Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Quote from Reisenwulf >>

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

In the current rules being unseen doesn't mean being hidden. By default people know where you are even if you invisible, unless you take the Hide Action. Extrapolating that out means that people know where you are even if you have Total Cover. Unless you take the Hide Action.

 That needs to be more specifically called out in the rules, then. Hidden calls out four effects in bold, and none of them say 'enemies don't know where you are,' nor does it give any rules for how not knowing where you are would work mechanically. And if that is the intent, that kinda conflicts with the 'Attacks Affected' effect, which is also true of current rules for Invisibility and being Unseen. How can an enemy Attack me, even at Disadvantage, if they don't know where I am?

By guessing your location and taking a swing. This is how it is with current rules as well.

 
And you're saying they can't do that while I'm Hidden? I'm still failing to see how the Hide action provides any benefit over what Heavily Obscured or Total Cover would, logically, grant automatically.

Correct it is always an action to hide with these rules which kind of sucks. Actions should be more bad ass than reality not less bad ass. The current and even 5e rules on hiding are less bad ass than reality.

Not sure I understand why they changed it so the Ritual Caster feat is really only useful to casters, especially when they already expanded it so that all casting classes have the ability to cast spells as rituals.

Quote from Generic_Poster >>

Not sure I understand why they changed it so the Ritual Caster feat is really only useful to casters, especially when they already expanded it so that all casting classes have the ability to cast spells as rituals.

Yeah its pretty much just the quick cast ritual now, you have a small gain with 2 extra spells as well but the utility for non casters is gone which was its biggest draw imo.

I know 5e was like this as well but I do not like the functionality of just removing the penalties for cover and long range with a feat with sharpshooter/spell sniper. I don't mind benefits in that arena but the idea you are just as good hitting something at 600 feet as 30 feet feels weird, the idea that grabbing cover does nothing for the target feels weird. Like 3/4 cover is considered 1/2 and 1/2 cover is ignored, and your short range is 50% longer fine. but just no penalties just feels off like it is removing tactical elements by just taking a feat.

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from Generic_Poster >>

Not sure I understand why they changed it so the Ritual Caster feat is really only useful to casters, especially when they already expanded it so that all casting classes have the ability to cast spells as rituals.

 

Yeah its pretty much just the quick cast ritual now, you have a small gain with 2 extra spells as well but the utility for non casters is gone which was its biggest draw imo.

This does make it strictly a buff (if you had this feat before and have it now, you have all the same functionality, plus new stuff), but it is a buff only because everyone gets what you took this feat to have. Kind of weird. Would rather they just deleted it.

Quote from MyDudeicus>>

While thematically I do not like the spell list changes as classes feel less unique balance wise I think bards gained more than they lost spell wise. Yeah there are primal/divine spells lost but at every level they gained arcane spells as well.

No, not at all. Of first level spells, they gained Jump but lost five.  2nd? Lost 8 gained 5.  Third? They ironically lost at least 3 spells from the Arcane list because they are the wrong school, including Dispel Magic.

You kinda need to keep in mind that most Arcane enchantments and illusions were already bard spells, as were many divinations.  That leaves trading in thematic spells for the occasional niche Transmutation magic like spider climb.

This is a net loss no matter how it's sliced. This is not an equivalent trade.

Another thing that just clicked into place: The existence of the Study Action means that, in combat, you have to blow your action for the turn to try to identify a creature and recall salient facts about it. Of course, the rules for ability checks state that a DM always has the ability to say that a particular action only takes a bonus or no Action, but with the default being that it takes an Action, DMs will have to re-calibrate how much information they dole out on a successful roll to make it worthwhile to do that instead of attacking, casting a spell, etc. Alternatively, it dramatically increases the importance of scouting out the opposition before initiative is rolled so you can make the relevant checks to know what you're up against.

On the plus side, this does impose some limitations on the usual knowledge skill dogpile, at least in combat.

Going further into the bard issue, it just feels like a more complicated way to handle spells, rather than the simplification they present it as. What sounds like an easier process?

1. Check the large list clearly labeled 'Bard Spells' and choose your spells accordingly.
2. Check the Arcane List, then make sure the spell is a Transmutation, Enchantment, Divination or Illusion spell, and then you can take it.

It also forces them to do weird things where they shoehorn spells into different schools that feel weird just to prevent/allow a bard taking it. For example, all thunder damage spells are now Transmutation? That seems weird. Evocation Wizards can't Sculpt thunder spells anymore.

Quote from Reisenwulf >>

Going further into the bard issue, it just feels like a more complicated way to handle spells, rather than the simplification they present it as. What sounds like an easier process?

1. Check the large list clearly labeled 'Bard Spells' and choose your spells accordingly.
2. Check the Arcane List, then make sure the spell is a Transmutation, Enchantment, Divination or Illusion spell, and then you can take it.

It also forces them to do weird things where they shoehorn spells into different schools that feel weird just to prevent/allow a bard taking it. For example, all thunder damage spells are now Transmutation? That seems weird. Evocation Wizards can't Sculpt thunder spells anymore.

 Agreed.  Picking spells by school is a pain in the butt for Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights - now that same pain is expanded to even more classes.

Quote from Mephista >>

Quote from MyDudeicus>>

While thematically I do not like the spell list changes as classes feel less unique balance wise I think bards gained more than they lost spell wise. Yeah there are primal/divine spells lost but at every level they gained arcane spells as well.

No, not at all. Of first level spells, they gained Jump but lost five.  2nd? Lost 8 gained 5.  Third? They ironically lost at least 3 spells from the Arcane list because they are the wrong school, including Dispel Magic.

You kinda need to keep in mind that most Arcane enchantments and illusions were already bard spells, as were many divinations.  That leaves trading in thematic spells for the occasional niche Transmutation magic like spider climb.

This is a net loss no matter how it's sliced. This is not an equivalent trade.

 

They gained expeditious retreat, jump, color spray, hex at 1st level, I'm not going to check the numbers on the rest as numbers isn't everything the quality of the spell matters as well, and they got some great spells. Its a gain no matter how its sliced. They got a better trade overall in spell casting and its not even close.

Quote from Kaigen_42 >>

Another thing that just clicked into place: The existence of the Study Action means that, in combat, you have to blow your action for the turn to try to identify a creature and recall salient facts about it. Of course, the rules for ability checks state that a DM always has the ability to say that a particular action only takes a bonus or no Action, but with the default being that it takes an Action, DMs will have to re-calibrate how much information they dole out on a successful roll to make it worthwhile to do that instead of attacking, casting a spell, etc. Alternatively, it dramatically increases the importance of scouting out the opposition before initiative is rolled so you can make the relevant checks to know what you're up against.

On the plus side, this does impose some limitations on the usual knowledge skill dogpile, at least in combat.

The problem when things like this become actions is they are up against attacking the enemy, casting fireball, basically doing something useful etc. I'm sure there are some rare monsters here and there that you need to lore check to know they are only hurt by reminding them that their mother never loved them but in most cases actually doing something will be the better action. There are feats which change these to a bonus action which imo would make it less likely for a DM to hand wave them into bonus actions or non actions. But if an action sucks and only becomes somewhat useful with a feat I'd say reevaluate how the base action works.

Quote from Reisenwulf >>

Going further into the bard issue, it just feels like a more complicated way to handle spells, rather than the simplification they present it as. What sounds like an easier process?

1. Check the large list clearly labeled 'Bard Spells' and choose your spells accordingly.
2. Check the Arcane List, then make sure the spell is a Transmutation, Enchantment, Divination or Illusion spell, and then you can take it.

It also forces them to do weird things where they shoehorn spells into different schools that feel weird just to prevent/allow a bard taking it. For example, all thunder damage spells are now Transmutation? That seems weird. Evocation Wizards can't Sculpt thunder spells anymore.

Agreed on this. I think they have a very powerful spell casting option, but it will be a pain in the ass on top of that their list just feels generic as its just the wizard list but not those spells.

So... Arcane spells are automatically better quality?  That's a very unusual stance to take.

only buff (outside subclass) i see is hunters mark and light weapons, everything else is a nerf.  most painful is guidance, bardic inspiration, evasion coming two levels later,  sharpshooter, great weapon fighting and stealth/hide in general. i understand nerfing casters (bard list is a joke), but nerfing martials was unneeded when they have so few avenues of boosting damage.

if we are going from the last round of crit rules, it looks like sneak dice won't crit, but its not clear if they threw those modifications out. 

the focus on high levels seem to come at the cost of where most campaigns live, levels 3 to 8. for example, the bardic inspiration number of times and evasion at later level.

the ranger losing all their flavor abilities is painful, but they got the biggest buff of one dnd so far from what i can tell.

study, search actions are unneeded relics of 3.5 imo. next will be listen and spot instead of perception.

notes:

exhaustion is more boring now... but it is also less annoying... not sure how i feel about it. i like it as a player that doesnt like exhaustion, but from a game design perspective, it is less flavorful.

grapple changes are nice, more stuff going on during combat, but can get annoying high number of players/grapplers... and with grappler feat change, there might be more grapplers.

inspiration on a 1 is lame imo.  dont know why people like it. it is antithetical to what a low roll is. it made more sense on a 20, but thats like adding a hat to a hat. i understand the desitre to include this mechanic, but maybe is should just be when someone misses an AC or DC by 1.  it is still a 5% chance and seems like a more sound approach.

jump as an action seems kind of lame, intermediate dex checks make more sense.  or at least a bonus action.

would have been nice if grapple dc was based on original contested stats instead of strength only, but its pretty cool for unarmed people.

Quote from dipstik >>

only buff (outside subclass) i see is hunters mark and light weapons, everything else is a nerf.  most painful is guidance, bardic inspiration, evasion coming two levels later,  sharpshooter, great weapon fighting and stealth/hide in general. i understand nerfing casters (bard list is a joke), but nerfing martials was unneeded when they have so few avenues of boosting damage.

if we are going from the last round of crit rules, it looks like sneak dice won't crit, but its not clear if they threw those modifications out. 

the focus on high levels seem to come at the cost of where most campaigns live, levels 3 to 8. for example, the bardic inspiration number of times and evasion at later level.

the ranger losing all their flavor abilities is painful, but they got the biggest buff of one dnd so far from what i can tell.

study, search actions are unneeded relics of 3.5 imo. next will be listen and spot instead of perception.

notes:

exhaustion is more boring now... but it is also less annoying... not sure how i feel about it. i like it as a player that doesnt like exhaustion, but from a game design perspective, it is less flavorful.

grapple changes are nice, more stuff going on during combat, but can get annoying high number of players/grapplers... and with grappler feat change, there might be more grapplers.

inspiration on a 1 is lame imo.  dont know why people like it. it is antithetical to what a low roll is. it made more sense on a 20, but thats like adding a hat to a hat. i understand the desitre to include this mechanic, but maybe is should just be when someone misses an AC or DC by 1.  it is still a 5% chance and seems like a more sound approach.

jump as an action seems kind of lame, intermediate dex checks make more sense.  or at least a bonus action.

would have been nice if grapple dc was based on original contested stats instead of strength only, but its pretty cool for unarmed people.

 

 
How on Earth is Guidance a nerf?

Old Guidance:

New guidance:

I cannot possibly perceive New Guidance as anything but S-Tier and Old Guidance as anything but C-Tier.

Quote from BSessio >>

How on Earth is Guidance a nerf?

Old Guidance:

Guidance

Concentration

 

New guidance:

Guidance

 

 

 

I cannot possibly perceive New Guidance as anything but S-Tier and Old Guidance as anything but C-Tier.

The target only being able to benefit once per long rest is a pretty serious nerf, though it's one I'm, 100% in favor of.

Quote from BSessio >>

I cannot possibly perceive New Guidance as anything but S-Tier and Old Guidance as anything but C-Tier.

Old Guidance was stronger since it could be used more times a day, new Guidance uses reactions and limited to once a day but isn't concentration. So... yeah. They are both good but one of them was so broken it was literally abused to the nth degree and the reason it got changed.

Quote from SagaTympana >>

 

The target only being able to benefit once per long rest is a pretty serious nerf, though it's one I'm, 100% in favor of.

I guess? But it went from being a spell you use on someone when you're trying to do Strength checks to open doors, to something you can use exactly when it's needed, exactly how it's needed, instantly. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "Wish I gave you Guidance first". It can now be used so much more versatiley, and will be a spell you cast X number of times a Long Rest, where X = people you meet that you like.

The nice thing about new Guidance is that the timing works better with how the game flows at the table. There's less of the DM calling for a check only to have the caster try to rewind time to cast it because they didn't know a check was coming (or else specifying that they're casting it every single minute to keep the buff ready). Only once per long rest does feel harsh, though. I would've gone for once per short rest.