They’re a lot more powerful at level 1, considering that’s the level they get Channel Divinity at now, but a change that doesn’t right with me in that regard is that now they get subclasses at level 3, not level 1. Clerics literally get all their power from their devotion to the gods, so them picking the source of their power, or at least the way the can channel it, at level 3 just doesn’t make sense, at least in my opinion. Them being able to do things like smite undead and getting divine strikes regardless is a net positive, and I frankly like the new Clerics. They still remain as the best healers in the game, but they’re much more combat oriented now, which paints them better as the divine warriors they’re meant to be.
The way I see it is like this. A level 1 adventurer is basically a commoner with some talent. They aren't a hero, they aren't a chosen(unless your DM has said so), they aren't special. They're freshly trained, ordained or patronized. For clerics and paladins, their respective deity recognizes their devotion but hasn't seen enough to grant them access to their domain. Channel Divinity is still at level 2, where the subclass is at level 3. At level 3, your deity recognizes your devotion and gives access a more direct access to their portfolio in the form of bonus spells and abilities. Depending on the setting, level 3 adventurers are more powerful than the VAST majority of the populace. Not powerful enough to just walk into a town and own it, they can still very much die very easily to a group of commoners/goblins etc but able to command the respect that the subclass grants.
From a theming perspective, this makes a lot of sense because if every cleric got access to their deities domain instantly(which, they don't, PC abilities are PC abilities. Not all clerics should have domain access), then you'd see nothing but light clerics in a temple of lathander. Neat in theory, but say something happens to the city. Now lathandars temple just uses its clerics to hold the lines with channel divinities. Every hour(because they recharge on a short rest), just pushing out 2d10 radiant damage to all enemies within a 30 foot area or half on a successful con save.
The price of a riding horse in the 13th century was about half a pound, in D&D, a Riding Horse is 75gp. That gives us £1:150gp. I know it's far from a perfect conversion rate, but it gives us something to work with. We also have to remember that's £1 old money, not what Brits use today.
From what I can tell, a tower cost about £650 (~100,000gp) to build. Castles are harder to pin down, but I have costs from about £1,000 (about 150,000gp) up to a whopping £25,000 (3,750,000gp). On the other hand, Hallow costs 1,000gp, or about £7 (once you've made a donation to the Cleric's parish). That's not cheap...but it's easily affordable for a town or city to pay that generation or so (when the Cleric dies, I'm assuming it goes when he dies) for several of them.
I'm not personally commenting on Hallow's usefulness and just taking previous claims as accurate, but if having common access to Hallow is that world changing...then Divine Intervention isn't the problem. It's a problem whether DI exists or not. The easiest way to solve it would be to limit the numbers of 9th level+ Clerics so people just can't get hold of them...or they charge so much for their time to do it, it becomes prohibitive (capitalism is a...[fill the blank]).
Regardless though, and bringing this back around to the topic of 2024e Cleric, Divine Intervention wouldn't have a massive effect on world building. It'd be like giving $5 to everyone in America. A brief spike in sales of coffees...then back to business as usual. The bigger concern is action economy - if you're under assault from undead/other things excludable by Hallow, it's not unfeasible for the Cleric to sprint 60' away, cast Hallow and break the encounter. I think Psyren's suggestion of limiting it to spells with a casting time of an hour or less (I haven't checked the spells affected so just rolling with that specific limit) would be a good idea. Strong enough that it feels fun and powerful, but not encounter-breaking.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The thing with the new Divine Intervention is that the only effects you can get from it are those from spells your Cleric could already cast.
Ergo, the only point of the new Divine Intervention is purely to break spells meant to be limited based on casting time, meaning it's another new feature to be power-gamed, where knowing the far better options for the feature makes you significantly stronger than a player who doesn't.
It's also effectively an additional 5th level spell slot. It's very much a flavourful way of having the Cleric invoke their divine power that's actually divine - as opposed to the more traditional of just casting magic, but it's really divine power *wink wink*. I'd like more of the Cleric "spells" to have a distinct flavour like this...but l appreciate that would be hard to balance. Yes, it can be powergamed. Welcome to D&D where every feature is an opportunity to powergame.
And to be frank, dismissing a feature because of "mother may I" highlights that the new edition is being made for the type of player who views their DM as an antagonist who opposes the players rather than someone utilizing their creativity to weave a story for the group.
The problem with "Mother, May I" is that it puts the burden on the DM to memorise what every feature on the table does or slow everything down as the DM reviews the wording, then debates with the player what it means, resolves it, then implements the decision. By having explicit consequences.and choices, the player can be doing 90% of that before their turn, and it's just up to the DM to question and correct if they think something is wrong (which is the point of having rules, no? Have it pre agreed how to resolve actions?). In a game where combat is painfully slow, that's something I really appreciate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
And to be frank, dismissing a feature because of "mother may I" highlights that the new edition is being made for the type of player who views their DM as an antagonist who opposes the players rather than someone utilizing their creativity to weave a story for the group.
This is a weird way of looking at it. The DM "is" the antagonist who opposes the players, but the tone in your post suggestions a negativity to it.
Features that require permission to use aren't features. They're requests. It's why Wild Magic Sorcerer was a bad subclass. It's main feature required the DM to go "Yes, you can do this today".
The nature of divine intervention having both a 10% chance to work at level 10 AND the DMs permission was bad. Linklite highlights the main problems with it. Your turn comes and you need to now explain to your DM what you want to do and how it will affect the table. After that, you need to roll and hope it works. So now you've taken time, you've slowed down combat and your powerful level 10 feature fizzles out. It makes the player feel bad because they wasted their turn.
10% chance of something working sucks. I don't have a problem with a reasonable chance of something failing, but when the maximum chance is 20% and the vast majority is in single digits...it's likely to never get used.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Heaven forbid someone 'feel bad' because something they tried in a game controlled by dice, didn't work.
No.
There is a difference between "I cast toll the dead and the character made the save, and therefore nothing happened". It's a cantrip, and it's a save or suck spell. While the opportunity cost exists, the reality is this isn't a resource. Cantrips can be used forever.
When we look at spells at the 5th tier or higher, where a cleric would get divine intervention? There are VERY few spells that are "Save/Attack or nothing". Contagion is hit or get wrecked, Geas is save or suck, Planar Binding is save or suck. That said, you know what you're getting into when you cast those spells. You made an active choice to use a powerful resource and there are ways for other players to help you do this.
10th level abilities shouldn't be predicated on a 10% chance. More so when the game is designed on the table being able to help you in some way, but because its a percentile die it can't happen.
The way I always balanced it in my games was that it worked, but the more you ask for, the longer it is until your God can hear your pleas again. I do like the potential tension that a 10% die roll can achieve, but I don't want to do that to a character who has more than likely spent MONTHS if not longer with it.
Heaven forbid someone 'feel bad' because something they tried in a game controlled by dice, didn't work.
No.
There is a difference between "I cast toll the dead and the character made the save, and therefore nothing happened". It's a cantrip, and it's a save or suck spell. While the opportunity cost exists, the reality is this isn't a resource. Cantrips can be used forever.
When we look at spells at the 5th tier or higher, where a cleric would get divine intervention? There are VERY few spells that are "Save/Attack or nothing". Contagion is hit or get wrecked, Geas is save or suck, Planar Binding is save or suck. That said, you know what you're getting into when you cast those spells. You made an active choice to use a powerful resource and there are ways for other players to help you do this.
10th level abilities shouldn't be predicated on a 10% chance. More so when the game is designed on the table being able to help you in some way, but because its a percentile die it can't happen.
The way I always balanced it in my games was that it worked, but the more you ask for, the longer it is until your God can hear your pleas again. I do like the potential tension that a 10% die roll can achieve, but I don't want to do that to a character who has more than likely spent MONTHS if not longer with it.
I would argue just the opposite. Something as powerful as direct intervention by one's deity should not be a daily occurance. Divine Intervention has always been a % chance keyed to level, and always had a long cool down if successful - it should have stayed that way.
But now a 10th level cleric can take a month off from adventuring, and cast 30 (completely free) Hallow spells around town completely negating the DMs storyline of a necromancer marching towards town. Now let's put that on the other foot... the evil death cleric (NPC or PC) who casts 30 Hallow spells (completely free) around town over the course of a month.
It also turns Hallow (24 hr casting time) into a single action casting that can be done in combat (let's count all the ways that can be abused - especially since it wouldn't count as a spell and therefore can't be counterspelled).
Not to detract from whether the new Divine Intervention is too much or not, but wanted to address the specific argument that it can completely negate a DM's storyline. And how it helped me come up with a scenario I'd love to play out.
If I, as a GM, gave a 10th level party a month to prepare a town against a necromancer and his undead army I'd damn well hope they'd do something like that. It's only 60ft radius so you've got undead being catapulted in, or burrowing up inside; humans captured and forced to fight for necromancer aren't impacted; a siege and siege weapons can still force the town to surrender; or all else fails, the necromancer (or any mages he may have) exposes himself to Dispel Magic and cause a gap.
That right there is a dope battle with cool elements and strategies I'd have never have thought to include without the challenge. Flip it on its head and it's a great little challenge for the players to overcome. Also, also, NPCs don't play by the rules PCs do unless you, the DM, want them to.
I am interested to see how it pans out at the table as we never got a chance to playtest that aspect.
Heaven forbid someone 'feel bad' because something they tried in a game controlled by dice, didn't work.
No.
There is a difference between "I cast toll the dead and the character made the save, and therefore nothing happened". It's a cantrip, and it's a save or suck spell. While the opportunity cost exists, the reality is this isn't a resource. Cantrips can be used forever.
When we look at spells at the 5th tier or higher, where a cleric would get divine intervention? There are VERY few spells that are "Save/Attack or nothing". Contagion is hit or get wrecked, Geas is save or suck, Planar Binding is save or suck. That said, you know what you're getting into when you cast those spells. You made an active choice to use a powerful resource and there are ways for other players to help you do this.
10th level abilities shouldn't be predicated on a 10% chance. More so when the game is designed on the table being able to help you in some way, but because its a percentile die it can't happen.
The way I always balanced it in my games was that it worked, but the more you ask for, the longer it is until your God can hear your pleas again. I do like the potential tension that a 10% die roll can achieve, but I don't want to do that to a character who has more than likely spent MONTHS if not longer with it.
I would argue just the opposite. Something as powerful as direct intervention by one's deity should not be a daily occurance. Divine Intervention has always been a % chance keyed to level, and always had a long cool down if successful - it should have stayed that way.
But now a 10th level cleric can take a month off from adventuring, and cast 30 (completely free) Hallow spells around town completely negating the DMs storyline of a necromancer marching towards town. Now let's put that on the other foot... the evil death cleric (NPC or PC) who casts 30 Hallow spells (completely free) around town over the course of a month.
It also turns Hallow (24 hr casting time) into a single action casting that can be done in combat (let's count all the ways that can be abused - especially since it wouldn't count as a spell and therefore can't be counterspelled).
This is a problem with Hallow, not with Divine Intervention. It would be easily fixed by saying that DI can only replicate spells with a 1 hour casting time or less; that's long enough for a mid-combat Raise Dead or Planar Binding, but edges out Hallow. And if the books don't allow for that restriction, simply do so at your table.
Expensive components were added to spells specifically to keep them from being common-place and being cast often. Hallow is just one example. The new Divine Intervention breaks that check to keep certain spells from being cast (in this case) daily. Imagine how daily life would change within a Kingdom if Revivity, Greater Restoration, Raise Dead, Hallow (just to name a few) - became commonplace. How would that change daily life? How would adventurers of that level change their behavior and tactics if those spells became always available with no cost?
They keep saying that D&D isn't balanced for PvP - and they are of course correct. But there in lies the problem - it should have been, and each version that comes out is another chance to fix that mistake, yet they continue to refuse to do so.
Most DMs that use villainous NPCs just make up a character for them, using the same rules that the players use for their characters. In many campaigns the characters fight more NPCs than monsters. When they make changes like this, they fail to consider the consequences those changes have on those types of games.
It's clear that nothing I say here will change what they've already decided (and already sent to the printers). I just hope 2024 edition doesn't end up like another 4th edition, where a majority of the player-base refuses to use it, or worse, leaves the game for other alternatives because of how unbalanced it has (again) become.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
If spell components are the problem, then we're already in trouble because of Conjuration Wizards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Expensive components were added to spells specifically to keep them from being common-place and being cast often. Hallow is just one example. The new Divine Intervention breaks that check to keep certain spells from being cast (in this case) daily. Imagine how daily life would change within a Kingdom if Revivity, Greater Restoration, Raise Dead, Hallow (just to name a few) - became commonplace. How would that change daily life? How would adventurers of that level change their behavior and tactics if those spells became always available with no cost?
They keep saying that D&D isn't balanced for PvP - and they are of course correct. But there in lies the problem - it should have been, and each version that comes out is another chance to fix that mistake, yet they continue to refuse to do so.
Most DMs that use villainous NPCs just make up a character for them, using the same rules that the players use for their characters. In many campaigns the characters fight more NPCs than monsters. When they make changes like this, they fail to consider the consequences those changes have on those types of games.
It's clear that nothing I say here will change what they've already decided (and already sent to the printers). I just hope 2024 edition doesn't end up like another 4th edition, where a majority of the player-base refuses to use it, or worse, leaves the game for other alternatives because of how unbalanced it has (again) become.
Remember that the DM is in loco deorum, so whatever divine intervention is sought by and granted to the NPCs is entirely within the DM’s power.
Imagine how daily life would change within a Kingdom if Revivity, Greater Restoration, Raise Dead, Hallow (just to name a few) - became commonplace.
They're not - Divine Intervention is not a common ability. Adventurers in general are extraordinary people (pg. 45 in the current PHB) and thus not commonplace by definition, and the subset of those who (a) become clerics and (b) make it 10th+ level are a subset of a subset of even that. (Hell, some settings - like Dragonlance and Dark Sun - barely have clerics at all.)
It's clear that nothing I say here will change what they've already decided (and already sent to the printers). I just hope 2024 edition doesn't end up like another 4th edition, where a majority of the player-base refuses to use it, or worse, leaves the game for other alternatives because of how unbalanced it has (again) become.
1) 4e's unpopularity had nothing to do with lack of balance. Quite the opposite - 4e was the most balanced the game has ever been before or since, because just about every class within a given role had similar abilities; all the Leaders, Controllers, Strikers and Defenders were comparable with one another at the same level brackets regardless of power source. 4e was in fact an abject lesson in what happens when you overprioritize game balance over all other considerations.
2) 2024 is far better balanced than 2014 from what we've seen. The gaps between each type of caster against each other, each subclass within a class against each other, and even the casters vs. the martials, are smaller than ever, as well as overtuned spells like Conjure Animals being redesigned.
You say this when one caster has the innate ability to have higher spell DCs, advantage on all attacks, and disadvantage on every save a target makes against a spell, one caster has the spell access of four casters, and every martial gets a cost-free feature that can apply to every single attack they make except for one single martial class, because...?
Because it's true?
- Innate Sorcery is a strong ability but not overpowered. 2 minutes per long rest of +1 to DCs (and there's a million ways to get advantage on attack rolls) isn't going to break the game. Disadvantage on saves is not baked into the ability, you need Heighten for that, which costs a valuable resource and means you can't apply any other metamagic to that spell until 7th level, at which point you're burning through over half your daily allotment for a single casting.
- Bards are stronger now but still have limited spells known that they can only swap on level-up, so accessing the wizard/cleric/druid lists isn't as strong as it sounds. The strength of Clerics and Druids is that their list contains some very situational spells; most of the time, you don't need something like Create Food & Water, Raise Dead/Reincarnate, or Regenerate, but when you need them you really need them; for a Cleric or Druid that's as simple as waiting a night, while for a Bard it's not nearly as simple.
- Monks don't need Weapon Mastery because they're usually attacking unarmed anyway; if you really want it, getting it is a half-feat away, i.e. painless.
a cleric of Mystra with acolyte background not being able to be proficient in arcana is an example of the issues and concerns people have about these new 2024 rules
Did they change the rules on skill selection in a way I'm not aware of? A first-level cleric with the acolyte background can be proficient in arcana
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
a cleric of Mystra with acolyte background not being able to be proficient in arcana is an example of the issues and concerns people have about these new 2024 rules
Did they change the rules on skill selection in a way I'm not aware of? A first-level cleric with the acolyte background can be proficient in arcana
I don’t think we know for certain (as we don’t have the final published versions), but Arcana isn’t in the skill proficiencies for either the Acolyte or the Cleric in the UA documents (nor, for that matter, in the 2014 PHB). The only way I can see that a 2014 Cleric with the Acolyte background could get Arcana at level 1 (other than from a racial feature, such as variant Human) was to choose the Knowledge domain. Unfortunately, Knowledge domain didn’t make it into the 2024 PHB (and wouldn’t have been available at level 1 if it were). However, if I really wanted Arcana for a Cleric, I would look at other backgrounds that offered either Arcana or the Skilled feat (or make a custom background, if my DM allowed it).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The way I see it is like this. A level 1 adventurer is basically a commoner with some talent. They aren't a hero, they aren't a chosen(unless your DM has said so), they aren't special. They're freshly trained, ordained or patronized. For clerics and paladins, their respective deity recognizes their devotion but hasn't seen enough to grant them access to their domain. Channel Divinity is still at level 2, where the subclass is at level 3. At level 3, your deity recognizes your devotion and gives access a more direct access to their portfolio in the form of bonus spells and abilities. Depending on the setting, level 3 adventurers are more powerful than the VAST majority of the populace. Not powerful enough to just walk into a town and own it, they can still very much die very easily to a group of commoners/goblins etc but able to command the respect that the subclass grants.
From a theming perspective, this makes a lot of sense because if every cleric got access to their deities domain instantly(which, they don't, PC abilities are PC abilities. Not all clerics should have domain access), then you'd see nothing but light clerics in a temple of lathander. Neat in theory, but say something happens to the city. Now lathandars temple just uses its clerics to hold the lines with channel divinities. Every hour(because they recharge on a short rest), just pushing out 2d10 radiant damage to all enemies within a 30 foot area or half on a successful con save.
Some maths.
The price of a riding horse in the 13th century was about half a pound, in D&D, a Riding Horse is 75gp. That gives us £1:150gp. I know it's far from a perfect conversion rate, but it gives us something to work with. We also have to remember that's £1 old money, not what Brits use today.
From what I can tell, a tower cost about £650 (~100,000gp) to build. Castles are harder to pin down, but I have costs from about £1,000 (about 150,000gp) up to a whopping £25,000 (3,750,000gp). On the other hand, Hallow costs 1,000gp, or about £7 (once you've made a donation to the Cleric's parish). That's not cheap...but it's easily affordable for a town or city to pay that generation or so (when the Cleric dies, I'm assuming it goes when he dies) for several of them.
I'm not personally commenting on Hallow's usefulness and just taking previous claims as accurate, but if having common access to Hallow is that world changing...then Divine Intervention isn't the problem. It's a problem whether DI exists or not. The easiest way to solve it would be to limit the numbers of 9th level+ Clerics so people just can't get hold of them...or they charge so much for their time to do it, it becomes prohibitive (capitalism is a...[fill the blank]).
Regardless though, and bringing this back around to the topic of 2024e Cleric, Divine Intervention wouldn't have a massive effect on world building. It'd be like giving $5 to everyone in America. A brief spike in sales of coffees...then back to business as usual. The bigger concern is action economy - if you're under assault from undead/other things excludable by Hallow, it's not unfeasible for the Cleric to sprint 60' away, cast Hallow and break the encounter. I think Psyren's suggestion of limiting it to spells with a casting time of an hour or less (I haven't checked the spells affected so just rolling with that specific limit) would be a good idea. Strong enough that it feels fun and powerful, but not encounter-breaking.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's also effectively an additional 5th level spell slot. It's very much a flavourful way of having the Cleric invoke their divine power that's actually divine - as opposed to the more traditional of just casting magic, but it's really divine power *wink wink*. I'd like more of the Cleric "spells" to have a distinct flavour like this...but l appreciate that would be hard to balance. Yes, it can be powergamed. Welcome to D&D where every feature is an opportunity to powergame.
The problem with "Mother, May I" is that it puts the burden on the DM to memorise what every feature on the table does or slow everything down as the DM reviews the wording, then debates with the player what it means, resolves it, then implements the decision. By having explicit consequences.and choices, the player can be doing 90% of that before their turn, and it's just up to the DM to question and correct if they think something is wrong (which is the point of having rules, no? Have it pre agreed how to resolve actions?). In a game where combat is painfully slow, that's something I really appreciate.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
IMO the option is fine
It is divine intervention!
IT should be fun.
This is a weird way of looking at it. The DM "is" the antagonist who opposes the players, but the tone in your post suggestions a negativity to it.
Features that require permission to use aren't features. They're requests. It's why Wild Magic Sorcerer was a bad subclass. It's main feature required the DM to go "Yes, you can do this today".
The nature of divine intervention having both a 10% chance to work at level 10 AND the DMs permission was bad. Linklite highlights the main problems with it. Your turn comes and you need to now explain to your DM what you want to do and how it will affect the table. After that, you need to roll and hope it works. So now you've taken time, you've slowed down combat and your powerful level 10 feature fizzles out. It makes the player feel bad because they wasted their turn.
Heaven forbid someone 'feel bad' because something they tried in a game controlled by dice, didn't work.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
10% chance of something working sucks. I don't have a problem with a reasonable chance of something failing, but when the maximum chance is 20% and the vast majority is in single digits...it's likely to never get used.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No.
There is a difference between "I cast toll the dead and the character made the save, and therefore nothing happened". It's a cantrip, and it's a save or suck spell. While the opportunity cost exists, the reality is this isn't a resource. Cantrips can be used forever.
When we look at spells at the 5th tier or higher, where a cleric would get divine intervention? There are VERY few spells that are "Save/Attack or nothing". Contagion is hit or get wrecked, Geas is save or suck, Planar Binding is save or suck. That said, you know what you're getting into when you cast those spells. You made an active choice to use a powerful resource and there are ways for other players to help you do this.
10th level abilities shouldn't be predicated on a 10% chance. More so when the game is designed on the table being able to help you in some way, but because its a percentile die it can't happen.
The way I always balanced it in my games was that it worked, but the more you ask for, the longer it is until your God can hear your pleas again. I do like the potential tension that a 10% die roll can achieve, but I don't want to do that to a character who has more than likely spent MONTHS if not longer with it.
Beauty of this game is that we dont have to use any rules - homebrew.
I would argue just the opposite. Something as powerful as direct intervention by one's deity should not be a daily occurance. Divine Intervention has always been a % chance keyed to level, and always had a long cool down if successful - it should have stayed that way.
But now a 10th level cleric can take a month off from adventuring, and cast 30 (completely free) Hallow spells around town completely negating the DMs storyline of a necromancer marching towards town. Now let's put that on the other foot... the evil death cleric (NPC or PC) who casts 30 Hallow spells (completely free) around town over the course of a month.
It also turns Hallow (24 hr casting time) into a single action casting that can be done in combat (let's count all the ways that can be abused - especially since it wouldn't count as a spell and therefore can't be counterspelled).
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Not to detract from whether the new Divine Intervention is too much or not, but wanted to address the specific argument that it can completely negate a DM's storyline. And how it helped me come up with a scenario I'd love to play out.
If I, as a GM, gave a 10th level party a month to prepare a town against a necromancer and his undead army I'd damn well hope they'd do something like that. It's only 60ft radius so you've got undead being catapulted in, or burrowing up inside; humans captured and forced to fight for necromancer aren't impacted; a siege and siege weapons can still force the town to surrender; or all else fails, the necromancer (or any mages he may have) exposes himself to Dispel Magic and cause a gap.
That right there is a dope battle with cool elements and strategies I'd have never have thought to include without the challenge. Flip it on its head and it's a great little challenge for the players to overcome. Also, also, NPCs don't play by the rules PCs do unless you, the DM, want them to.
I am interested to see how it pans out at the table as we never got a chance to playtest that aspect.
This is a problem with Hallow, not with Divine Intervention. It would be easily fixed by saying that DI can only replicate spells with a 1 hour casting time or less; that's long enough for a mid-combat Raise Dead or Planar Binding, but edges out Hallow. And if the books don't allow for that restriction, simply do so at your table.
Expensive components were added to spells specifically to keep them from being common-place and being cast often. Hallow is just one example. The new Divine Intervention breaks that check to keep certain spells from being cast (in this case) daily. Imagine how daily life would change within a Kingdom if Revivity, Greater Restoration, Raise Dead, Hallow (just to name a few) - became commonplace. How would that change daily life? How would adventurers of that level change their behavior and tactics if those spells became always available with no cost?
They keep saying that D&D isn't balanced for PvP - and they are of course correct. But there in lies the problem - it should have been, and each version that comes out is another chance to fix that mistake, yet they continue to refuse to do so.
Most DMs that use villainous NPCs just make up a character for them, using the same rules that the players use for their characters. In many campaigns the characters fight more NPCs than monsters. When they make changes like this, they fail to consider the consequences those changes have on those types of games.
It's clear that nothing I say here will change what they've already decided (and already sent to the printers). I just hope 2024 edition doesn't end up like another 4th edition, where a majority of the player-base refuses to use it, or worse, leaves the game for other alternatives because of how unbalanced it has (again) become.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
If spell components are the problem, then we're already in trouble because of Conjuration Wizards.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Remember that the DM is in loco deorum, so whatever divine intervention is sought by and granted to the NPCs is entirely within the DM’s power.
They're not - Divine Intervention is not a common ability. Adventurers in general are extraordinary people (pg. 45 in the current PHB) and thus not commonplace by definition, and the subset of those who (a) become clerics and (b) make it 10th+ level are a subset of a subset of even that. (Hell, some settings - like Dragonlance and Dark Sun - barely have clerics at all.)
No. Absolutely not.
[citation needed]
1) 4e's unpopularity had nothing to do with lack of balance. Quite the opposite - 4e was the most balanced the game has ever been before or since, because just about every class within a given role had similar abilities; all the Leaders, Controllers, Strikers and Defenders were comparable with one another at the same level brackets regardless of power source. 4e was in fact an abject lesson in what happens when you overprioritize game balance over all other considerations.
2) 2024 is far better balanced than 2014 from what we've seen. The gaps between each type of caster against each other, each subclass within a class against each other, and even the casters vs. the martials, are smaller than ever, as well as overtuned spells like Conjure Animals being redesigned.
Because it's true?
- Innate Sorcery is a strong ability but not overpowered. 2 minutes per long rest of +1 to DCs (and there's a million ways to get advantage on attack rolls) isn't going to break the game. Disadvantage on saves is not baked into the ability, you need Heighten for that, which costs a valuable resource and means you can't apply any other metamagic to that spell until 7th level, at which point you're burning through over half your daily allotment for a single casting.
- Bards are stronger now but still have limited spells known that they can only swap on level-up, so accessing the wizard/cleric/druid lists isn't as strong as it sounds. The strength of Clerics and Druids is that their list contains some very situational spells; most of the time, you don't need something like Create Food & Water, Raise Dead/Reincarnate, or Regenerate, but when you need them you really need them; for a Cleric or Druid that's as simple as waiting a night, while for a Bard it's not nearly as simple.
- Monks don't need Weapon Mastery because they're usually attacking unarmed anyway; if you really want it, getting it is a half-feat away, i.e. painless.
All of your examples are overblown at best.
I wish they would have done more for the channel powers to differentiate the domain differences. For example
Life Domain- Heals 1D12 per Wis bonus, Harms 1D4 per Wis bonus
War -Heals 1D6, Harms 1D10
Light - Heals & Harms 1D8
Trickery - Permanent choice of 1D10/1D6 to heal & harm.
Did they change the rules on skill selection in a way I'm not aware of? A first-level cleric with the acolyte background can be proficient in arcana
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don’t think we know for certain (as we don’t have the final published versions), but Arcana isn’t in the skill proficiencies for either the Acolyte or the Cleric in the UA documents (nor, for that matter, in the 2014 PHB). The only way I can see that a 2014 Cleric with the Acolyte background could get Arcana at level 1 (other than from a racial feature, such as variant Human) was to choose the Knowledge domain. Unfortunately, Knowledge domain didn’t make it into the 2024 PHB (and wouldn’t have been available at level 1 if it were). However, if I really wanted Arcana for a Cleric, I would look at other backgrounds that offered either Arcana or the Skilled feat (or make a custom background, if my DM allowed it).