I honestly don't know what to think about allowing classes to change their prepared spells; I mean, it does give you a bit more flexibility, but it also makes me wonder how Wizard will work, how it will feel flavor-wise with each class, how spellcasters will be distinguished from one another, and how confusing it would be for the DM when all the spellcasters in the party keep swapping their spells. Not only that, but I have trouble remembering which spells I have prepared if they keep changing. So overall, I think I'd have to say that I dislike this change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Obviously my main concern is not necessarily what is thematically appropriate to the class, but rather the desire for each character to have meaningful, permanent choices built into them. With the suggested removal of the hunters choices and the suggested removal of spell selection mattering for more than a day I must admit I am very worried about the design Direction We're seeing with the new iteration of the system.. my main gripe with 5e is that so many characters follow a predetermined path of unlocking features with very few opportunities to make your character your own.. and it looks like wotc are headed even more in that direction.
I was hoping we'd see the Battle master features be at least partially built into the base fighter, now i wonder if the battle master will get to keep it's choices at all.
A few of you did bring up an interesting point.. I too wonder what will happen with wizards... With more classes being able to freely pick their daily spells, the one gimmick wizards had seems to be fairly meaningless.. wizards were never terribly exciting spell casters, but they were powerful due to their ability to have More spells than a bard or sorcerer.. i guess we'll see.
I'm old enough to remember when the Bard and Ranger were the only ones who could only "know" a few spells.
Now it seems like the wizard is the odd one out (being the only one who has to actually have the spell in memory before casting it).
Not sure what you mean by this. 5e is the fist time rangers haven’t prepared their spells the way all other divine casters do, and in 5e, rangers and bards have been joined by sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards(ish) from the beginning.
I'm not sure that's what TaleMaster was going for.
I think he was referring to the way in the very old editions, like in Original (Strategic Review addition) and 1st ed AD&D, Rangers only have a very small number of spell-slots (both Clerical and Magic-User) that they gained when they reached relatively high level (9th or so.) They didn't start with spells, and they never really got many over their whole career.
Bards... Bards are weird. There was some serious disagreements between early editions on exactly what Bards were supposed to be. There was a really bizarre outlier in 1st ed AD&D where they were the only official 'prestige class' and had to gain ridiculous numbers of levels as other classes (Fighter and Thief) before they were allowed to become Bards and get ... druid spells? The rest of the time they were basically half-casters with a limited number of arcane spell slots they had to prepare with Vancian memorization.
Oooo. I have a good Hot Take that I thought while reading 1dd that I'm sure wouldn't be divisive AT ALL (Sarcasm).
To balance skill checks and make DCs make sense as well as even out the Expert classes vs regular classes. Stat bonuses should not apply to skill checks.
So the difference between a barbarian and a bard on a persuasion check at level 5 would be 0 on an untrained barbarian and +6 on a expert bard, not a -1 to a +11 modifier for a non-charisma class vs a Charisma expert allowing a Bard to hit a 30dc (impossible) on a roll of 19 or higher.
See! not Divisive at all! <drinks a potion of flame resist>
With the way things are going Monks may end up being one of the strongest martial classes.
The powerful martial feats like GWM and SS have been weakened. A two-weapon fighting monk can now make 3 attacks at level 1 and at level 2 with flurry of blows can make 4 attacks thanks to light weapon and martial arts/flurry of blows no longer fighting for their bonus action. Polearm master was also nerfed because it forces you to use a heavy and reach weapon so spears and shields don't work with it anymore.
Now a greatweapon master fighter is swinging a greatsword for (2d6+Strength)x2 + PB +reroll of 1's and 2's at level 5 for an average of 28 if he hits with both attack (great weapon fighting style + GWM) while a two-weapon fighting monk (who took two-weapon fighting style at level 1) is hitting for (1d6+dex)x4 without using ki or an average of 30 if they hit with all attacks. (this assumes an 18 in dex and strength respectively). Without any changes to monk at all we are slowly seeing it become a much stronger class with many more build options.
With the way things are going Monks may end up being one of the strongest martial classes.
The powerful martial feats like GWM and SS have been weakened. A two-weapon fighting monk can now make 3 attacks at level 1 and at level 2 with flurry of blows can make 4 attacks thanks to light weapon and martial arts/flurry of blows no longer fighting for their bonus action. Polearm master was also nerfed because it forces you to use a heavy and reach weapon so spears and shields don't work with it anymore.
Now a greatweapon master fighter is swinging a greatsword for (2d6+Strength)x2 + PB +reroll of 1's and 2's at level 5 for an average of 28 if he hits with both attack (great weapon fighting style + GWM) while a two-weapon fighting monk (who took two-weapon fighting style at level 1) is hitting for (1d6+dex)x4 without using ki or an average of 30 if they hit with all attacks. (this assumes an 18 in dex and strength respectively). Without any changes to monk at all we are slowly seeing it become a much stronger class with many more build options.
Honestly, I am happy to see that Two Weapon Fighting Monk is now a viable build instead of a waste of time or just "reflavored" unarmed strikes.
Epic boons need to be looked at as they are kind of all over the place effect wise and multi-classing to fighter for action surge (if that isn't moved too far into the class in the rework for warrior classes)
hot take: "rare" languages should be gated behind some modicum of effort. maybe as addition to multiple cerebral feats like 'Observant,' 'Keen Mind,' and/or as a new 1st-Level character origin feat called something like 'Polyglot' or 'Tutoring My Rich Parents Purchased For Me'.
It does seem odd to me that they didn't modify the Linguist feat to be a 1st level feat. The changes kind of write themselves honestly:
Remove the ability score increase and replace it with the Adept Linguist feature from the Anthropologist background.
Bam, solid 1st level feat in keeping with other 1st level feats like Crafter or Musician to ensure you have a character with a nonmagical means of both breaking through and taking advantage of language barriers.
I am making a prediction on warlocks right now given this playtest. Pact magic will be changed to cast spells = PB bonus, You can prepare a number of spells= to your PB they can be from any school except the evocation school and your patron list is now always prepared. This is my prediction. I hope I am wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I honestly don't know what to think about allowing classes to change their prepared spells; I mean, it does give you a bit more flexibility, but it also makes me wonder how Wizard will work, how it will feel flavor-wise with each class, how spellcasters will be distinguished from one another, and how confusing it would be for the DM when all the spellcasters in the party keep swapping their spells. Not only that, but I have trouble remembering which spells I have prepared if they keep changing. So overall, I think I'd have to say that I dislike this change.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Obviously my main concern is not necessarily what is thematically appropriate to the class, but rather the desire for each character to have meaningful, permanent choices built into them. With the suggested removal of the hunters choices and the suggested removal of spell selection mattering for more than a day I must admit I am very worried about the design Direction We're seeing with the new iteration of the system.. my main gripe with 5e is that so many characters follow a predetermined path of unlocking features with very few opportunities to make your character your own.. and it looks like wotc are headed even more in that direction.
I was hoping we'd see the Battle master features be at least partially built into the base fighter, now i wonder if the battle master will get to keep it's choices at all.
A few of you did bring up an interesting point.. I too wonder what will happen with wizards... With more classes being able to freely pick their daily spells, the one gimmick wizards had seems to be fairly meaningless.. wizards were never terribly exciting spell casters, but they were powerful due to their ability to have More spells than a bard or sorcerer.. i guess we'll see.
I'm not sure that's what TaleMaster was going for.
I think he was referring to the way in the very old editions, like in Original (Strategic Review addition) and 1st ed AD&D, Rangers only have a very small number of spell-slots (both Clerical and Magic-User) that they gained when they reached relatively high level (9th or so.) They didn't start with spells, and they never really got many over their whole career.
Bards... Bards are weird. There was some serious disagreements between early editions on exactly what Bards were supposed to be. There was a really bizarre outlier in 1st ed AD&D where they were the only official 'prestige class' and had to gain ridiculous numbers of levels as other classes (Fighter and Thief) before they were allowed to become Bards and get ... druid spells? The rest of the time they were basically half-casters with a limited number of arcane spell slots they had to prepare with Vancian memorization.
Oooo. I have a good Hot Take that I thought while reading 1dd that I'm sure wouldn't be divisive AT ALL (Sarcasm).
To balance skill checks and make DCs make sense as well as even out the Expert classes vs regular classes. Stat bonuses should not apply to skill checks.
So the difference between a barbarian and a bard on a persuasion check at level 5 would be 0 on an untrained barbarian and +6 on a expert bard, not a -1 to a +11 modifier for a non-charisma class vs a Charisma expert allowing a Bard to hit a 30dc (impossible) on a roll of 19 or higher.
See! not Divisive at all! <drinks a potion of flame resist>
With the way things are going Monks may end up being one of the strongest martial classes.
The powerful martial feats like GWM and SS have been weakened. A two-weapon fighting monk can now make 3 attacks at level 1 and at level 2 with flurry of blows can make 4 attacks thanks to light weapon and martial arts/flurry of blows no longer fighting for their bonus action. Polearm master was also nerfed because it forces you to use a heavy and reach weapon so spears and shields don't work with it anymore.
Now a greatweapon master fighter is swinging a greatsword for (2d6+Strength)x2 + PB +reroll of 1's and 2's at level 5 for an average of 28 if he hits with both attack (great weapon fighting style + GWM) while a two-weapon fighting monk (who took two-weapon fighting style at level 1) is hitting for (1d6+dex)x4 without using ki or an average of 30 if they hit with all attacks. (this assumes an 18 in dex and strength respectively). Without any changes to monk at all we are slowly seeing it become a much stronger class with many more build options.
Honestly, I am happy to see that Two Weapon Fighting Monk is now a viable build instead of a waste of time or just "reflavored" unarmed strikes.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Same.
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
Epic boons need to be looked at as they are kind of all over the place effect wise and multi-classing to fighter for action surge (if that isn't moved too far into the class in the rework for warrior classes)
It does seem odd to me that they didn't modify the Linguist feat to be a 1st level feat. The changes kind of write themselves honestly:
Remove the ability score increase and replace it with the Adept Linguist feature from the Anthropologist background.
Bam, solid 1st level feat in keeping with other 1st level feats like Crafter or Musician to ensure you have a character with a nonmagical means of both breaking through and taking advantage of language barriers.
I am making a prediction on warlocks right now given this playtest. Pact magic will be changed to cast spells = PB bonus, You can prepare a number of spells= to your PB they can be from any school except the evocation school and your patron list is now always prepared. This is my prediction. I hope I am wrong.