Cantrips with limited uses per day defeats the purpose of being a cantrip. If it's too good to allow it to be used freely, it should be a leveled spell. If it's not good enough to be a leveled spell, then it either needs to be completely rethought, or eliminated.
Not technically limited uses; it's limited uses per target. This limit already exists somewhere: Friends. Friends, at the end of the spell, makes a creature Hostile. Friends cannot target someone who is Hostile. Sure, you can cheese it to maybe calm them down, but it isn't guaranteed, and also isn't really likely - the spell makes it clear they're PISSED. At best, you can use Friends again if you Charm Personed them.
This is just the second spell we've seen that limits you to once per person. It just happens to be more explicit about it than Friends was, but this UA is big on being explicit. I'd be fine if Friends was rewritten to say "Once a creature has this spell cast on them, that creature cannot be targeted by this spell again until that creature finishes a Long Rest."
You mean, whoever took Guidance didn’t think to use it every time the DM called for a check? How come?
Because of timing, impatience, forgetfulness, etc. But even when I've seen it used a lot, it's never been "assumed always cast every minute" constant. Definitely an abuse, and I think a good change. Still, maybe 1/SR is better than 1/LR.
Basically agreeing with the last post. All I see, so to speak, in the objection is not acknowledging that blindsight is a paradoxical term making the "sight" half literally impossible but instead effectively impossible. Blindsight is an exception to invisibility's power allowing the entity with blindsight to "effectively" see the target. So the blindseer is not literally seeing anything with their visual, even if they are sighted, but through a mechanism (which can be pretty fairly open-ended, 6th sense, ultrasonic echolocation, LIDAR, whatever) that negates the invisibllity for the blindseer. That's pretty standard and best practice rule wording in the UA and thought it was one of the more well done parts of the UA.
Maybe it's because I'm coming at this primarily as someone who spends most of his time in Rules & Game Mechanics, but unless they come right out and say that the invisible condition is circumvented by someone being able to see you, we are going to end up in the same absurd situation that we're already in with it, which is to say that even JC is over here telling folks that if you have truesight or the see invisibility spell, you still get disadvantage against invisible creatures.
Maybe it's because I'm coming at this primarily as someone who spends most of his time in Rules & Game Mechanics, but unless they come right out and say that the invisible condition is circumvented by someone being able to see you, we are going to end up in the same absurd situation that we're already in with it, which is to say that even JC is over here telling folks that if you have truesight or the see invisibility spell, you still get disadvantage against invisible creatures.
As written, yeah, that hasn't changed. They should really just make unseen a status and attach the combat effects to that status.
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.
Plus Magical Secrets are also prepared spells and can be swapped in an out as needed/desired which improves versatility.
Cantrips with limited uses per day defeats the purpose of being a cantrip. If it's too good to allow it to be used freely, it should be a leveled spell. If it's not good enough to be a leveled spell, then it either needs to be completely rethought, or eliminated.
Not technically limited uses; it's limited uses per target. This limit already exists somewhere: Friends. Friends, at the end of the spell, makes a creature Hostile. Friends cannot target someone who is Hostile. Sure, you can cheese it to maybe calm them down, but it isn't guaranteed, and also isn't really likely - the spell makes it clear they're PISSED. At best, you can use Friends again if you Charm Personed them.
This is just the second spell we've seen that limits you to once per person. It just happens to be more explicit about it than Friends was, but this UA is big on being explicit. I'd be fine if Friends was rewritten to say "Once a creature has this spell cast on them, that creature cannot be targeted by this spell again until that creature finishes a Long Rest."
I would personally say that Friends is also a bad cantrip and should be rethought too, but I'll set that aside for now since that is still a much more freely useable spell than the new Guidance. Once per day on NPCs is very different than once per day on Allies. I have never personally seen a player use Guidance on anyone that wasn't a member of the party, and that is definitely the most common usage that they are trying to curtail with this change, so it is effectively a Cantrip that is usable X times per day, where X is equal to party size.
If the Cantrip is too good to be used freely, it shouldn't be a Cantrip. Period. This should be a fundamental design philosophy that goes into every Cantrip that they make.
Maybe it's because I'm coming at this primarily as someone who spends most of his time in Rules & Game Mechanics, but unless they come right out and say that the invisible condition is circumvented by someone being able to see you, we are going to end up in the same absurd situation that we're already in with it, which is to say that even JC is over here telling folks that if you have truesight or the see invisibility spell, you still get disadvantage against invisible creatures.
As written, yeah, that hasn't changed. They should really just make unseen a status and attach the combat effects to that status.
They should really have relational flags or something. If I can't see you, that has consequences, no matter who else can see you.
I am VERY curious to know if the new "Light Weapon" ability is intended to be a replacement for the current Duel Wielding rule, or in addition to it. I feel like that is a pretty important clarification.
I am VERY curious to know if the new "Light Weapon" ability is intended to be a replacement for the current Duel Wielding rule, or in addition to it. I feel like that is a pretty important clarification.
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.
Plus Magical Secrets are also prepared spells and can be swapped in an out as needed/desired which improves versatility.
Just finished bard. I was not on board initially with making them prepared spell casters but with the buff to magical secrets (and make no mistake, it is a major buff), I can get behind the preparing feature.
I feel the extra language for Sneak Attack is weird. As far as I can tell they didnt change the progression of Sneak Attack damage, and they left the column as part of the class table to show it, but they also added this tidbit "To determine the extra damage, roll a number of d6s equal to half your Rogue level (round up), and add the dice together." Is this necessary if they keep the progression listed in the table?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I feel the extra language for Sneak Attack is weird. As far as I can tell they didnt change the progression of Sneak Attack damage, and they left the column as part of the class table to show it, but they also added this tidbit "To determine the extra damage, roll a number of d6s equal to half your Rogue level (round up), and add the dice together." Is this necessary if they keep the progression listed in the table?
Only thing I can think of is the UA wanted to include "show your work" logic so a playtester knows "why" or at least the formula behind what's on the table, or maybe it's an articulation for a tableless SRD, or even an accessibility move. Put in the "redundant" language for folks who may have difficulty interpreting tables?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think the restriction on schools of magic is super unnecessary strict and rules out a lot of spells that would normally be bard-centric, combined with the required healing spells I feel like it significantly cuts down on the unique ways you can make a bard. While the bardic inspiration being tied to proficiency bonus might be better for multiclassing, it's undeniably worse for a majority of single-classed bards which is what the playtest should be focusing on.
Don't even get me started on how they changed thunderwave to transmutation because they desperately needed bard to have a "sound damage" spell.
I do not think Magical Secrets makes up for any of this. It's at level 11, which is very far into the game, I think someone said most campaigns end at level 8 (or at least before level 11), which sounds right to me. I also feel that most people would rather use magical secrets to take universal "must-have" spells like counterspell or a spell important to their character concept, rather than swapping between a much of niche spells depending on what's coming up next.
I also really don't like the changes to Lore bard, as I mentioned in the other thread, I think the focus on inspiration doesn't fit the theme. The blurb states that Lore bards are good at uncovering information and using that information to educate others by passing down oral traditions and revealing corruption.
Cutting words just doesn't represent either in the slightest. There's no research or oral tradition that goes into cutting words, much less is it about revealing weaknesses. I accepted it beforehand because Magical Secrets was the main feature, which wasn't really the theme either but at least it was related to lore.
Now without that the subclass feels less like a lore bard and more like they skipped the entire lore and power of knowledge & education, only saw "uncover deception" and assumed it was like the college of twitter cancelling bard.
Edit: Cunning Inspiration applies to cutting words, as cutting words is you rolling the bardic inspiration, and you count for a "creature rolls your Bardic Inspiration". So, I see it as a buff to cutting words. However, if cutting words wasn't a thing, I think it kinda fits the theme. I probably would prefer something that actually revealed weaknesses though but giving better inspiration in the guise of information works too, I guess.
I noticed that artificer IS going to be considered an expert class, but it just had an asterisk next to it in the UA. Is artificer getting an overhaul for One DnD or is it still considered an unofficial class?
One of the things I really wanted for artificer was to get an improved homunculus around level 10 just like the wizards get their spell at that time.
I've always felt the rules around being hidden/invisible were weird. Like, if one enemy spots you while you're hidden, the entire enemy group is now a hivemind and everyone knows where you are. What should happen is the discovering enemy needs to shout a warning on its turn to alert everyone else, which they seem to have folded in to being spotted/breaking concealment. And I understand why, kinda, they didn't want DMs to have to keep track of who knows where whom is, especially if multiple people are sneaking around, but it just feels weird, having sneaking be an all or nothing endeavour.
I also feel they need to clarify some rules for invisibility. D&D seems to work on a two-mode system for this, the two modes being "I can't see you" and "I don't know where you are", which is never really adequately explained. Becoming invisible supposedly only triggers the first mode, while hiding triggers both of them. However, Invisibility also makes you guess where they are, in addition to the benefits of being invisible, sorta like half-way between these two modes. But if I need to use my action to discern where an invisible enemy is, then how am I supposed to attack them, especially when a smart invisible enemy is going to keep moving if they don't hide? I guess you could point them out to other allies, but the alternative is just picking a square and swinging wildly which I've never liked.
If the Cantrip is too good to be used freely, it shouldn't be a Cantrip. Period. This should be a fundamental design philosophy that goes into every Cantrip that they make.
Yeah, it feels weird because we already have a mechanic for spells that have to be used strategically because they're limited in use, and it's called spell slots.
My feeling is that the current implementation of Guidance will end up in a similar space to what I see with Inspiration in 5e. People will forget they have it, and when they remember, they'll second-guess themselves into not using it because "what if I (or they) need it more later?" And Inspiration at least has the benefit of possibly being earned back after using it so each PC can benefit from it more than once on the same day.
I think the restriction on schools of magic is super unnecessary strict and rules out a lot of spells that would normally be bard-centric, combined with the required healing spells I feel like it significantly cuts down on the unique ways you can make a bard. While the bardic inspiration being tied to proficiency bonus might be better for multiclassing, it's undeniably worse for a majority of single-classed bards which is what the playtest should be focusing on.
Don't even get me started on how they changed thunderwave to transmutation because they desperately needed bard to have a "sound damage" spell.
...
I think you'll find that the new restriction on bard spellcasting is very much in line with their 2014 list on average. Including the school changes so that they can keep some of their current spells.
I noticed that artificer IS going to be considered an expert class, but it just had an asterisk next to it in the UA. Is artificer getting an overhaul for One DnD or is it still considered an unofficial class?
One of the things I really wanted for artificer was to get an improved homunculus around level 10 just like the wizards get their spell at that time.
It is an official class, it is just not a PHB class. That is what the asterisk represents. These UA are only for PHB, so you'll likely not see any modifications to artificer.
I noticed that artificer IS going to be considered an expert class, but it just had an asterisk next to it in the UA. Is artificer getting an overhaul for One DnD or is it still considered an unofficial class?
One of the things I really wanted for artificer was to get an improved homunculus around level 10 just like the wizards get their spell at that time.
The artificer is an official class, just not a class in the core books. I believe JC stated it would be featured in a future UA for 1DD.
Not technically limited uses; it's limited uses per target. This limit already exists somewhere: Friends.
Friends, at the end of the spell, makes a creature Hostile. Friends cannot target someone who is Hostile. Sure, you can cheese it to maybe calm them down, but it isn't guaranteed, and also isn't really likely - the spell makes it clear they're PISSED. At best, you can use Friends again if you Charm Personed them.
This is just the second spell we've seen that limits you to once per person. It just happens to be more explicit about it than Friends was, but this UA is big on being explicit. I'd be fine if Friends was rewritten to say "Once a creature has this spell cast on them, that creature cannot be targeted by this spell again until that creature finishes a Long Rest."
Because of timing, impatience, forgetfulness, etc. But even when I've seen it used a lot, it's never been "assumed always cast every minute" constant. Definitely an abuse, and I think a good change. Still, maybe 1/SR is better than 1/LR.
Maybe it's because I'm coming at this primarily as someone who spends most of his time in Rules & Game Mechanics, but unless they come right out and say that the invisible condition is circumvented by someone being able to see you, we are going to end up in the same absurd situation that we're already in with it, which is to say that even JC is over here telling folks that if you have truesight or the see invisibility spell, you still get disadvantage against invisible creatures.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
As written, yeah, that hasn't changed. They should really just make unseen a status and attach the combat effects to that status.
Plus Magical Secrets are also prepared spells and can be swapped in an out as needed/desired which improves versatility.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I would personally say that Friends is also a bad cantrip and should be rethought too, but I'll set that aside for now since that is still a much more freely useable spell than the new Guidance. Once per day on NPCs is very different than once per day on Allies. I have never personally seen a player use Guidance on anyone that wasn't a member of the party, and that is definitely the most common usage that they are trying to curtail with this change, so it is effectively a Cantrip that is usable X times per day, where X is equal to party size.
If the Cantrip is too good to be used freely, it shouldn't be a Cantrip. Period. This should be a fundamental design philosophy that goes into every Cantrip that they make.
They should really have relational flags or something. If I can't see you, that has consequences, no matter who else can see you.
I am VERY curious to know if the new "Light Weapon" ability is intended to be a replacement for the current Duel Wielding rule, or in addition to it. I feel like that is a pretty important clarification.
It is a replacement.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I should point out that Friends plus disguise negates the hostility - who you hostile to?.
And hostility is more of a consequence of the fact that no one likes being mind controlled, barring extreme cases or certain fetishes.
Nothing stops you from Friend, drop Disguise Self, get new Disguise Self, use again. Common warlock tactic.
Just finished bard. I was not on board initially with making them prepared spell casters but with the buff to magical secrets (and make no mistake, it is a major buff), I can get behind the preparing feature.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I feel the extra language for Sneak Attack is weird. As far as I can tell they didnt change the progression of Sneak Attack damage, and they left the column as part of the class table to show it, but they also added this tidbit "To determine the extra damage, roll a number of d6s equal to half your Rogue level (round up), and add the dice together." Is this necessary if they keep the progression listed in the table?
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Only thing I can think of is the UA wanted to include "show your work" logic so a playtester knows "why" or at least the formula behind what's on the table, or maybe it's an articulation for a tableless SRD, or even an accessibility move. Put in the "redundant" language for folks who may have difficulty interpreting tables?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I really dislike the implementation of bard.
I think the restriction on schools of magic is super unnecessary strict and rules out a lot of spells that would normally be bard-centric, combined with the required healing spells I feel like it significantly cuts down on the unique ways you can make a bard. While the bardic inspiration being tied to proficiency bonus might be better for multiclassing, it's undeniably worse for a majority of single-classed bards which is what the playtest should be focusing on.
Don't even get me started on how they changed thunderwave to transmutation because they desperately needed bard to have a "sound damage" spell.
I do not think Magical Secrets makes up for any of this. It's at level 11, which is very far into the game, I think someone said most campaigns end at level 8 (or at least before level 11), which sounds right to me. I also feel that most people would rather use magical secrets to take universal "must-have" spells like counterspell or a spell important to their character concept, rather than swapping between a much of niche spells depending on what's coming up next.
I also really don't like the changes to Lore bard, as I mentioned in the other thread, I think the focus on inspiration doesn't fit the theme. The blurb states that Lore bards are good at uncovering information and using that information to educate others by passing down oral traditions and revealing corruption.
Cutting words just doesn't represent either in the slightest. There's no research or oral tradition that goes into cutting words, much less is it about revealing weaknesses. I accepted it beforehand because Magical Secrets was the main feature, which wasn't really the theme either but at least it was related to lore.
Now without that the subclass feels less like a lore bard and more like they skipped the entire lore and power of knowledge & education, only saw "uncover deception" and assumed it was like the college of twitter cancelling bard.
Edit: Cunning Inspiration applies to cutting words, as cutting words is you rolling the bardic inspiration, and you count for a "creature rolls your Bardic Inspiration". So, I see it as a buff to cutting words. However, if cutting words wasn't a thing, I think it kinda fits the theme. I probably would prefer something that actually revealed weaknesses though but giving better inspiration in the guise of information works too, I guess.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I noticed that artificer IS going to be considered an expert class, but it just had an asterisk next to it in the UA. Is artificer getting an overhaul for One DnD or is it still considered an unofficial class?
One of the things I really wanted for artificer was to get an improved homunculus around level 10 just like the wizards get their spell at that time.
I've always felt the rules around being hidden/invisible were weird. Like, if one enemy spots you while you're hidden, the entire enemy group is now a hivemind and everyone knows where you are. What should happen is the discovering enemy needs to shout a warning on its turn to alert everyone else, which they seem to have folded in to being spotted/breaking concealment. And I understand why, kinda, they didn't want DMs to have to keep track of who knows where whom is, especially if multiple people are sneaking around, but it just feels weird, having sneaking be an all or nothing endeavour.
I also feel they need to clarify some rules for invisibility. D&D seems to work on a two-mode system for this, the two modes being "I can't see you" and "I don't know where you are", which is never really adequately explained. Becoming invisible supposedly only triggers the first mode, while hiding triggers both of them. However, Invisibility also makes you guess where they are, in addition to the benefits of being invisible, sorta like half-way between these two modes. But if I need to use my action to discern where an invisible enemy is, then how am I supposed to attack them, especially when a smart invisible enemy is going to keep moving if they don't hide? I guess you could point them out to other allies, but the alternative is just picking a square and swinging wildly which I've never liked.
Yeah, it feels weird because we already have a mechanic for spells that have to be used strategically because they're limited in use, and it's called spell slots.
My feeling is that the current implementation of Guidance will end up in a similar space to what I see with Inspiration in 5e. People will forget they have it, and when they remember, they'll second-guess themselves into not using it because "what if I (or they) need it more later?" And Inspiration at least has the benefit of possibly being earned back after using it so each PC can benefit from it more than once on the same day.
I think you'll find that the new restriction on bard spellcasting is very much in line with their 2014 list on average. Including the school changes so that they can keep some of their current spells.
It is an official class, it is just not a PHB class. That is what the asterisk represents. These UA are only for PHB, so you'll likely not see any modifications to artificer.
The artificer is an official class, just not a class in the core books. I believe JC stated it would be featured in a future UA for 1DD.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing