The big thing I noticed is that preparations are now tied to spell level. That means more preps overall, but fewer at the highest levels that you can cast. It sucks that they made the best 9th level spell into the only one you'd ever see prepared on Mages.
My "hope" is that classes that were previously prep classes will have more flexibility in that regard, I doubt it as unified rules are easier.
The big thing I noticed is that preparations are now tied to spell level. That means more preps overall, but fewer at the highest levels that you can cast. It sucks that they made the best 9th level spell into the only one you'd ever see prepared on Mages.
My "hope" is that classes that were previously prep classes will have more flexibility in that regard, I doubt it as unified rules are easier.
That is a possibility. We don't see any casters in this UA that were previously prepared casters.
Oh! Shield Bash doesn't use your Bonus Action. Nice.
Yes now there is more balance dmg and no builds around those two feats for power. i can say all the feats are pretty balanced and i certainly love shield bash change and dual wielding.
That is good and bad, good balance around martials with martials but bad in that they kind of needed that in order to compete with spellcasters in combat. Even with the new mark not requiring concentration without sharpshooter etc will the ranger keep up in combat with a wizard. At least the ranger offers a bit more out of combat, but what about the barbarian or fighter. Unless those classes get some serious boosts in damage they may be left behind.
I love that they're expanding on official codified actions you can take besides the ones we already have. Things like Study, Search, and Influence were stuff you could already do, but now there are more concrete, up-front rules to them.
I also like that they changed healing spells to abjuration. Makes it more in line with stuff like protection from poison and greater restoration that remove status effects, since healing spells "remove" damage, so to speak.
One thing I'm unclear on. Invisible says you cannot be seen. Blindsight says you can see invisible creatures within the range. Does this mean blindsight fully circumvents the invisible condition? or only partly?
Blindsight fully bypasses invisibility, it always has done in 5E. Invisibility only covers sight, blindsight is like dare devil, "sight" without actual sight. Since you still make sound and have a physical presence then blindsight detects you.
Also I just noticed foresight is on the divine spell list. So Clerics now have another really good 9th level spell option besides mass heal (though a case can be made for gate depending on the situation). I dig it.
One thing I'm unclear on. Invisible says you cannot be seen. Blindsight says you can see invisible creatures within the range. Does this mean blindsight fully circumvents the invisible condition? or only partly?
Blindsight fully bypasses invisibility, it always has done.
Performance is still a skill. Dang it. Was hoping that got folded into Instruments. So little point to being its own skill.
Under the UA rules, if you have proficiency in both Performance and the instrument you are playing, you would get both proficiency and Advantage on the check.
Doesn't make it less of a worthless skill. The problem is that skill slots are a premium, while actual uses of the Perform skill are vanishingly rare.
Seems easy enough to just not take the Perform Skill if you don't think it is worth having.
Agreed. I feel like the onus is on the player to make any skill valuable, whether it is performance or acrobatics. My second PC ever was a tiefling warlock whose background was that he was a musician. Why not just make a bard you may ask? Because I did not want to. :P
Performance was a must-have and I used it often. The things I used it for ranged from putting on a performance for a free meal and rooms for the night for my party, to playing for the local lord to massage out some poor social rolls (and bit of condescending behavior) from our sorcerer. While I did not use the skill every session, I definitely used it enough sessions to be worthwhile.
Also I just noticed foresight is on the divine spell list. So Clerics now have another really good 9th level spell option besides mass heal (though a case can be made for gate depending on the situation). I dig it.
Foresight isn't on the primal list, so I guess druids are all taking shapechange. I guess unless they fixed storm of vengeance.
Performance is still a skill. Dang it. Was hoping that got folded into Instruments. So little point to being its own skill.
Under the UA rules, if you have proficiency in both Performance and the instrument you are playing, you would get both proficiency and Advantage on the check.
Doesn't make it less of a worthless skill. The problem is that skill slots are a premium, while actual uses of the Perform skill are vanishingly rare.
Seems easy enough to just not take the Perform Skill if you don't think it is worth having.
Agreed. I feel like the onus is on the player to make any skill valuable, whether it is performance or acrobatics. My second PC ever was a tiefling warlock whose background was that he was a musician. Why not just make a bard you may ask? Because I did not want to. :P
Performance was a must-have and I used it often. The things I used it for ranged from putting on a performance for a free meal and rooms for the night for my party, to playing for the local lord to massage out some poor social rolls (and bit of condescending behavior) from our sorcerer. While I did not use the skill every session, I definitely used it enough sessions to be worthwhile.
That's awesome. My current Tiefling Rogue has Expertise in Perform and is prone to bursting out into musical numbers like some kind of Disney Princess lol.
Also I just noticed foresight is on the divine spell list. So Clerics now have another really good 9th level spell option besides mass heal (though a case can be made for gate depending on the situation). I dig it.
Foresight isn't on the primal list, so I guess druids are all taking shapechange. I guess unless they fixed storm of vengeance.
To be fair, if there was any 9th level spell to give to the class that has Wild Shape as a core feature, shapechange would be it.
Hm. Lots of good, some awesome(!), some not-so-awesome. Lots to unpack though, going to have to go over the document several times methinks. Nooooooot sure how I feel about massive spell restrictions based on spell school, the "Schools of Magic" in 5e have always been arbitrary and super weird, but I suppose I get where they're coming from.
On first blush it feels like bards got the absolute assballs nerfed out of them and got even more of a goddamn focus on Music Dandy, which is sad. I love the idea of a Magic Expert, but I can't carry a tune with a forklift and I'm getting awfully sick of having to sing and dance and be Sam Riegel every time I want to try and play an Arcane Expert. Blugh.
Rangers gained a lot of power, but the complete removal of Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy becoming "just Hunter's Mark" is so vanilla. Powerful, yes, and certainly better in a fight, but I'm one of those holdouts who always picked Favored Enemy over Favored Foe post-Tasha's anyway. Still, overall seems like an improvement, especially being able to Prepare spells and gaining cantrips. Looks like artificer rules for errybuddy now.
Rogue...I admit, I am a little disappoint. I was hoping for more punchy alterations, though a lot of the ancillary stuff surrounding rogues got way better. Their base features didn't change much but a lot of the stuff they tended to rely on was heavily improved, such as Two-Weapon Fighting, Hiding/Stealth, and a number of feats. Will have to absorb the information more thoroughly before passing final judgment (on everything, not just rogues), but...
I think, on the whole? Cautious optimism. There's some really cool ideas here, and a lot to go over. Gonna read through it more than once and make sure I'm taking it all in before any knees start jerking, which I recommend everybody do.
One thing I'm unclear on. Invisible says you cannot be seen. Blindsight says you can see invisible creatures within the range. Does this mean blindsight fully circumvents the invisible condition? or only partly?
Blindsight fully bypasses invisibility, it always has done.
This is absolutely not a settled conclusion.
Again, blindsight is not actually sight based, invisible is applicable to sight, which is why blindsight specifies that it in fact DOES see invisible creatures. in this case we would then rule that invisible is general and blindsight is specific, specific beats general.
One thing I'm unclear on. Invisible says you cannot be seen. Blindsight says you can see invisible creatures within the range. Does this mean blindsight fully circumvents the invisible condition? or only partly?
Blindsight fully bypasses invisibility, it always has done.
This is absolutely not a settled conclusion.
It reads that way now. I think it always countered invisibility and usually hide. I'm not a fan of it hard countering hide, I feel like if a trained sneak knows they are sneaking into a place where blindsight exists they would know ways around it. Especially since they are handing out blindisght left and right.
One thing I'm unclear on. Invisible says you cannot be seen. Blindsight says you can see invisible creatures within the range. Does this mean blindsight fully circumvents the invisible condition? or only partly?
Blindsight fully bypasses invisibility, it always has done.
This is absolutely not a settled conclusion.
Again, blindsight is not actually sight based, invisible is applicable to sight, which is why blindsight specifies that it in fact DOES see invisible creatures. in this case we would then rule that invisible is general and blindsight is specific, specific beats general.
I don't want to derail this thread any further with my comments on the way things work in the current edition, so I'll suffice it to say that you have said several things that I disagree with. And I'll leave it at that.
EDIT: Blindsight in the new document does say you can effectively see invisible creatures within the range, so it is effectively sight-based in definition in the playtest.
The change to guidance seems to fall neatly along the lines of those who want to spam it are unhappy and those who dislike spamming it are happy
I see it more as a way to clarify once and for all how the cantrip can work.
While most people use it as a free d4 bonus to ability checks, there was always that slight controversy for when you could use it, since you can't always know you'll use an ability check ahead of time.
On first blush it feels like bards got the absolute assballs nerfed out of them and got even more of a goddamn focus on Music Dandy, which is sad. I love the idea of a Magic Expert, but I can't carry a tune with a forklift and I'm getting awfully sick of having to sing and dance and be Sam Riegel every time I want to try and play an Arcane Expert. Blugh.
Okay, what am I missing, to me it looks like they got a decent buff overall.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My "hope" is that classes that were previously prep classes will have more flexibility in that regard, I doubt it as unified rules are easier.
That is a possibility. We don't see any casters in this UA that were previously prepared casters.
That is good and bad, good balance around martials with martials but bad in that they kind of needed that in order to compete with spellcasters in combat. Even with the new mark not requiring concentration without sharpshooter etc will the ranger keep up in combat with a wizard. At least the ranger offers a bit more out of combat, but what about the barbarian or fighter. Unless those classes get some serious boosts in damage they may be left behind.
I love that they're expanding on official codified actions you can take besides the ones we already have. Things like Study, Search, and Influence were stuff you could already do, but now there are more concrete, up-front rules to them.
I also like that they changed healing spells to abjuration. Makes it more in line with stuff like protection from poison and greater restoration that remove status effects, since healing spells "remove" damage, so to speak.
Sneak attack requires the attack action. No more booming blade?
EDIT: and now the help action in combat explicitly helps the next attack. I support this.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Blindsight fully bypasses invisibility, it always has done in 5E. Invisibility only covers sight, blindsight is like dare devil, "sight" without actual sight. Since you still make sound and have a physical presence then blindsight detects you.
Also I just noticed foresight is on the divine spell list. So Clerics now have another really good 9th level spell option besides mass heal (though a case can be made for gate depending on the situation). I dig it.
This is absolutely not a settled conclusion.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Agreed. I feel like the onus is on the player to make any skill valuable, whether it is performance or acrobatics. My second PC ever was a tiefling warlock whose background was that he was a musician. Why not just make a bard you may ask? Because I did not want to. :P
Performance was a must-have and I used it often. The things I used it for ranged from putting on a performance for a free meal and rooms for the night for my party, to playing for the local lord to massage out some poor social rolls (and bit of condescending behavior) from our sorcerer. While I did not use the skill every session, I definitely used it enough sessions to be worthwhile.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
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 EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Foresight isn't on the primal list, so I guess druids are all taking shapechange. I guess unless they fixed storm of vengeance.
That's awesome. My current Tiefling Rogue has Expertise in Perform and is prone to bursting out into musical numbers like some kind of Disney Princess lol.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
To be fair, if there was any 9th level spell to give to the class that has Wild Shape as a core feature, shapechange would be it.
I think it was a nice streamline to work two-weapon fighting into the light weapon property.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Hm. Lots of good, some awesome(!), some not-so-awesome. Lots to unpack though, going to have to go over the document several times methinks. Nooooooot sure how I feel about massive spell restrictions based on spell school, the "Schools of Magic" in 5e have always been arbitrary and super weird, but I suppose I get where they're coming from.
On first blush it feels like bards got the absolute assballs nerfed out of them and got even more of a goddamn focus on Music Dandy, which is sad. I love the idea of a Magic Expert, but I can't carry a tune with a forklift and I'm getting awfully sick of having to sing and dance and be Sam Riegel every time I want to try and play an Arcane Expert. Blugh.
Rangers gained a lot of power, but the complete removal of Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy becoming "just Hunter's Mark" is so vanilla. Powerful, yes, and certainly better in a fight, but I'm one of those holdouts who always picked Favored Enemy over Favored Foe post-Tasha's anyway. Still, overall seems like an improvement, especially being able to Prepare spells and gaining cantrips. Looks like artificer rules for errybuddy now.
Rogue...I admit, I am a little disappoint. I was hoping for more punchy alterations, though a lot of the ancillary stuff surrounding rogues got way better. Their base features didn't change much but a lot of the stuff they tended to rely on was heavily improved, such as Two-Weapon Fighting, Hiding/Stealth, and a number of feats. Will have to absorb the information more thoroughly before passing final judgment (on everything, not just rogues), but...
I think, on the whole? Cautious optimism. There's some really cool ideas here, and a lot to go over. Gonna read through it more than once and make sure I'm taking it all in before any knees start jerking, which I recommend everybody do.
Please do not contact or message me.
The change to guidance seems to fall neatly along the lines of those who want to spam it are unhappy and those who dislike spamming it are happy
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Again, blindsight is not actually sight based, invisible is applicable to sight, which is why blindsight specifies that it in fact DOES see invisible creatures. in this case we would then rule that invisible is general and blindsight is specific, specific beats general.
It reads that way now. I think it always countered invisibility and usually hide. I'm not a fan of it hard countering hide, I feel like if a trained sneak knows they are sneaking into a place where blindsight exists they would know ways around it. Especially since they are handing out blindisght left and right.
I don't want to derail this thread any further with my comments on the way things work in the current edition, so I'll suffice it to say that you have said several things that I disagree with. And I'll leave it at that.
EDIT: Blindsight in the new document does say you can effectively see invisible creatures within the range, so it is effectively sight-based in definition in the playtest.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I see it more as a way to clarify once and for all how the cantrip can work.
While most people use it as a free d4 bonus to ability checks, there was always that slight controversy for when you could use it, since you can't always know you'll use an ability check ahead of time.
Okay, what am I missing, to me it looks like they got a decent buff overall.