If you want to argue "rework potential" then it would behoove you to understand what that would reasonably look like. So far, we've been told this edition will be backwards compatible. So, what does that mean?
All the old subclasses will remain viable. This means we can expect any new subclasses to have features at the same levels.
It means, regarding the warlock, Eldritch Invocations as an idea will remain unchanged. We might see errata, but they aren't going anywhere.
You're musing about rebuilding everything from the ground up. You're using language that, so far, has not been embraced by the design team. Wizards of the Coast is not calling this a new edition. If you want to engage honestly with the subject, then do it on their terms.
Backwards compatability with subclasses just mean we need the same number of subclass features at roughly the same levels. That a lot of room for other things.
Eldritch Invocations and their sister Artificer Infusions will very likely remain in the new edition. That said, there's been more than a little discontent over how they've handled them in the past, so we're likely to see old ones phased out and newer ones similiar to Tasha ones phased in. And there's a definite difference. Its like.... We are very likely to see a complete and utter lack of Conjure XYZ spells, given how unbalanced and unweildly they were, so we're going to be seeing more of the Tasha style summons and politely pretending the old ones don't exist.
Its notable that the only 5e PHB spell (cantrip and 1st) not in the new spell lists is Eldritch Blast. There's a chance it will move from a spell to a class feature to avoid certain shinanigans and issues with it prior.
Short rest-based classes have proven to be an abject failure of design. So, at least that will be undergoing revision of -some- sort with the warlock spell slots. Its quite possible that we'll end up testing a half-caster warlock with invocations akin to how Artificer does its thing.
So there's quite a lot of room with new design and new revisions while keeping backwards compatability open.
I never said there wasn't room for redesign. That said, if everything from the old rules supplements is to remain legal then that does limit what we can expect.
Rangers will still have Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, and Hide in Plain Sight as class features. They will probably work a little differently, but I do think it's safe to say they aren't going anywhere. For example, Natural Explorer may see clearer language or get tweaked along with some new movement rules.
Subclass and similar features will continue to occur when they have. For example, the aforementioned ranger will still gain theirs at 3rd, 7th, 11th, and 15th levels. Sticking to the topic of this thread, warlocks will likely acquire Eldritch Invocations identically as before. I think a rebalance of some can safely be expected, but I wouldn't count on the new PHB tackling all of them. There's no guarantee it would even reprint subclasses from the current PHB.
Characters can still take and benefit from a Short Rest because that's (a) the outcome of interrupting a Long Rest and (b) the Musician feat can use it as a trigger. Honestly, the Short Rest isn't a failure of design. That's a malicious lie, and I'm tired of seeing it. It's a pacing tool. It's there to balance difficulty. Presently, more classes than not have something which recharges after a Short Rest. And everyone can use a Short Rest to spent hit dice and recover hit points. If it isn't working out for you, then you aren't using it correctly. Most computer problems are the result of user error, and this is no different. Yes, it is actually possible to play the game wrong (i.e. in a manner which is not intended).
These are just three examples off the top of my head. And, yes, some of that is in the current playtest. It could very well change between now and publication in 2024. But it does show us some insights. Sometimes, what they don't say is louder than what they do say. And in order to remain backwards compatible, WotC will have to color within the lines it's already drawn for itself.
If you want to argue "rework potential" then it would behoove you to understand what that would reasonably look like. So far, we've been told this edition will be backwards compatible. So, what does that mean?
All the old subclasses will remain viable. This means we can expect any new subclasses to have features at the same levels.
It means, regarding the warlock, Eldritch Invocations as an idea will remain unchanged. We might see errata, but they aren't going anywhere.
You're musing about rebuilding everything from the ground up. You're using language that, so far, has not been embraced by the design team. Wizards of the Coast is not calling this a new edition. If you want to engage honestly with the subject, then do it on their terms.
Backwards compatability with subclasses just mean we need the same number of subclass features at roughly the same levels. That a lot of room for other things.
Eldritch Invocations and their sister Artificer Infusions will very likely remain in the new edition. That said, there's been more than a little discontent over how they've handled them in the past, so we're likely to see old ones phased out and newer ones similiar to Tasha ones phased in. And there's a definite difference. Its like.... We are very likely to see a complete and utter lack of Conjure XYZ spells, given how unbalanced and unweildly they were, so we're going to be seeing more of the Tasha style summons and politely pretending the old ones don't exist.
Its notable that the only 5e PHB spell (cantrip and 1st) not in the new spell lists is Eldritch Blast. There's a chance it will move from a spell to a class feature to avoid certain shinanigans and issues with it prior.
Short rest-based classes have proven to be an abject failure of design. So, at least that will be undergoing revision of -some- sort with the warlock spell slots. Its quite possible that we'll end up testing a half-caster warlock with invocations akin to how Artificer does its thing.
So there's quite a lot of room with new design and new revisions while keeping backwards compatability open.
I never said there wasn't room for redesign. That said, if everything from the old rules supplements is to remain legal then that does limit what we can expect.
Rangers will still have Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, and Hide in Plain Sight as class features. They will probably work a little differently, but I do think it's safe to say they aren't going anywhere. For example, Natural Explorer may see clearer language or get tweaked along with some new movement rules.
Subclass and similar features will continue to occur when they have. For example, the aforementioned ranger will still gain theirs at 3rd, 7th, 11th, and 15th levels. Sticking to the topic of this thread, warlocks will likely acquire Eldritch Invocations identically as before. I think a rebalance of some can safely be expected, but I wouldn't count on the new PHB tackling all of them. There's no guarantee it would even reprint subclasses from the current PHB.
Characters can still take and benefit from a Short Rest because that's (a) the outcome of interrupting a Long Rest and (b) the Musician feat can use it as a trigger. Honestly, the Short Rest isn't a failure of design. That's a malicious lie, and I'm tired of seeing it. It's a pacing tool. It's there to balance difficulty. Presently, more classes than not have something which recharges after a Short Rest. And everyone can use a Short Rest to spent hit dice and recover hit points. If it isn't working out for you, then you aren't using it correctly. Most computer problems are the result of user error, and this is no different. Yes, it is actually possible to play the game wrong (i.e. in a manner which is not intended).
These are just three examples off the top of my head. And, yes, some of that is in the current playtest. It could very well change between now and publication in 2024. But it does show us some insights. Sometimes, what they don't say is louder than what they do say. And in order to remain backwards compatible, WotC will have to color within the lines it's already drawn for itself.
If everything from 5e remains legal and on par with 5.5, then what exactly is the point of 5.5?
I think you're taking what "backwards compatible" could mean too far.
Like, I can see subclasses having 4 or so things, equal to 5e, but that doesn't mean they have to be at the same levels. That can change. Druid circle could easily be at 1 or 3 instead of 2.
Ranger will likely keep iconic abilities (whatever Iconic for Ranger means), but because they are iconic, not backwards compatible - the names, order, mechanics etc can all be different. backwards compatible will only matter for abilities like, oh, bardic inspiration or paladin auras that change with each subclass. Hide in Plain Sight could be dropped wholesale, no problem. Rangers will likely have some kind of stealth, because it's part of the class identity, but how? Completely open to revision.
Short Rest ***CLASSES*** are a failure of design. Emphasis classes. There a difference. Skipping words is bad.
I never said there wasn't room for redesign. That said, if everything from the old rules supplements is to remain legal then that does limit what we can expect.
Rangers will still have Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, and Hide in Plain Sight as class features. They will probably work a little differently, but I do think it's safe to say they aren't going anywhere. For example, Natural Explorer may see clearer language or get tweaked along with some new movement rules.
Subclass and similar features will continue to occur when they have. For example, the aforementioned ranger will still gain theirs at 3rd, 7th, 11th, and 15th levels. Sticking to the topic of this thread, warlocks will likely acquire Eldritch Invocations identically as before. I think a rebalance of some can safely be expected, but I wouldn't count on the new PHB tackling all of them. There's no guarantee it would even reprint subclasses from the current PHB.
Characters can still take and benefit from a Short Rest because that's (a) the outcome of interrupting a Long Rest and (b) the Musician feat can use it as a trigger. Honestly, the Short Rest isn't a failure of design. That's a malicious lie, and I'm tired of seeing it. It's a pacing tool. It's there to balance difficulty. Presently, more classes than not have something which recharges after a Short Rest. And everyone can use a Short Rest to spent hit dice and recover hit points. If it isn't working out for you, then you aren't using it correctly. Most computer problems are the result of user error, and this is no different. Yes, it is actually possible to play the game wrong (i.e. in a manner which is not intended).
These are just three examples off the top of my head. And, yes, some of that is in the current playtest. It could very well change between now and publication in 2024. But it does show us some insights. Sometimes, what they don't say is louder than what they do say. And in order to remain backwards compatible, WotC will have to color within the lines it's already drawn for itself.
Hmm, you listed ranger features that already have official alternatives in Tasha's. And these alternatives are clearly more powerful and useful. They currently exist as alternatives because not everyone has bought Tasha's, but with the new PHB it's entirely possible that better options will become baseline.
Why would features occur exactly at the same levels? Moving them up or down a couple of levels won't do much difference for the most part. Some milestones are important to keep as they are in leveling flow, like 5, 11, and 17 level power surges being at roughly the same points across all classes, but the rest is malleable.
While short rest as a mechanic might stay, it's clear that WotC is moving away from short rest dependency. All revised races in MMotM had their "once per short rest" features changed to "PB times per long rest". Given that there's literally only two mentions of short rest in ODnD UA, and there's even no entry for it in rules glossary, it's actually quite likely that it might be ditched. Musician feat might work like inspiring leader, through 10 minutes of performance (because let's be realistic, playing music for 1 hour straight is not anyone's idea of a short rest, it's pretty exhausting finger-numbing work). Class features like ki and pact magic have been a source of many complaints throughout the years, so they're likely to go the way of MMotM revised racial features. Recovery through hit dice remains the only substantial benefit anchored in short rest, its original purpose. Time will show if they keep it or rework hit dice recovery as well.
Like I said before, the extent of compatibility might as well be just bare framework. Ability scores, skills, math behind DC and CR so that you won't have to recalculate or convert adventure content - and that's it. Also possible. Again, time will show. I don't see the point in arguing about it before at least the next UA drops, uselessly wasting our nerves arguing about guesswork (yes, yes, I know it's ironic to say it in the very post where I'm doing exactly that), so... Let's just have tea with cookies)
I don't know why you felt the need to wrap my previous comments in spoiler tags.
Hmm, you listed ranger features that already have official alternatives in Tasha's. And these alternatives are clearly more powerful and useful. They currently exist as alternatives because not everyone has bought Tasha's, but with the new PHB it's entirely possible that better options will become baseline.
This is a false statement. I understand why you made it, and I'm going to put it to bed right here. The alternate features represent a lateral shift. There are circumstances where the PH features would be more useful. There are also circumstances where the alternates, as presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, would also be more useful. The different features are intended to compete with one another. There is no straight replacement or upgrade.
Why would features occur exactly at the same levels? Moving them up or down a couple of levels won't do much difference for the most part. Some milestones are important to keep as they are in leveling flow, like 5, 11, and 17 level power surges being at roughly the same points across all classes, but the rest is malleable.
Because all of those features currently state at which levels they become available. Am I the only one here who reads and thinks critically? Yes? Moving on.
While short rest as a mechanic might stay, it's clear that WotC is moving away from short rest dependency. All revised races in MMotM had their "once per short rest" features changed to "PB times per long rest". Given that there's literally only two mentions of short rest in ODnD UA, and there's even no entry for it in rules glossary, it's actually quite likely that it might be ditched. Musician feat might work like inspiring leader, through 10 minutes of performance (because let's be realistic, playing music for 1 hour straight is not anyone's idea of a short rest, it's pretty exhausting finger-numbing work). Class features like ki and pact magic have been a source of many complaints throughout the years, so they're likely to go the way of MMotM revised racial features. Recovery through hit dice remains the only substantial benefit anchored in short rest, its original purpose. Time will show if they keep it or rework hit dice recovery as well.
As a mechanic, the Short Rest is a holdover from 4e. It lasted 5 minutes and was intended to recover Encounter Powers. That was stretched out to an hour in 5e for two reasons: to de-emphasize combat have an adventuring day make narrative sense. That is, the 1-hour duration is the default. There is a variant in the DMG for taking a 5-minute Short Rest and a 1-hour Long Rest.
I would be disappointed to see it go. I think it helps create narrative downtime in the middle of the day. After all, what else would you consider breaking for an hour to enjoy a meal? They aren't always necessary, because you aren't always expending the same resources every few hours, but they give your players something to do. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to just talk and engage with one another when the day is otherwise slow.
I happen to like overland movement, and navigating from one location to another, in my games. I get that a lot of people think they're boring, or just don't understand pacing. It should be encouraged to teach people those fundamentals. Narratives need a rhythm. And the resting mechanics, by enforcing a pattern, help teach that.
I don't know why you felt the need to wrap my previous comments in spoiler tags.
Hmm, you listed ranger features that already have official alternatives in Tasha's. And these alternatives are clearly more powerful and useful. They currently exist as alternatives because not everyone has bought Tasha's, but with the new PHB it's entirely possible that better options will become baseline.
This is a false statement. I understand why you made it, and I'm going to put it to bed right here. The alternate features represent a lateral shift. There are circumstances where the PH features would be more useful. There are also circumstances where the alternates, as presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, would also be more useful. The different features are intended to compete with one another. There is no straight replacement or upgrade.
Why would features occur exactly at the same levels? Moving them up or down a couple of levels won't do much difference for the most part. Some milestones are important to keep as they are in leveling flow, like 5, 11, and 17 level power surges being at roughly the same points across all classes, but the rest is malleable.
Because all of those features currently state at which levels they become available. Am I the only one here who reads and thinks critically? Yes? Moving on.
While short rest as a mechanic might stay, it's clear that WotC is moving away from short rest dependency. All revised races in MMotM had their "once per short rest" features changed to "PB times per long rest". Given that there's literally only two mentions of short rest in ODnD UA, and there's even no entry for it in rules glossary, it's actually quite likely that it might be ditched. Musician feat might work like inspiring leader, through 10 minutes of performance (because let's be realistic, playing music for 1 hour straight is not anyone's idea of a short rest, it's pretty exhausting finger-numbing work). Class features like ki and pact magic have been a source of many complaints throughout the years, so they're likely to go the way of MMotM revised racial features. Recovery through hit dice remains the only substantial benefit anchored in short rest, its original purpose. Time will show if they keep it or rework hit dice recovery as well.
As a mechanic, the Short Rest is a holdover from 4e. It lasted 5 minutes and was intended to recover Encounter Powers. That was stretched out to an hour in 5e for two reasons: to de-emphasize combat have an adventuring day make narrative sense. That is, the 1-hour duration is the default. There is a variant in the DMG for taking a 5-minute Short Rest and a 1-hour Long Rest.
I would be disappointed to see it go. I think it helps create narrative downtime in the middle of the day. After all, what else would you consider breaking for an hour to enjoy a meal? They aren't always necessary, because you aren't always expending the same resources every few hours, but they give your players something to do. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to just talk and engage with one another when the day is otherwise slow.
I happen to like overland movement, and navigating from one location to another, in my games. I get that a lot of people think they're boring, or just don't understand pacing. It should be encouraged to teach people those fundamentals. Narratives need a rhythm. And the resting mechanics, by enforcing a pattern, help teach that.
I just don't like it when a single post takes like five screens with all the quotes.
Well, alternative ranger features were designed for a reason, and that reason was that PHB ranger simply sucked by popular opinion. His basic features only worked against certain enemies or in certain terrains, outside of that they ceased to function (imagine if paladin could only smite fiends). And even when they did, they didn't provide anything that a successful survival check wouldn't. And zero combat benefits. That's why it is often said that scouts are better rangers than rangers, due to their expertise in survival and nature backed by reliable talent. But whatever, I admit there are specific situations in which a slightly better survival skill would be useful.
Subclass features currently state at which levels they become available. This can be changed in new edition, because why not, actually.
I agree that 1-hour respite makes sense in a narrative way. The pacing, too. But the main problem here is class features that rely on it. If you ever played a warlock or monk (and I just recently finished Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat as hexblade warlock), you know the pain and irritation that dependancy on short rests can create. You become that guy who always keeps asking DM for it after every goddamn encounter. It's okay if short rest stays purely to recover HP with hit dice, but I'm 99% sure WotC will try to fix warlocks, monks, bards, battlemasters, and others.
The Warlock is one of the stranger classes in 5e. I think this is intentional and good, but I do suspect we'll see some substantial changes for it over the course of the playtest. Here are some thoughts:
Eldritch Blast: It has been noted by many that this cantrip does not appear anywhere in spell lists in the One D&D doc. It could be that they are moving it to a warlock exclusive spell. I think it makes more sense for it to be a class feature - a ranged spell attack that all warlocks get. They could have Charisma added to the damage by default, and change the way this "spell" works completely. I'd love to see a set of Invocations that further modify the feature - not just pushing and pulling, but altering the damage type, changing it to area attacks, and so so on.
Pact Magic: They could take this in a few directions. I think expanding the number of slots is a good idea (maybe to Proficiency Bonus?). We could also introduce an ability that recovers spell slots that recharges on a long rest (somewhat like the Rod of the Pact Keeper's daily ability). Personally I'd prefer pact magic to still look substantially different from normal spellcasting.
Invocations: I'm in favor of giving the Warlock more Invocations as they level, in addition to expanding the choices.
Pact Magic: They could take this in a few directions. I think expanding the number of slots is a good idea (maybe to Proficiency Bonus?). We could also introduce an ability that recovers spell slots that recharges on a long rest (somewhat like the Rod of the Pact Keeper's daily ability). Personally I'd prefer pact magic to still look substantially different from normal spellcasting.
The Cleric and Paladin got an ability like the bolded/italicized ability in Tasha's, as an additional Channel Divinity option. Also Warlocks do get a recharge ability at 20th level, so I think they can get a weaker version of that at lower levels, and maybe it upgrades over time to full on recovering all of them at 20th level like it does now.
The level 20 capstones are generally considered boring by most people, so that's actually something I expect to change in the new edition for most everyone. Barb and Druid seem popular, but not so the rest.
As far as I know, anyways. I could be totally wrong about it all.
The level 20 capstones are generally considered boring by most people, so that's actually something I expect to change in the new edition for most everyone. Barb and Druid seem popular, but not so the rest.
As far as I know, anyways. I could be totally wrong about it all.
I've never heard anything bad said about the Paladin capstones, and Artificer is just one of the best ones of the bunch.
Also not sure what's boring about Cleric having guaranteed Divine Intervention.
Regarding captones, I'd love to see a system which encouraged multiclassing. That would add a lot more diversity in builds. But, the current Vancian system wouldn't really work with that.
Regarding captones, I'd love to see a system which encouraged multiclassing. That would add a lot more diversity in builds. But, the current Vancian system wouldn't really work with that.
A while ago I suggested a subclass system with "bridge subclasses" - when two classes, say fighter and wizard, have the same subclass, let's call it spellblade. For spellblade features, both wizard and fighter levels count towards leveling progression. However, the biggest problem with this concept is that it would strongly emphasize certain multiclass combinations over others, and it's just a huge amount of work to make "bridge subclesses" for every multiclass combination.
Regarding captones, I'd love to see a system which encouraged multiclassing. That would add a lot more diversity in builds. But, the current Vancian system wouldn't really work with that.
Prestige classes, then? Ala 3e? Or hybrid rules from 4e? Feat-based?
There's more than a few subclasses that already do something akin to it - rogue hunter, that arcane cleric domain....
Regarding captones, I'd love to see a system which encouraged multiclassing. That would add a lot more diversity in builds. But, the current Vancian system wouldn't really work with that.
A while ago I suggested a subclass system with "bridge subclasses" - when two classes, say fighter and wizard, have the same subclass, let's call it spellblade. For spellblade features, both wizard and fighter levels count towards leveling progression. However, the biggest problem with this concept is that it would strongly emphasize certain multiclass combinations over others, and it's just a huge amount of work to make "bridge subclesses" for every multiclass combination.
Well, multiclassing is an optional rule to begin with. And WotC already tried something similar with the Mages of Strixhaven. It was an interesting idea, but ultimately doomed. And for good reason. This limited what classes could play the setting. And multiclassing means you could pick up more subclass features than normally capable. A Ftr10/Wiz10, to follow your example of a spellblade, would have six subclass features. Now you have to design at least six. And those features need to fit the rhythm of the base classes themselves.
Yes, subclasses have a rhythm to them. You can't just haphazardly throw stuff together. It's a recipe for unbalancing the game.
I don't know why you felt the need to wrap my previous comments in spoiler tags.
Hmm, you listed ranger features that already have official alternatives in Tasha's. And these alternatives are clearly more powerful and useful. They currently exist as alternatives because not everyone has bought Tasha's, but with the new PHB it's entirely possible that better options will become baseline.
This is a false statement. I understand why you made it, and I'm going to put it to bed right here. The alternate features represent a lateral shift. There are circumstances where the PH features would be more useful. There are also circumstances where the alternates, as presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, would also be more useful. The different features are intended to compete with one another. There is no straight replacement or upgrade.
Why would features occur exactly at the same levels? Moving them up or down a couple of levels won't do much difference for the most part. Some milestones are important to keep as they are in leveling flow, like 5, 11, and 17 level power surges being at roughly the same points across all classes, but the rest is malleable.
Because all of those features currently state at which levels they become available. Am I the only one here who reads and thinks critically? Yes? Moving on.
While short rest as a mechanic might stay, it's clear that WotC is moving away from short rest dependency. All revised races in MMotM had their "once per short rest" features changed to "PB times per long rest". Given that there's literally only two mentions of short rest in ODnD UA, and there's even no entry for it in rules glossary, it's actually quite likely that it might be ditched. Musician feat might work like inspiring leader, through 10 minutes of performance (because let's be realistic, playing music for 1 hour straight is not anyone's idea of a short rest, it's pretty exhausting finger-numbing work). Class features like ki and pact magic have been a source of many complaints throughout the years, so they're likely to go the way of MMotM revised racial features. Recovery through hit dice remains the only substantial benefit anchored in short rest, its original purpose. Time will show if they keep it or rework hit dice recovery as well.
As a mechanic, the Short Rest is a holdover from 4e. It lasted 5 minutes and was intended to recover Encounter Powers. That was stretched out to an hour in 5e for two reasons: to de-emphasize combat have an adventuring day make narrative sense. That is, the 1-hour duration is the default. There is a variant in the DMG for taking a 5-minute Short Rest and a 1-hour Long Rest.
I would be disappointed to see it go. I think it helps create narrative downtime in the middle of the day. After all, what else would you consider breaking for an hour to enjoy a meal? They aren't always necessary, because you aren't always expending the same resources every few hours, but they give your players something to do. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to just talk and engage with one another when the day is otherwise slow.
I happen to like overland movement, and navigating from one location to another, in my games. I get that a lot of people think they're boring, or just don't understand pacing. It should be encouraged to teach people those fundamentals. Narratives need a rhythm. And the resting mechanics, by enforcing a pattern, help teach that.
I just don't like it when a single post takes like five screens with all the quotes.
Well, alternative ranger features were designed for a reason, and that reason was that PHB ranger simply sucked by popular opinion. His basic features only worked against certain enemies or in certain terrains, outside of that they ceased to function (imagine if paladin could only smite fiends). And even when they did, they didn't provide anything that a successful survival check wouldn't. And zero combat benefits. That's why it is often said that scouts are better rangers than rangers, due to their expertise in survival and nature backed by reliable talent. But whatever, I admit there are specific situations in which a slightly better survival skill would be useful.
Subclass features currently state at which levels they become available. This can be changed in new edition, because why not, actually.
I agree that 1-hour respite makes sense in a narrative way. The pacing, too. But the main problem here is class features that rely on it. If you ever played a warlock or monk (and I just recently finished Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat as hexblade warlock), you know the pain and irritation that dependancy on short rests can create. You become that guy who always keeps asking DM for it after every goddamn encounter. It's okay if short rest stays purely to recover HP with hit dice, but I'm 99% sure WotC will try to fix warlocks, monks, bards, battlemasters, and others.
Agreed. The 1 hour rest makes narrative sense for like a lunch break, but its too long for catching your breath. And the classes that rely on it need a more catching your breath length break system. Sure if you are making lunch, chatting in a circle a hour makes sense, but the problem in a narrative like that a hour break makes very little sense whenever the story's narrative matters. You are raiding the castle, hey lets take a hour break after killing the gate guards, you are in the dungeon of the evil mage, lets just sack out here for a hour. It basically only makes sense when the encounter is a one off almost like a random wilderness encounter. Otherwise you are only getting a hour break because the DM is okay breaking verisimilitude to maintain class balance. The mechanics lead to telling some classes hey your abilities are not going to be there whenever it matters.
I don't know why you felt the need to wrap my previous comments in spoiler tags.
Hmm, you listed ranger features that already have official alternatives in Tasha's. And these alternatives are clearly more powerful and useful. They currently exist as alternatives because not everyone has bought Tasha's, but with the new PHB it's entirely possible that better options will become baseline.
This is a false statement. I understand why you made it, and I'm going to put it to bed right here. The alternate features represent a lateral shift. There are circumstances where the PH features would be more useful. There are also circumstances where the alternates, as presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, would also be more useful. The different features are intended to compete with one another. There is no straight replacement or upgrade.
Why would features occur exactly at the same levels? Moving them up or down a couple of levels won't do much difference for the most part. Some milestones are important to keep as they are in leveling flow, like 5, 11, and 17 level power surges being at roughly the same points across all classes, but the rest is malleable.
Because all of those features currently state at which levels they become available. Am I the only one here who reads and thinks critically? Yes? Moving on.
While short rest as a mechanic might stay, it's clear that WotC is moving away from short rest dependency. All revised races in MMotM had their "once per short rest" features changed to "PB times per long rest". Given that there's literally only two mentions of short rest in ODnD UA, and there's even no entry for it in rules glossary, it's actually quite likely that it might be ditched. Musician feat might work like inspiring leader, through 10 minutes of performance (because let's be realistic, playing music for 1 hour straight is not anyone's idea of a short rest, it's pretty exhausting finger-numbing work). Class features like ki and pact magic have been a source of many complaints throughout the years, so they're likely to go the way of MMotM revised racial features. Recovery through hit dice remains the only substantial benefit anchored in short rest, its original purpose. Time will show if they keep it or rework hit dice recovery as well.
As a mechanic, the Short Rest is a holdover from 4e. It lasted 5 minutes and was intended to recover Encounter Powers. That was stretched out to an hour in 5e for two reasons: to de-emphasize combat have an adventuring day make narrative sense. That is, the 1-hour duration is the default. There is a variant in the DMG for taking a 5-minute Short Rest and a 1-hour Long Rest.
I would be disappointed to see it go. I think it helps create narrative downtime in the middle of the day. After all, what else would you consider breaking for an hour to enjoy a meal? They aren't always necessary, because you aren't always expending the same resources every few hours, but they give your players something to do. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to just talk and engage with one another when the day is otherwise slow.
I happen to like overland movement, and navigating from one location to another, in my games. I get that a lot of people think they're boring, or just don't understand pacing. It should be encouraged to teach people those fundamentals. Narratives need a rhythm. And the resting mechanics, by enforcing a pattern, help teach that.
I just don't like it when a single post takes like five screens with all the quotes.
Well, alternative ranger features were designed for a reason, and that reason was that PHB ranger simply sucked by popular opinion. His basic features only worked against certain enemies or in certain terrains, outside of that they ceased to function (imagine if paladin could only smite fiends). And even when they did, they didn't provide anything that a successful survival check wouldn't. And zero combat benefits. That's why it is often said that scouts are better rangers than rangers, due to their expertise in survival and nature backed by reliable talent. But whatever, I admit there are specific situations in which a slightly better survival skill would be useful.
Subclass features currently state at which levels they become available. This can be changed in new edition, because why not, actually.
I agree that 1-hour respite makes sense in a narrative way. The pacing, too. But the main problem here is class features that rely on it. If you ever played a warlock or monk (and I just recently finished Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat as hexblade warlock), you know the pain and irritation that dependancy on short rests can create. You become that guy who always keeps asking DM for it after every goddamn encounter. It's okay if short rest stays purely to recover HP with hit dice, but I'm 99% sure WotC will try to fix warlocks, monks, bards, battlemasters, and others.
Agreed. The 1 hour rest makes narrative sense for like a lunch break, but its too long for catching your breath. And the classes that rely on it need a more catching your breath length break system. Sure if you are making lunch, chatting in a circle a hour makes sense, but the problem in a narrative like that a hour break makes very little sense whenever the story's narrative matters. You are raiding the castle, hey lets take a hour break after killing the gate guards, you are in the dungeon of the evil mage, lets just sack out here for a hour. It basically only makes sense when the encounter is a one off almost like a random wilderness encounter. Otherwise you are only getting a hour break because the DM is okay breaking verisimilitude to maintain class balance. The mechanics lead to telling some classes hey your abilities are not going to be there whenever it matters.
I disagree. You can maintain verisimilitude in more circumstances than not. You might be on the road, or in the wilds, but you could also be in a city or town. If you're engaged in a dungeon crawl, you can secure a room to rest in. (Wandering Monster checks are typically every 30 minutes, so you only need to worry about one possible interruption.) And delving into a dungeon should be inherently risky.
Hm. Interesting video. The guy does make a few good points, but also a few very bad ones.
Being outright dismissive of the comparison between wizards and warlock spell lists being my number one issue. Yes, the warlock does have a few spells not on the wizard list. Primarily, Arms (and later Hunger) of Hadar, Armor of Agathys, Hellish Rebuke, Hex, Enthrall (shared with Bard) and Eldritch blast. And that's it from the core; Xanathar's added a necrotic version of the wizard's Fire Shield for Hexblade, and I'm unfamiliar with any other warlock only spells from supplements offhand. The rest of the spell list is just a watered down version of wizard's.
The video ranted that the people comparing warlock and wizard clearly must not have played the class, to which I have to laugh. From the sounds of it, its his player that's done the warlock thing, not him. Every accusation is an admission.
Making EB a class feature is something I agree with. Not to avoid the multiclass thing (because eff that bias), but because its part of how I would like to see the Pact Blade issue be fixed. But more on that another time.
I also agree that invocations are a bit underwhelming in a lot of cases, but that's mostly the core book ones. Xanathar and Tasha have several interesting ones that are much more evocative, and I would love to see them in the new core.
I don't know why you felt the need to wrap my previous comments in spoiler tags.
Hmm, you listed ranger features that already have official alternatives in Tasha's. And these alternatives are clearly more powerful and useful. They currently exist as alternatives because not everyone has bought Tasha's, but with the new PHB it's entirely possible that better options will become baseline.
This is a false statement. I understand why you made it, and I'm going to put it to bed right here. The alternate features represent a lateral shift. There are circumstances where the PH features would be more useful. There are also circumstances where the alternates, as presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, would also be more useful. The different features are intended to compete with one another. There is no straight replacement or upgrade.
Why would features occur exactly at the same levels? Moving them up or down a couple of levels won't do much difference for the most part. Some milestones are important to keep as they are in leveling flow, like 5, 11, and 17 level power surges being at roughly the same points across all classes, but the rest is malleable.
Because all of those features currently state at which levels they become available. Am I the only one here who reads and thinks critically? Yes? Moving on.
While short rest as a mechanic might stay, it's clear that WotC is moving away from short rest dependency. All revised races in MMotM had their "once per short rest" features changed to "PB times per long rest". Given that there's literally only two mentions of short rest in ODnD UA, and there's even no entry for it in rules glossary, it's actually quite likely that it might be ditched. Musician feat might work like inspiring leader, through 10 minutes of performance (because let's be realistic, playing music for 1 hour straight is not anyone's idea of a short rest, it's pretty exhausting finger-numbing work). Class features like ki and pact magic have been a source of many complaints throughout the years, so they're likely to go the way of MMotM revised racial features. Recovery through hit dice remains the only substantial benefit anchored in short rest, its original purpose. Time will show if they keep it or rework hit dice recovery as well.
As a mechanic, the Short Rest is a holdover from 4e. It lasted 5 minutes and was intended to recover Encounter Powers. That was stretched out to an hour in 5e for two reasons: to de-emphasize combat have an adventuring day make narrative sense. That is, the 1-hour duration is the default. There is a variant in the DMG for taking a 5-minute Short Rest and a 1-hour Long Rest.
I would be disappointed to see it go. I think it helps create narrative downtime in the middle of the day. After all, what else would you consider breaking for an hour to enjoy a meal? They aren't always necessary, because you aren't always expending the same resources every few hours, but they give your players something to do. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to just talk and engage with one another when the day is otherwise slow.
I happen to like overland movement, and navigating from one location to another, in my games. I get that a lot of people think they're boring, or just don't understand pacing. It should be encouraged to teach people those fundamentals. Narratives need a rhythm. And the resting mechanics, by enforcing a pattern, help teach that.
I just don't like it when a single post takes like five screens with all the quotes.
Well, alternative ranger features were designed for a reason, and that reason was that PHB ranger simply sucked by popular opinion. His basic features only worked against certain enemies or in certain terrains, outside of that they ceased to function (imagine if paladin could only smite fiends). And even when they did, they didn't provide anything that a successful survival check wouldn't. And zero combat benefits. That's why it is often said that scouts are better rangers than rangers, due to their expertise in survival and nature backed by reliable talent. But whatever, I admit there are specific situations in which a slightly better survival skill would be useful.
Subclass features currently state at which levels they become available. This can be changed in new edition, because why not, actually.
I agree that 1-hour respite makes sense in a narrative way. The pacing, too. But the main problem here is class features that rely on it. If you ever played a warlock or monk (and I just recently finished Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat as hexblade warlock), you know the pain and irritation that dependancy on short rests can create. You become that guy who always keeps asking DM for it after every goddamn encounter. It's okay if short rest stays purely to recover HP with hit dice, but I'm 99% sure WotC will try to fix warlocks, monks, bards, battlemasters, and others.
Agreed. The 1 hour rest makes narrative sense for like a lunch break, but its too long for catching your breath. And the classes that rely on it need a more catching your breath length break system. Sure if you are making lunch, chatting in a circle a hour makes sense, but the problem in a narrative like that a hour break makes very little sense whenever the story's narrative matters. You are raiding the castle, hey lets take a hour break after killing the gate guards, you are in the dungeon of the evil mage, lets just sack out here for a hour. It basically only makes sense when the encounter is a one off almost like a random wilderness encounter. Otherwise you are only getting a hour break because the DM is okay breaking verisimilitude to maintain class balance. The mechanics lead to telling some classes hey your abilities are not going to be there whenever it matters.
I disagree. You can maintain verisimilitude in more circumstances than not. You might be on the road, or in the wilds, but you could also be in a city or town. If you're engaged in a dungeon crawl, you can secure a room to rest in. (Wandering Monster checks are typically every 30 minutes, so you only need to worry about one possible interruption.) And delving into a dungeon should be inherently risky.
You can maintain verisimilitude in times that don't matter. But those days rarely even need the short rest its one or two encounters that day which even with the short rests the long rest crew excels at.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I never said there wasn't room for redesign. That said, if everything from the old rules supplements is to remain legal then that does limit what we can expect.
These are just three examples off the top of my head. And, yes, some of that is in the current playtest. It could very well change between now and publication in 2024. But it does show us some insights. Sometimes, what they don't say is louder than what they do say. And in order to remain backwards compatible, WotC will have to color within the lines it's already drawn for itself.
If everything from 5e remains legal and on par with 5.5, then what exactly is the point of 5.5?
I think you're taking what "backwards compatible" could mean too far.
Like, I can see subclasses having 4 or so things, equal to 5e, but that doesn't mean they have to be at the same levels. That can change. Druid circle could easily be at 1 or 3 instead of 2.
Ranger will likely keep iconic abilities (whatever Iconic for Ranger means), but because they are iconic, not backwards compatible - the names, order, mechanics etc can all be different. backwards compatible will only matter for abilities like, oh, bardic inspiration or paladin auras that change with each subclass. Hide in Plain Sight could be dropped wholesale, no problem. Rangers will likely have some kind of stealth, because it's part of the class identity, but how? Completely open to revision.
Short Rest ***CLASSES*** are a failure of design. Emphasis classes. There a difference. Skipping words is bad.
Like I said before, the extent of compatibility might as well be just bare framework. Ability scores, skills, math behind DC and CR so that you won't have to recalculate or convert adventure content - and that's it. Also possible. Again, time will show. I don't see the point in arguing about it before at least the next UA drops, uselessly wasting our nerves arguing about guesswork (yes, yes, I know it's ironic to say it in the very post where I'm doing exactly that), so... Let's just have tea with cookies)
I don't know why you felt the need to wrap my previous comments in spoiler tags.
This is a false statement. I understand why you made it, and I'm going to put it to bed right here. The alternate features represent a lateral shift. There are circumstances where the PH features would be more useful. There are also circumstances where the alternates, as presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, would also be more useful. The different features are intended to compete with one another. There is no straight replacement or upgrade.
Because all of those features currently state at which levels they become available. Am I the only one here who reads and thinks critically? Yes? Moving on.
As a mechanic, the Short Rest is a holdover from 4e. It lasted 5 minutes and was intended to recover Encounter Powers. That was stretched out to an hour in 5e for two reasons: to de-emphasize combat have an adventuring day make narrative sense. That is, the 1-hour duration is the default. There is a variant in the DMG for taking a 5-minute Short Rest and a 1-hour Long Rest.
I would be disappointed to see it go. I think it helps create narrative downtime in the middle of the day. After all, what else would you consider breaking for an hour to enjoy a meal? They aren't always necessary, because you aren't always expending the same resources every few hours, but they give your players something to do. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to just talk and engage with one another when the day is otherwise slow.
I happen to like overland movement, and navigating from one location to another, in my games. I get that a lot of people think they're boring, or just don't understand pacing. It should be encouraged to teach people those fundamentals. Narratives need a rhythm. And the resting mechanics, by enforcing a pattern, help teach that.
I just don't like it when a single post takes like five screens with all the quotes.
Well, alternative ranger features were designed for a reason, and that reason was that PHB ranger simply sucked by popular opinion. His basic features only worked against certain enemies or in certain terrains, outside of that they ceased to function (imagine if paladin could only smite fiends). And even when they did, they didn't provide anything that a successful survival check wouldn't. And zero combat benefits. That's why it is often said that scouts are better rangers than rangers, due to their expertise in survival and nature backed by reliable talent. But whatever, I admit there are specific situations in which a slightly better survival skill would be useful.
Subclass features currently state at which levels they become available. This can be changed in new edition, because why not, actually.
I agree that 1-hour respite makes sense in a narrative way. The pacing, too. But the main problem here is class features that rely on it. If you ever played a warlock or monk (and I just recently finished Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat as hexblade warlock), you know the pain and irritation that dependancy on short rests can create. You become that guy who always keeps asking DM for it after every goddamn encounter. It's okay if short rest stays purely to recover HP with hit dice, but I'm 99% sure WotC will try to fix warlocks, monks, bards, battlemasters, and others.
The Warlock is one of the stranger classes in 5e. I think this is intentional and good, but I do suspect we'll see some substantial changes for it over the course of the playtest. Here are some thoughts:
Eldritch Blast: It has been noted by many that this cantrip does not appear anywhere in spell lists in the One D&D doc. It could be that they are moving it to a warlock exclusive spell. I think it makes more sense for it to be a class feature - a ranged spell attack that all warlocks get. They could have Charisma added to the damage by default, and change the way this "spell" works completely. I'd love to see a set of Invocations that further modify the feature - not just pushing and pulling, but altering the damage type, changing it to area attacks, and so so on.
Pact Magic: They could take this in a few directions. I think expanding the number of slots is a good idea (maybe to Proficiency Bonus?). We could also introduce an ability that recovers spell slots that recharges on a long rest (somewhat like the Rod of the Pact Keeper's daily ability). Personally I'd prefer pact magic to still look substantially different from normal spellcasting.
Invocations: I'm in favor of giving the Warlock more Invocations as they level, in addition to expanding the choices.
I'm kinda leaning towards them looking at the Pathfinder 2E Thaumaturge as inspiration for the revised Warlock.
The Cleric and Paladin got an ability like the bolded/italicized ability in Tasha's, as an additional Channel Divinity option. Also Warlocks do get a recharge ability at 20th level, so I think they can get a weaker version of that at lower levels, and maybe it upgrades over time to full on recovering all of them at 20th level like it does now.
The level 20 capstones are generally considered boring by most people, so that's actually something I expect to change in the new edition for most everyone. Barb and Druid seem popular, but not so the rest.
As far as I know, anyways. I could be totally wrong about it all.
I've never heard anything bad said about the Paladin capstones, and Artificer is just one of the best ones of the bunch.
Also not sure what's boring about Cleric having guaranteed Divine Intervention.
Regarding captones, I'd love to see a system which encouraged multiclassing. That would add a lot more diversity in builds. But, the current Vancian system wouldn't really work with that.
A while ago I suggested a subclass system with "bridge subclasses" - when two classes, say fighter and wizard, have the same subclass, let's call it spellblade. For spellblade features, both wizard and fighter levels count towards leveling progression. However, the biggest problem with this concept is that it would strongly emphasize certain multiclass combinations over others, and it's just a huge amount of work to make "bridge subclesses" for every multiclass combination.
Prestige classes, then? Ala 3e? Or hybrid rules from 4e? Feat-based?
There's more than a few subclasses that already do something akin to it - rogue hunter, that arcane cleric domain....
I feel like this video is very relevant to this thread's topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfDiVv2z1TI
Well, multiclassing is an optional rule to begin with. And WotC already tried something similar with the Mages of Strixhaven. It was an interesting idea, but ultimately doomed. And for good reason. This limited what classes could play the setting. And multiclassing means you could pick up more subclass features than normally capable. A Ftr10/Wiz10, to follow your example of a spellblade, would have six subclass features. Now you have to design at least six. And those features need to fit the rhythm of the base classes themselves.
Yes, subclasses have a rhythm to them. You can't just haphazardly throw stuff together. It's a recipe for unbalancing the game.
Agreed. The 1 hour rest makes narrative sense for like a lunch break, but its too long for catching your breath. And the classes that rely on it need a more catching your breath length break system. Sure if you are making lunch, chatting in a circle a hour makes sense, but the problem in a narrative like that a hour break makes very little sense whenever the story's narrative matters. You are raiding the castle, hey lets take a hour break after killing the gate guards, you are in the dungeon of the evil mage, lets just sack out here for a hour. It basically only makes sense when the encounter is a one off almost like a random wilderness encounter. Otherwise you are only getting a hour break because the DM is okay breaking verisimilitude to maintain class balance. The mechanics lead to telling some classes hey your abilities are not going to be there whenever it matters.
I disagree. You can maintain verisimilitude in more circumstances than not. You might be on the road, or in the wilds, but you could also be in a city or town. If you're engaged in a dungeon crawl, you can secure a room to rest in. (Wandering Monster checks are typically every 30 minutes, so you only need to worry about one possible interruption.) And delving into a dungeon should be inherently risky.
Hm. Interesting video. The guy does make a few good points, but also a few very bad ones.
Being outright dismissive of the comparison between wizards and warlock spell lists being my number one issue. Yes, the warlock does have a few spells not on the wizard list. Primarily, Arms (and later Hunger) of Hadar, Armor of Agathys, Hellish Rebuke, Hex, Enthrall (shared with Bard) and Eldritch blast. And that's it from the core; Xanathar's added a necrotic version of the wizard's Fire Shield for Hexblade, and I'm unfamiliar with any other warlock only spells from supplements offhand. The rest of the spell list is just a watered down version of wizard's.
The video ranted that the people comparing warlock and wizard clearly must not have played the class, to which I have to laugh. From the sounds of it, its his player that's done the warlock thing, not him. Every accusation is an admission.
Making EB a class feature is something I agree with. Not to avoid the multiclass thing (because eff that bias), but because its part of how I would like to see the Pact Blade issue be fixed. But more on that another time.
I also agree that invocations are a bit underwhelming in a lot of cases, but that's mostly the core book ones. Xanathar and Tasha have several interesting ones that are much more evocative, and I would love to see them in the new core.
You can maintain verisimilitude in times that don't matter. But those days rarely even need the short rest its one or two encounters that day which even with the short rests the long rest crew excels at.