I'm not sold on the ranger being super good now. Yes, the concentration-free HM is great - it's still objectively worse than the Tasha's playtest where it had that and free casts of it. HM is still problematic from an action economy standpoint, requiring a bonus action to cast and move to a new target on a class that has many other uses for its bonus action.
Prepared spells is obviously great, but again this isn't really raising the ceiling of the class, it's just allowing you to choose flavor/utility spells sometimes instead of your bread-and-butter combat spells.
Conjure Barrage was a weird thing to base a class feature on. It's not very good and downcasting it isn't going to be useful unless we get 1hp minions.
Favored Enemy/Terrain could have remained and been given real teeth. I don't like these features as they are now, but they're a core part of the class theme and they could be made useful. It's sad to just see them gone.
Unless other classes are given a downgrade in combat performance - which is a real possibility looking at bard's losses and rogues being denied cantrip SA - I don't really think this is going to push ranger out of the lower tiers when it comes to overall effectiveness.
I would like to note that I think we can assume, before anyone freaks out, that the Paladin will (probably) have a fighting style class feature much like the Ranger that gives it access to the Fighting Style Feats.
Some of the "missing" aspects may well be shoehorned to subclasses. I would, for example, expect there might well be a Bard subclass of "Fey Trickster" that grants access to more primal spells. But that's just speculation.
I sorta miss rapier being on the bard's weapon list, because it (thematically) feels like such a natural weapon for them, but that's a minor complaint.
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.
Bardic spellcasting now comprises half and only half the Arcane spell list, with their spell choice severely restricted. They can't trade out spell levels anymore - no trading a first-level spell for an improved second-level version on level up, you HAVE to prepare four first, two second, two third, and so forth. Preparation over innate casting is a huge boon to be sure, and they seem to've excised vestigial legacy features like Countercharm which helps. But between a drastic reduction in uses of their signature Inspiration and the heavy cuts to their Spellcasting, I have to wonder if I'd be able to rebuild any of my current bard characters worth a spit in the new system.
I know Manadh, my current curse-centric fey witch technically-bard I was super looking forward to trying out some day, is completely dead in the water given not only the dramatic cuts to the bard spell list, but also the doubled-down focus on Musical Dandy Horny Man. Her Bane spell is gone, her Faerie Fire spell is gone, her Bestow Curse spell is gone, her Dimension Door spell is gone, her Synaptic Static spell is gone, and she doesn't really get jack-monkey squat to replace any of it until and unless she's lucky enough to gain access to Magical Secrets. Which comes in later for bards, with no opt-in for earlier access to Secrets anymore. Plus the fact that I was respinning her Glamour Bard class as a fey-spirited forest witch is also dead, because Wizards, like...quadruple-downed on the whole "ALL BARDS MUST BE EXTREMYL MUSICAL SUPER PERFORMERS AND THEIR PLAYERS HAD BEST BE MADONNA, WEIRD AL, GEORGE CARLIN AND ELVIS ALL WRAPPED UP IN ONE" language that makes bards so incredibly difficult to play if you're not a professional performer your own-assed IRL self.
I know, it's playtest, everything's in flux. I'm not screaming sky-is-falling or anything, I'm just a lot more ambivalent about the changes to the bard class than I am about other 1DD stuff so far. The Origins playtest was a slam dunk, but this one feels like it might need another go through the wash to me. That's all.
Thank you. The reduction in uses of bardic inspiration is a really big nerf, not only to the base bard, but to several subclasses as well (any subclass that lets you use your bardic inspiration to do something else.) And it's basically the class's most iconic feature!
----
To make this take a bit spicier, imagine if they do this to paladins. Divine smite uses = proficiency bonus / long rest, and it uses your reaction so you can only ever use it once per turn.
Its one less at most levels, that is not exactly a massive nerf, slowing the short rest thing until 7th is a nerf but again not massive. With a paladin, the reaction part would be a nerf, though I don't think a massive one, the prof bonus part a tiny one at best. But with bardic inspiration a reaction is just a much a buff as it is a nerf imo. Being able to say oh crap we can't have bob fail that save right now is a big boon, while losing out being able to hand it to multiple people is a nerf so it balances out.
Here's a comparison on uses of bardic inspiration today versus this UA. Assuming +3 CHA is the highest you can achieve at level 1.
LR = long rest; SR = short rest
LEVEL(s) CURRENT UA - BUFF/NERF AMOUNT
1,2,3: 3/LR vs. 2/LR - A nerf of 33% uses for 3 levels
4: 4/LR vs. 2/LR - A nerf of 50% uses for 1 level
5,6: 4/SR vs. 3/LR- A nerf of 25% (no short rests) up to 75% (2 short rests) for 2 levels
7: 4/SR vs. 3/SR - A nerf of 25% for 1 level
8: 5/SR vs. 3/SR - A nerf of 40% for 1 level
9,10,11,12: 5/SR vs. 4/SR - A nerf of 20% for 4 levels
13,14,15,16: 5/SR vs. 5/SR - No difference for 4 levels
17,18,19,29: 5/SR vs. 6/SR - A buff or 20% for 4 levels
----------------------------
For the majority of the game (and especially the levels people play at), it's strictly worse. And every feature of a subclass that uses bardic inspiration is also worse because you can use those features less.
Regarding the power of a reaction versus a bonus action, I think this is debatable. There's no doubt being able to give bardic inspiration as a reaction will come in clutch sometimes. But the more I think about it, the less I want to give up my reaction for something I could be proactive about.
----------------------------
I guess we'll have to see how they handle the other classes. If they decide to nerf everything in a similar way, then maybe the bard changes aren't such a big deal.
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.
Bardic spellcasting now comprises half and only half the Arcane spell list, with their spell choice severely restricted. They can't trade out spell levels anymore - no trading a first-level spell for an improved second-level version on level up, you HAVE to prepare four first, two second, two third, and so forth. Preparation over innate casting is a huge boon to be sure, and they seem to've excised vestigial legacy features like Countercharm which helps. But between a drastic reduction in uses of their signature Inspiration and the heavy cuts to their Spellcasting, I have to wonder if I'd be able to rebuild any of my current bard characters worth a spit in the new system.
I know Manadh, my current curse-centric fey witch technically-bard I was super looking forward to trying out some day, is completely dead in the water given not only the dramatic cuts to the bard spell list, but also the doubled-down focus on Musical Dandy Horny Man. Her Bane spell is gone, her Faerie Fire spell is gone, her Bestow Curse spell is gone, her Dimension Door spell is gone, her Synaptic Static spell is gone, and she doesn't really get jack-monkey squat to replace any of it until and unless she's lucky enough to gain access to Magical Secrets. Which comes in later for bards, with no opt-in for earlier access to Secrets anymore. Plus the fact that I was respinning her Glamour Bard class as a fey-spirited forest witch is also dead, because Wizards, like...quadruple-downed on the whole "ALL BARDS MUST BE EXTREMYL MUSICAL SUPER PERFORMERS AND THEIR PLAYERS HAD BEST BE MADONNA, WEIRD AL, GEORGE CARLIN AND ELVIS ALL WRAPPED UP IN ONE" language that makes bards so incredibly difficult to play if you're not a professional performer your own-assed IRL self.
I know, it's playtest, everything's in flux. I'm not screaming sky-is-falling or anything, I'm just a lot more ambivalent about the changes to the bard class than I am about other 1DD stuff so far. The Origins playtest was a slam dunk, but this one feels like it might need another go through the wash to me. That's all.
Thank you. The reduction in uses of bardic inspiration is a really big nerf, not only to the base bard, but to several subclasses as well (any subclass that lets you use your bardic inspiration to do something else.) And it's basically the class's most iconic feature!
----
To make this take a bit spicier, imagine if they do this to paladins. Divine smite uses = proficiency bonus / long rest, and it uses your reaction so you can only ever use it once per turn.
Its one less at most levels, that is not exactly a massive nerf, slowing the short rest thing until 7th is a nerf but again not massive. With a paladin, the reaction part would be a nerf, though I don't think a massive one, the prof bonus part a tiny one at best. But with bardic inspiration a reaction is just a much a buff as it is a nerf imo. Being able to say oh crap we can't have bob fail that save right now is a big boon, while losing out being able to hand it to multiple people is a nerf so it balances out.
Here's a comparison on uses of bardic inspiration today versus this UA. Assuming +3 CHA is the highest you can achieve at level 1.
LR = long rest; SR = short rest
LEVEL(s) CURRENT UA - BUFF/NERF AMOUNT
1,2,3: 3/LR vs. 2/LR - A nerf of 33% uses for 3 levels
4: 4/LR vs. 2/LR - A nerf of 50% uses for 1 level
5,6: 4/SR vs. 3/LR- A nerf of 25% (no short rests) up to 75% (2 short rests) for 2 levels
7: 4/SR vs. 3/SR - A nerf of 25% for 1 level
8: 5/SR vs. 3/SR - A nerf of 40% for 1 level
9,10,11,12: 5/SR vs. 4/SR - A nerf of 20% for 4 levels
13,14,15,16: 5/SR vs. 5/SR - No difference for 4 levels
17,18,19,29: 5/SR vs. 6/SR - A buff or 20% for 4 levels
----------------------------
For the majority of the game (and especially the levels people play at), it's strictly worse. And every feature of a subclass that uses bardic inspiration is also worse because you can use those features less.
Regarding the power of a reaction versus a bonus action, I think this is debatable. There's no doubt being able to give bardic inspiration as a reaction will come in clutch sometimes. But the more I think about it, the less I want to give up my reaction for something I could be proactive about.
----------------------------
I guess we'll have to see how they handle the other classes. If they decide to nerf everything in a similar way, then maybe the bard changes aren't such a big deal.
Making it a % does not change what it is 1 less in play at most levels with 2 levels where you just got your stat increase making it two at those levels. Its one less, trying to turn one less into a massive nerf by using percentages does not make it one especially since bardic inspiration at its core is a pretty minor feature. A couple subclasses really make it a powerful feature but at its core and with the core subclasses its not a super powerful feature the class is balanced around. Its more than a ribbon feature but not by a huge amount. 2 times a day you may if you are lucky change the results of a die roll is not substantially worse than 3 times a day you may if lucky change the results of a die roll.
I also enjoy that teleportation has general rules that say when you teleport, people you are touching do not come with you unless the teleportation effect says otherwise. I think this goes a long way toward dealing with the "what if I am carrying my friend?" situations.
I'm not sold on the ranger being super good now. Yes, the concentration-free HM is great - it's still objectively worse than the Tasha's playtest where it had that and free casts of it. HM is still problematic from an action economy standpoint, requiring a bonus action to cast and move to a new target on a class that has many other uses for its bonus action.
Prepared spells is obviously great, but again this isn't really raising the ceiling of the class, it's just allowing you to choose flavor/utility spells sometimes instead of your bread-and-butter combat spells.
Conjure Barrage was a weird thing to base a class feature on. It's not very good and downcasting it isn't going to be useful unless we get 1hp minions.
Favored Enemy/Terrain could have remained and been given real teeth. I don't like these features as they are now, but they're a core part of the class theme and they could be made useful. It's sad to just see them gone.
Unless other classes are given a downgrade in combat performance - which is a real possibility looking at bard's losses and rogues being denied cantrip SA - I don't really think this is going to push ranger out of the lower tiers when it comes to overall effectiveness.
I'm sure they'll make monk even worse though. :,)
I think the core class is better than it was but the weakening of combat feats will likely make it weaker overall and I see no indication spell casting is getting weaker, if anything I'd say the opposite is happening. Maybe the "warrior" classes will get some feature that really boosts their combat effectiveness past what it is in 5e like maybe they all get 4 attacks now, and all get improved core abilities like rage actually boosting damage substantially as you level. And then "experts" are supposed to focus on out of combat stuff while being okay in combat. But if I were to plug the ranger in as is with these feat changes the martials would not hold up in combat to the spell casters and would still be less useful than them out of combat
I also enjoy that teleportation has general rules that say when you teleport, people you are touching do not come with you unless the teleportation effect says otherwise. I think this goes a long way toward dealing with the "what if I am carrying my friend?" situations.
Thats why you kill your friend making them an object and revify them on the other end of the teleport. Damn I'm a wizard and can only do the first half, ooops too late now.
one thing I only just noticed both in the bard and ranger.
from the bard Whenever you finish a Long Rest, you can practice your bardic arts and replace any Spell you have prepared for this Class with another Arcane Spell of the same level.
And cantrips are now called level 0 spells. So you can swap out your cantrips every long rest.
1 thing I wonder with the no concentration hunters mark is how that will stack with other similar spells if they multi class or use magic initiate. Like lets say hunters mark and spirit shroud.
Let me walk through this process. If I'm wielding a dagger and a longsword and I have the dual wielder feat and two weapon fighting style, I can attack with the dagger, then stow it, and then make a 2h attack with the longsword and get full damage via the attack action even if I don't have the extra attack feature? And then if I have a bonus action, I can also use it for whatever?
Let me walk through this process. If I'm wielding a dagger and a longsword and I have the dual wielder feat and two weapon fighting style, I can attack with the dagger, then stow it, and then make a 2h attack with the longsword and get full damage via the attack action even if I don't have the extra attack feature? And then if I have a bonus action, I can also use it for whatever?
No, you can only treat your non-Light weapon as a Light weapon when you're holding an actually Light weapon in your other hand. As soon as you stow the dagger, you can no longer treat the longsword as Light.
Making it a % does not change what it is 1 less in play at most levels with 2 levels where you just got your stat increase making it two at those levels. Its one less, trying to turn one less into a massive nerf by using percentages does not make it one especially since bardic inspiration at its core is a pretty minor feature. A couple subclasses really make it a powerful feature but at its core and with the core subclasses its not a super powerful feature the class is balanced around. Its more than a ribbon feature but not by a huge amount. 2 times a day you may if you are lucky change the results of a die roll is not substantially worse than 3 times a day you may if lucky change the results of a die roll.
Am I exaggerating the impact by showing the % difference? If anything saying it's only "1 less" is negating the impact that will be felt. Having 2 when you used to have 3 is significant. Having 2 when you used to have 4 is significant. Having 3 when you used to have 4-12 is significant.
Bardic inspiration is a resource. Some people will use it fully and some won't, but that has no bearing on the mechanical change in this UA.
At levels 9 and above, this change is less impactful because 4/short rest is, admittedly, plenty of uses of bardic inspiration (the percentages bear this out by the way). But how many groups make it to level 9? And how useful/impactful was the bard feeling for those those early levels?
Add the fact that bardic inspiration is already a feature that grows in power as you level, and will snowball at higher levels (which most people will never play at). It all just feels a bit imbalanced when looking only at the changes to these 3 classes by themselves.
But like I said, maybe this is a push to make low-to-mid-level play less powerful across the board. We'll just have to wait to see the other classes.
1 thing I wonder with the no concentration hunters mark is how that will stack with other similar spells if they multi class or use magic initiate. Like lets say hunters mark and spirit shroud.
Seems like it would stack just fine and I am all for it.
Let me walk through this process. If I'm wielding a dagger and a longsword and I have the dual wielder feat and two weapon fighting style, I can attack with the dagger, then stow it, and then make a 2h attack with the longsword and get full damage via the attack action even if I don't have the extra attack feature? And then if I have a bonus action, I can also use it for whatever?
Dual wielder states: When you are holding a Weapon with the Light property in one hand, you can treat a non-Light Weapon in your other hand as if it had the Light property.
So as soon as you stow the dagger the longsword loses the light property and thus you can not make a extra attack with it from dual wielding.
one thing I only just noticed both in the bard and ranger.
from the bard Whenever you finish a Long Rest, you can practice your bardic arts and replace any Spell you have prepared for this Class with another Arcane Spell of the same level.
And cantrips are now called level 0 spells. So you can swap out your cantrips every long rest.
Cantrips have been considered level 0 from at least 3E I believe, in 5E the cantrip section of the PHB states
A cantrip is a spell that can be cast at will, without using a spell slot and without being prepared in advance. Repeated practice has fixed the spell in the caster’s mind and infused the caster with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over. A cantrip’s spell level is 0.
However, it is interesting that it didn't really specify properly about cantrips... I can't see anything in these rules that forbids swapping them and they seem to be referred to as "prepared" now, instead of "known". When referenced too by Bard and Ranger spellcaster features.
I do not like how Hidden and Hide work in this new document, as well as the more subtle implication that Passive Perception is gone (flat DC 15 Stealth check, and Observant no longer boosting passive checks, makes it feel like passives are no longer a thing.)
So, let's look at the explicit text given to us on Hiding and being Hidden:
The Hide action serves the purpose of giving you the Hidden condition. To successfully give yourself the Hidden Condition, you must do the following:
Be Heavily Obscured, behind Three-Quarters Cover, or behind Total Cover
Must be out of any visible enemy's line of sight
Succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity Check (Stealth)
So, You do the above, you become Hidden. What does being Hidden do? The following:
You become Concealed, making you an invalid target for anything requiring you to be seen.
Advantage on Initiative.
Your attacks have Advantage, and attacks against you have Disadvantage.
The problem:
First and foremost, 'Must be out of any visible enemy's line of sight' is very poorly worded, as that implies invisible enemies are exempt from the Hide restrictions, and you can Hide while in their line of sight and suddenly become immune from their spells that require they see you.
Secondly, two of the three things required to perform the Hide action should, logically, already Conceal you, and therefore impart the Hidden condition automatically.
Heavily Obscured is not included in this document, meaning we use the PHB definition for it. So what does it do? "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something [that is Heavily Obscured]."
And what does Blinded do? You auto fail perception checks that rely on sight, give Advantage on attack rolls against you, and have Disadvantage on your own. That's pretty much 1 and 3 for Hidden already. So if I'm already Heavily Obscured, why do I need to Hide?
How about Cover? Well, Total Cover also isn't in these rules, so how is that defined? "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect." That's a superior version of being Concealed, since NOTHING can target you, not just things that require you to be seen. So again, if I have Total Cover, why do I need to Hide?
At this point I feel like that meme from Office Space. I'm looking at the Hide Action and asking 'So what would you say you do here?'
It kind of feels like Hiding is only necessary if you have Three-Quarters Cover, as the other two should be imparting the Hidden condition automatically. And I again have to question the line about being out of the enemy's line of sight. If I am out of their line of sight, aren't they not, by definition, unable to see me? And therefore, I am Hidden? So what's the Stealth Check for, at that point?
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
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?
I'm not sold on the ranger being super good now. Yes, the concentration-free HM is great - it's still objectively worse than the Tasha's playtest where it had that and free casts of it. HM is still problematic from an action economy standpoint, requiring a bonus action to cast and move to a new target on a class that has many other uses for its bonus action.
Prepared spells is obviously great, but again this isn't really raising the ceiling of the class, it's just allowing you to choose flavor/utility spells sometimes instead of your bread-and-butter combat spells.
Conjure Barrage was a weird thing to base a class feature on. It's not very good and downcasting it isn't going to be useful unless we get 1hp minions.
Favored Enemy/Terrain could have remained and been given real teeth. I don't like these features as they are now, but they're a core part of the class theme and they could be made useful. It's sad to just see them gone.
Unless other classes are given a downgrade in combat performance - which is a real possibility looking at bard's losses and rogues being denied cantrip SA - I don't really think this is going to push ranger out of the lower tiers when it comes to overall effectiveness.
I'm sure they'll make monk even worse though. :,)
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I would like to note that I think we can assume, before anyone freaks out, that the Paladin will (probably) have a fighting style class feature much like the Ranger that gives it access to the Fighting Style Feats.
Some of the "missing" aspects may well be shoehorned to subclasses. I would, for example, expect there might well be a Bard subclass of "Fey Trickster" that grants access to more primal spells. But that's just speculation.
I sorta miss rapier being on the bard's weapon list, because it (thematically) feels like such a natural weapon for them, but that's a minor complaint.
Here's a comparison on uses of bardic inspiration today versus this UA. Assuming +3 CHA is the highest you can achieve at level 1.
LR = long rest; SR = short restLEVEL(s) CURRENT UA - BUFF/NERF AMOUNT1,2,3: 3/LR vs. 2/LR - A nerf of 33% uses for 3 levels4: 4/LR vs. 2/LR - A nerf of 50% uses for 1 level5,6: 4/SR vs. 3/LR - A nerf of 25% (no short rests) up to 75% (2 short rests) for 2 levels7: 4/SR vs. 3/SR - A nerf of 25% for 1 level8: 5/SR vs. 3/SR - A nerf of 40% for 1 level9,10,11,12: 5/SR vs. 4/SR - A nerf of 20% for 4 levels13,14,15,16: 5/SR vs. 5/SR - No difference for 4 levels17,18,19,29: 5/SR vs. 6/SR - A buff or 20% for 4 levels----------------------------
For the majority of the game (and especially the levels people play at), it's strictly worse. And every feature of a subclass that uses bardic inspiration is also worse because you can use those features less.
Regarding the power of a reaction versus a bonus action, I think this is debatable. There's no doubt being able to give bardic inspiration as a reaction will come in clutch sometimes. But the more I think about it, the less I want to give up my reaction for something I could be proactive about.
----------------------------
I guess we'll have to see how they handle the other classes. If they decide to nerf everything in a similar way, then maybe the bard changes aren't such a big deal.
Making it a % does not change what it is 1 less in play at most levels with 2 levels where you just got your stat increase making it two at those levels. Its one less, trying to turn one less into a massive nerf by using percentages does not make it one especially since bardic inspiration at its core is a pretty minor feature. A couple subclasses really make it a powerful feature but at its core and with the core subclasses its not a super powerful feature the class is balanced around. Its more than a ribbon feature but not by a huge amount. 2 times a day you may if you are lucky change the results of a die roll is not substantially worse than 3 times a day you may if lucky change the results of a die roll.
I also enjoy that teleportation has general rules that say when you teleport, people you are touching do not come with you unless the teleportation effect says otherwise. I think this goes a long way toward dealing with the "what if I am carrying my friend?" situations.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think the core class is better than it was but the weakening of combat feats will likely make it weaker overall and I see no indication spell casting is getting weaker, if anything I'd say the opposite is happening. Maybe the "warrior" classes will get some feature that really boosts their combat effectiveness past what it is in 5e like maybe they all get 4 attacks now, and all get improved core abilities like rage actually boosting damage substantially as you level. And then "experts" are supposed to focus on out of combat stuff while being okay in combat. But if I were to plug the ranger in as is with these feat changes the martials would not hold up in combat to the spell casters and would still be less useful than them out of combat
Thats why you kill your friend making them an object and revify them on the other end of the teleport. Damn I'm a wizard and can only do the first half, ooops too late now.
There is a nice tidbit of info at the end of the Feats Video that sound very promising for Martial (Warrior) classes.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
one thing I only just noticed both in the bard and ranger.
from the bard
Whenever you finish a Long Rest, you can practice your bardic arts and replace any Spell you have prepared for this Class with another Arcane Spell of the same level.
And cantrips are now called level 0 spells.
So you can swap out your cantrips every long rest.
1 thing I wonder with the no concentration hunters mark is how that will stack with other similar spells if they multi class or use magic initiate. Like lets say hunters mark and spirit shroud.
Let me walk through this process. If I'm wielding a dagger and a longsword and I have the dual wielder feat and two weapon fighting style, I can attack with the dagger, then stow it, and then make a 2h attack with the longsword and get full damage via the attack action even if I don't have the extra attack feature? And then if I have a bonus action, I can also use it for whatever?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
No, you can only treat your non-Light weapon as a Light weapon when you're holding an actually Light weapon in your other hand. As soon as you stow the dagger, you can no longer treat the longsword as Light.
Am I exaggerating the impact by showing the % difference? If anything saying it's only "1 less" is negating the impact that will be felt. Having 2 when you used to have 3 is significant. Having 2 when you used to have 4 is significant. Having 3 when you used to have 4-12 is significant.
Bardic inspiration is a resource. Some people will use it fully and some won't, but that has no bearing on the mechanical change in this UA.
At levels 9 and above, this change is less impactful because 4/short rest is, admittedly, plenty of uses of bardic inspiration (the percentages bear this out by the way). But how many groups make it to level 9? And how useful/impactful was the bard feeling for those those early levels?
Add the fact that bardic inspiration is already a feature that grows in power as you level, and will snowball at higher levels (which most people will never play at). It all just feels a bit imbalanced when looking only at the changes to these 3 classes by themselves.
But like I said, maybe this is a push to make low-to-mid-level play less powerful across the board. We'll just have to wait to see the other classes.
Seems like it would stack just fine and I am all for it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Dual wielder states:
When you are holding a Weapon with the Light property in one hand, you can treat a non-Light Weapon in your other hand as if it had the Light property.
So as soon as you stow the dagger the longsword loses the light property and thus you can not make a extra attack with it from dual wielding.
Where is the spell DC and attacks? Assuming it is the same as 2014.
Cantrips have been considered level 0 from at least 3E I believe, in 5E the cantrip section of the PHB states
However, it is interesting that it didn't really specify properly about cantrips... I can't see anything in these rules that forbids swapping them and they seem to be referred to as "prepared" now, instead of "known". When referenced too by Bard and Ranger spellcaster features.
I do not like how Hidden and Hide work in this new document, as well as the more subtle implication that Passive Perception is gone (flat DC 15 Stealth check, and Observant no longer boosting passive checks, makes it feel like passives are no longer a thing.)
So, let's look at the explicit text given to us on Hiding and being Hidden:
The Hide action serves the purpose of giving you the Hidden condition. To successfully give yourself the Hidden Condition, you must do the following:
So, You do the above, you become Hidden. What does being Hidden do? The following:
The problem:
First and foremost, 'Must be out of any visible enemy's line of sight' is very poorly worded, as that implies invisible enemies are exempt from the Hide restrictions, and you can Hide while in their line of sight and suddenly become immune from their spells that require they see you.
Secondly, two of the three things required to perform the Hide action should, logically, already Conceal you, and therefore impart the Hidden condition automatically.
Heavily Obscured is not included in this document, meaning we use the PHB definition for it. So what does it do? "A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition when trying to see something [that is Heavily Obscured]."
And what does Blinded do? You auto fail perception checks that rely on sight, give Advantage on attack rolls against you, and have Disadvantage on your own. That's pretty much 1 and 3 for Hidden already. So if I'm already Heavily Obscured, why do I need to Hide?
How about Cover? Well, Total Cover also isn't in these rules, so how is that defined? "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect." That's a superior version of being Concealed, since NOTHING can target you, not just things that require you to be seen. So again, if I have Total Cover, why do I need to Hide?
At this point I feel like that meme from Office Space. I'm looking at the Hide Action and asking 'So what would you say you do here?'
It kind of feels like Hiding is only necessary if you have Three-Quarters Cover, as the other two should be imparting the Hidden condition automatically. And I again have to question the line about being out of the enemy's line of sight. If I am out of their line of sight, aren't they not, by definition, unable to see me? And therefore, I am Hidden? So what's the Stealth Check for, at that point?
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.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
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?