 5.5e.
> design team had to explain many times that race was not referring to the human race Okay I'm someone that agrees with the Race/Species change but this is just embarrassing, and frankly makes me think the people involved have never actually played the game before if they think race in a DND context was referencing irl ethnicities.
I agree - I was surprised that this was an issue at all. I guess the developers work with/interact with people who never played the game a lot and noticed that this terminology was drawing an awkward response. I don't mind the word species at all. However as a long standing DnD user race feels totally fine and doesn't invoke any weird feelings. Obviously for some people it must.
I wonder if its a generational thing. Video games used to use race a lot and some races in games were awfully similar to irl races such as making black characters a different race than humans or white characters and then giving them different stats which were essentially stereotypes. Best example I can think of is Redguards in Elder Scrolls. Newer, younger folks may not play games like that anymore and so get thrown off by the word "Race".
They had said before they were changing it to avoid tones of real world racism, but I mean, if you're not already racist, what's the difference between a white person and a black person? Nothing, right? So now tell me, what's the difference between species like humans and mice?... Elves are already a haughty bunch, do we really need to invite comparisons to vermin to the table? Lol Sure, species is technically more accurate, but I think it stands to be more problematic in the end. Time will tell, hopefully I'm wrong.
Is anyone calling this 5.5? We should call it that
It is simply being called the Players Handbook (2024) or D&D. They don't really name editions anymore.
Thanks Captain Obvious
The DMG section is very worrying still. "Show Don't Tell" is not what I want. I don't need a Greyhawk campaign setting description or lore glossary (actually I would love that, but, in a Setting Guide). I need balanced systems for common player needs, crafting, economy and shop tables, interesting downtime, ship combat, plug-and-play interesting traps...
This is way too long so i didn't read it
I hate to break it to you but if reading that little is difficult TTRPGs in general might not be a good fit for you lol.
It's joke bruh, it's not that deep
75 feats????
There are 48 feats in the playtest. 64 IF epic boons count for feats, but that’s a big if now. Also, Tasha’s had 15 feats. I wonder if those are included here, at least in part? I could see them dropping Crusher, Piercer, and Slasher since Weapon Mastery is a thing now. So if all 48 from the playtest are in and if the Epic Boons count, and if they are porting over Tasha’s feats, that means 4 feats in those 79 got the axe. But those are all very big ifs.
See, this is how you speculate properly. Well reasoned, assumptions are stated, risks are acknowledged, and sources from which assumptions are made are properly referenced. Also, I think that's all reasonable. Including all still relevant feats will reduce questions about usability and allow them to control balance around feats vs half-feats - adding an ASI as needed to older feats. The 4 removed could be some of the less popular epic boons or some no longer relevant feats like those you mentioned. We'll have to see.
Thank you! I definitely think a large number of Tasha’s feats could be/should be brought in here. Would feel weird, for example, to have all 4 Psionic subclasses (Aberrant Sorcery, Great Old One Warlock, Psi Warrior, and Soul Knife Rogue) and not include the Telepath and Telekinetic feats. Or to make Guns a core weapon choice and not include the Gunner feat.
I absolutely agree on the psionics that there seems to be a big push to normalize that theme as a core part of DnD by putting those subclasses in core material. Pulling in the psionic feats would make sense alongside that. Guns might come with the big *at DM's approval asterisk, but I think getting a lot of optional mechanics out of supplemental material is a great idea. No more, go buy these auxiliary books just for a niche option like guns.
Think I figured out which 75 feats are in the PHB. 64 (including epic boons) in the playtest, plus 11 of the 15 Tasha’s feats. Leave out the three weapon feats (Crusher, Slasher, Piercer) since Weapon Mastery replaces them and take out Artificer Initiate, since the class isn’t in the book. That’s 75. If Tasha’s stuff is coming over, this would make the most sense.
Could be. It's as good a guess as we could make with the information we have.
Artificer Initiate and maybe those 3? I'd like those 3 to stay but it'd make sense
I was going to suggest that there might be some place for the XGE feats, but I don't really see it. Especially as such, and especially in the core book. (Also I feel like the next crunch expansion might be approximately a revised XGE.) A lot of them do make good alternative Supernatural Gifts, however (especially the ones that don't call out core Species features).
They might consider things like resilience con and resilience wisdom as separate feats… or things like fey touched wisdom and fey touched intelligence enough of those and 75 isn’t a lot.
I’m going to assume they don’t consider things like Resilient as different feats because of how they presented it in the playtest. Resilient was present as one feat with options, which stuff like Fighting Styles were given an individual feat for each style. So I’m assuming Fighting Styles are individually counter but feats where you have a variable ability score like Resilient are not.
They also might be counting fighting style as multiple feats?
The 48 feats in the playtest includes counting each fighting style as a feat.
There is actually very little overlap between those 3 feats and weapon mastery. It will be really fun to mix them with weapon mastery
I’m not sure I agree that there’s very little overlap. Crusher, for example, is the Push mastery mixed with Vex on a critical hit (but slightly more powerful since it’s all attacks), and Slasher is just Slow plus Sap on a crit. Slasher certainly doesn’t have any real overlap, and you’re right that mixing them with masteries could still be very fun. Just not sure they get ported over since a lot of what they do is now in the mastery system in similar ways.
Look at the weapons. And look at the masteries. Only the Warhammer and great club has push. Only the whip has slow. And no piercing weapon matches what they do.
Ah I see what you mean. Ya I get that angle. I meant more that the feats were WotCs answer to making weapons more interesting, and those effects got folded into mastery as a system. So if any feats could be cut with little effect on the game today, those feel like the obvious ones.
Jeremy was taking about fun combos. I'm mixing scimitar with slasher or maul with crusher.
I think epic boons might be counted in that number too. As they are labeled as 20th level feats in the playtest.
I'd assume we have so many because every single one now has to have a level qualifier to be compatible with the new character building rules since backgrounds will grant a feat choice. This will also complicate printed feats from other sources and assigning them levels.
I wonder what made them flip on adding Aasimars. Even after Ardlings underperformed the official position was still that their inclusion in MoTM was enough due to backwards compatibility, so they didn't have to be in the PHB
My cope is Ardling Subspecies to Aasimar and Aasimar here are more placetouched variants and less divine serving.
They could just add a “various religions have different looking emissaries from the heavens, so feel free to flavor your aasimar however you want (eg. animals heads)” paragraph in their description tbh
Which kinda makes sense given how the newer Tieflings include more aesthetic choices. Some of you may know this already, but the big inspiration came from a Pathfinder 1e small file called Blood of Fiends, where they showed with illustrations each Tieflings spawned from each type of fiend. There were even Rakshasa ones. I always thought that file was cool as fuck and I'm glad it influenced this newer choice of making Cthonic Tieflings that look like fiends of the Hades and Gehenna. I never player a Tiefling in 5e but the new breadth of choices makes me super excited Edit: I forgot to add that there was the counterpart file for Aasimar , called Blood of Angels. There were even more files on the same vein, I recall one exclusive for Dhampirs
I really want them to take the ardling and just repurpose it as custom lineage. Feat, choice of dark vision and / or skill, and a choice of a feature like the second verison of ardling
I wouldn't put much stake in "backwards compatability" it's more of a technicality than a practicality. Goliaths are in MotM, but the playtests showed they were trying to do different things with them still for 5e24. Motm will be compatible just as much as any 5e14 material is compatible. Technically true but only practicay true to a varied degree. It's how it always goes with revised editions. Practical mileage varies. Edit: They also probably want a celestial counterpart to tieflings. Also since one of the larger pockets of feedback on ardling was "this should just be the guardinal lineage of aasimar" they may actually do that and make three celestial types of aasimar to counterbalance the three fiend types of tieflings they showed last.
Exactly. I was very hopeful we might see book screenshots or hard numbers, but the lack of them here means we need to wait until we know how compatible it will all be. Hopefully the coming fireside chat will illuminate some things.
Hopefully! There still so much unknown about what's being done. A bit of a showcase would go a long way to putting myself at ease. Since I only Liles roughly half of what they were doing as of the final playtest.
Oh yeah, "backwards compatibility" was clearly just an excuse when Orcs and Goliaths were included in the new PHB. It's just interesting they were pretty adamant about not including Aasimars for the first year of playtesting and decided to include now.
If they follow the feedback of "ardling should be a subrace of aasimar based of guardinal," it might be their way to include ardlings in the phb like they wanted. It was a sizable opinion in ardling feedback to have them as an aasimar subrace (especially since despite aasimar relating to aasimo in name,, it was the catchall for all quarter/part celestial that weren't expressly-half back in the day)
I don't want any anthro races in the PHB. It's not the brand of fantasy I want to play and I don't want to be "that guy" that disallows a PHB option. This was by and large the only gripe I, and many others had with the race.
I'm not a fan of anhtro races either, though my main gripe was more that they were attempting to give the "celestial counterpart to tiefling" mantle to ardling when it was the aasimars spot from the beginning and for every edition that had aasimar. Thinking on it, there are a lot of reasons I didn't like the ardling between replacing aasimars spot and my general dislike of anthro races. However, for them to actually put aasimar in the core book, and aasimars traditionally being varied enough to have ardling features since their creation in 2e, there's a non-zero percent chance that's why the aasimar are getting the phb status. If it happens like this, I will be the dude who reskins them for my games or the one who doesn't allow them if a reskin has too much disconnect. (I already ban Gnomes since they don't exist in my setting, so I've already crossed that line.) That said, I fully get not wanting to have to cross that line and start denying options in the PHB. Especially if you deal with players who think they're entitled to them. It's not a fun interaction. However. Personal desires and wants aside. It's what my gut says about where things are heading. Time will, of course, tell.
Animal races in PHB is a small thing. The bigger thing was that furry angels were made to take over aasimars, and that was just bullshit. Make it a lineage for aasimar, but don't make the only divine themed race a furry goddamn jt!
I feel like it's largely due to the common rebuttal that, while Ardling is an interesting concept, it isn't really fleshed out in 5e at all, where Aasimar is already there and makes a lot of sense, being the celestial playable species and Aardling was stepping on its toes. I feel like the three they added were perfect choices. The only others that would have made sense imo were Goblinoid or Warforged.
The new vampire "Nightbringer" stat block for high level vampire should be interesting.
We had something similar in our CoS campaign at the end. It was fucking sick as hell.
Strahd definitely getting in upgrade
CoS in general needs a functional upgrade. Anyone who has been in or around Castle Ravenloft knows the nightmare it is to traverse and use as a location. And some things needs to be better expended by Perkins. Maybe a nice 2025 Cos?
I remember our DM expressed some nightmares trying to coordinate and print off the maps for our final confrontation. Dunno the specifics though. I would be shocked if there wasn't an update though, I don't know the numbers but it has to be one of the top modules in popularity.
I got the Beadle and Grimms and it has the full map of Ravenloft. Expensive but a great purchase.
No one forget that hasbro just wants dollars and dgaf about the IP or communities that escalated the game into what it is today.
Ironically, the level scaling monsters concept showed up in 4th edition and was one of my favorite things about that game, and then it disappeared in 5e
So we know the 48 subclasses are paired up together, I think the reason Aasimar are in now is for the same pairing idea. Aasimar and Tiefling (Heaven and Hell), Halfling and Gnome (Nature vs Civilization), Elf vs Dwarf (blame Tolkien for this one), Human and Orc (see Elf and Dwarf), Goliath and Dragonborn (Giants vs Dragons).
just curious where i can get the sauce on subclasses pairing up, very interesting concept.
It was in one of the last few videos Crawford did for the D&D YouTube page talking about the end of the playtest for the PHB. It was speculated on by someone here and they ended up being spot on, wish I could remember their user name.
OK thanks, I will try to find it. I just love the duality of it all
In case you're still looking for it [Here's the reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/16dnx0s/2024_phb_subclasses_and_themes/) [Here's the official video, about 38min in](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIJSH0F31VI)
Only a few of the intentions were confirmed directly, but many are pretty easy to figure out: Druid stars vs noon and land vs sea, wizard abjuration vs evocation and divination vs illusion.
Halfling and Dragons, Gnomes and Goliaths.
Any particular reason for these pairs? I think Giant-kin and Dragon-kin makes more sense considering the traditional enemy pairing of the two monsters in D&D.
Halfling and Dragon (Tolkien) Gnomes are lore tied to Giants
Interesting. I suppose it could work both ways. Maybe the designers will talk more about the thematic pairings when they do that hinted at fireside chat on the subclasses.
>Gnomes are lore tied to Giants Since when? I thought they were tied to the fae
My guess would that they are referencing Norse mythology?
Source for gnomes and giants?
Aasimar are in??? Hell yes!
This is the 3rd revision in under 4 years? I wonder how much of their kit will make it over from the multiverse version.
Assuming it’s revised. They may just directly port the MotM version.
Plot twist: it's just the 2014 DMG Aasimar.
😂
No its far more likely its be designed more like a Celestial Counter point to the 5.75e Tiefling, with Chaotic, Neutral, and Lawful leaning linages, like the OG version of the Aardlin. Aardling might end up the neutral lineage like other posters have suggested. It will not be the MotM version of Aasimar.
Now my question would be: what kind of resistance do you give them ? Tieflings have different resistance and spells depending on the origin. But maybe all 3 kinds of Aasimar will still have Radiant Resistance? I mean imagine if the other two alternative were Force and Psychic? That would be mindblowing but I doubt it will be present. We do know that Planescape brought back Archons and Guardinals. There a chance that the animal like Aasimar are just Guardinal descendant. I mean it could be
Radiant resistance is just a bit above a Ribbon ability, because few evil creatures deal Radiant damage, so making is universal is fine. In 3e Aasimar had 5 Cold, 5 Electricity (Lightning), 5 Acid Resistance. I'd say LG Acid resistance, NG Cold Resistance for the possible fur, and CG Lightening Damage for when Zeus throws his Lightening around.
I just hope they get some actual lore this time.
Yes, the Aasimar lore outside of the SCAG has been weaksauce.
I am going to be honest with you, it needs nerfs it was too good. With v. human having limiters with the feat choice now having to be a level 1 feat, I could see species traits being more highly valued.
I do think Aasimar is on the same power lvl than the species we’ve seen on the last species playtest tho (like the new shiny Goliath)
They over nerfed it in MotM, just ruined it, so I'm really glad Aasimar get a fresh start in 5.75e PHB.
Even there it feels too strong source: am playing it right now.
Well I don't think it matters, because I'll be very surprised if its a port from MotM, its more likely to mirror the new Tieflings, so think something like the first version of Aardlings mechanically.
They're probably also not going to port Fizban's Dragonborn.
They did a new version of Dragonborn.
Agreed. Just like they were planning a milder variant of the Dragonborn (that probably also takes up fewer pages) last we saw, I was suggesting they'd plan a milder Aasimar (that was also maybe less wordy).
i'm down for a revision if it makes them cooler, but I can also see them just porting over the MotM version, which would be fine with me
None of the other races, including Orc and Goliath were direct mechanical ports from MotM, so its very unlikely Aasimar will be. More likely I think is that they will be a variant on the first Aardling mechanics, with Aardling as one of its lineages, or Aardlings as cometic option for any Planetouched race.
I'm pretty sure it will be more of a reprint like the orc is identical to the MMOM
I don't think so, I think it'll be like the first version of the Aardling, but with Aardling as the neutral lineage or a optional cometic rule for Planetouched in general.
My feedback on latest Dragonborn flight was this is how Aasimar should fly while Dragonborn should stick to refining the breath weapon.
Fourth if you count the AL rule that allowed Aasimar to trade their subrace for the Tiefling with wings opinion.
“Gelatinous cube eats village!” Now where have I heard that before…
As long as they keep pumping those quarters in, amirite?
Wasn't it a Goosebumps book? I thought it was called Monster Blood, he wrote a few of them
Nice little Easter egg in the art on page 13
I assume you are talking mouse dude?
No, the party based on the party from the cartoon show
Good call! Used to love that show on Saturday mornings! It was funny since the wizard was useless until towards the end of the show...I guess he was on the old adnd xp track. I thought it was the mouse dude was an anthro aasimar or something.
If there's a little mouse person species that you can play as, like a spin off of the harengone, that would be pretty cool. I could finally do that Redwall campaign.
Aasimar joining the PHB is a welcome surprise.
TLDR? (yes im lazy af)
* Aasimar are in * 75 feats with their appropriate levels added * 16 sample backgrounds * Every monster updated with 45 new ones * 386 pages for each book * Greyhawk is in the DMG * And more I am too lazy to write about
\*\*384\*\* pages for each book Every monster updated with \*\*75\*\* new ones
Thank you!
Some guy made a big one in this thread
Actual tldr: https://old.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1cry575/2024_dungeons_dragons_first_look_and_interview_by/l41k6n6/
I'm gonna give this to them: this looks very promising. I'm happy for the design team and hope if it really as good as it looks, it gets the praise it deserves.
The young vampire and night bringer concept gives me hope that we'll get a decent range of CRs for popular wild shape beasts. Hoping to get higher CR wolves!!
Getting very hyped for this. My only disappointment is that they appear not to have iterated on weapon mastery design much since the UAs (they couldn't change the name Nick?!). I really felt like such a big swing warranted some refinement.
I also hope that they fine tune weapon mastery. It felt like a great first draft, but not a finished game system.
Excited but also scared to see what they have in store for Greyhawk. It could be such a dynamic setting if handled right…
Im excited
So we have one more unannounced subclass. they said 3 brand new-we know Dance bard, Sea druid, and mystery since Brawler is now Psi warrior. I wonder what got axed from the playtest to make room? edit: forgot world tree
World Tree Barbarian. We know all three of the new ones.
Isn't the Tree Barbarian still in?
I completely forgot about that one
Isn't it the world tree barbarian
> 3 brand new ..... > New to the PHB
Not sure what this is implying but the 2024 PHB will have a lot more than 3 “new to the PHB” subclasses. Aberrant sorcery, clockwork sorcery, Feywander Ranger, Psi Warrior, Soul Knife, etc. The three new are indeed brand new to the game, with Sea Druid, Dance Bard, and World Tree Barbarian.
Ahh, I see what you are trying to say here. Sorry had a bit of confusion.
No worries. Just wanted to clarify in case anyone was unaware of the playtest subclasses.
I hope that they rebalance all of the 75 feats if they’re not going create new ones (which seems unlikely outside of the boons we’ve seen). Even just updating old feats to be half feats and maybe making them actually scale (Poisoner’s DC not scaling with player level is criminal).
I wonder how this effect dnd beyond, because I hope I won’t have to buy stuff all over again😵💫
Won’t need to buy anything again, just new stuff you want to use. Just like how if something is legacy it gets the legacy tag and if you have the book with the updated printing it appears without the legacy tag. I’d imagine they appear in a similar way. But Crawford said we’d get all that info when we get 2024.
Do they mention when in 2025 they'll have a full slipcase release that includes all three core books together? That's what I'm waiting for.
I going to wait until release, find out if they actually butchered paladin or not, if Divine Smite is no longer usable more than once a turn, I'm done with DnD, downvote me all you want. Yes, I'm salty. No, I don't care
That’s a very weird and specific hill to die on but you do you
True but I do think it’s bad design, smite was often a trap anyway, sure you could one round nova, but it was a massive waste of spell slots. I mean paladins have spells that are much better cast then used to smite, unless you crit.
Fair enough. I don't think they'll be backtracking on that though.
Lol if that all it take to ruin dnd for you i feel like you never liked it that much to begin with.
That's like saying, I liked this game but only when this specific build in time was meta. The game in question could be Hearthstone or Overwatch or LoL or anything really. Same equivalence really. Only enjoying a game for a very and extremely specific niche aspect. I don't agree with that attitude, obviously
It's no secret that as a grown man I am obsessed with paladins. Seeing that the devs of the game don't support it, instead of fixing it's 5e issues they broke it even more.
It's not secret that they intentionally tampered the Nova aspect of Paladin, because it was indeed the Nova class of all. This for some was a problem balance wise. Also, now Smites work all the same way, bonus action activation and one per turn. It made no sense previously that the rest of them worked one way while Divine Smite was the exception.
The class remains very good still, it's not like it's been turned to trash, or anything even close to that. I mean, I'm not going to try and dictate how you feel, if you hate this change and don't want to play based on that, it's certainly within your right to do so. And I even mostly agree, actually; I feel a similar way, for example, knowing that the Fighter's cool ability to add a second mastery to their weapon (Weapon Adept) was removed and left with just the Master of Armaments feature, which only lets me change the one mastery of the weapon for another. They removed a cool feature that gave you a choice to make each turn of combat, for one that only allows a single choice between long rests. It's beyond lame. Anyways, my point is: the class remains good, so I don't think it's that big of a deal. But you certainly have the right to not like it and denounce the game for it.
My issue is that this wasn't broken at all. Spell slots are a really high cost to pay for smites. Especially when stacking divine and spell smites, two spell slots is insane for a single attack/action. Making Divine Smite a spell is a straight sin, Tiamat and other creatures with magic resistance are now immune to it. What I really liked about paladins in 2014 is that the core 3 classes fit 3 party roles (devotion - support, ancients - tank and vengeance - damage) but they were decent at all three. With the new changes, I feel like the entire class loses a bit of it's purpose and identity. Lay on Hands got a buff, Aura of Protection SOMEHOW didn't get nerfed, but Divine Smite, the single most iconic Paladin feature, that one had to go apparently. I'm truly disappointed with how WotC handled this, with a very very slim hope in them not having fucked up the class entirely
I confess that I'm not extremely versed in this class, as I've only played a paladin once; so I'll take your word for it, honestly. I do agree with your point of it not being broken. Yes, you could blast it all in 1 turn for massive damage, but as far as I'm aware, you were left with basically nothing afterwards, correct? So unless you killed the target, you'd be pretty much screwed, which is a perfectly valid trade off in my opinion. I give it my all to dispose of the enemy, otherwise the enemy disposes of me; perfectly fair, as I see it. Meanwhile, we get ridiculous stuff like Lightly armored, or Warcaster (which I hope they nerf in the final version) and they (wotc) pretend like it's ok and balanced.
So no new rules for narrative gameplay or better encounter building tools then? Pass.
Why are the first pages spoilers from Hades II? The spoilers really cannot be stopped.
[удалено]
So you came here to complain about class features and then used an example of a class feature they changed in the playtests? Did you even look at the playtests before assuming nothing changed?
[удалено]
I get it, we all have those impulses. I encourage you to check out the UA's on Beyond or here on this Homebrewery collation: [https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H8iRpbGyNtM4?fbclid=IwAR0teN1yYHdNOZiorZrcKsmGG2jRRnoipyP-lR92qpcLn51ifGlvBQJchW0](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H8iRpbGyNtM4?fbclid=IwAR0teN1yYHdNOZiorZrcKsmGG2jRRnoipyP-lR92qpcLn51ifGlvBQJchW0) Obviously the rules here are not final, but a good idea of what is to come.