As for Dragonborn the addition of Darkvision is basically one of the biggest/most common complaint about them, I have a feeling that alone will get them the results needed to stay as is in the next stage of testing.
At this point, who doesn't have darkvision? The rules for lighting pretty much only apply to humans and a couple others.
Just Human and Halfling in the PHB.
Neither ardling nor goliath have darkvision, in the latest UA. And the rules for lighting still apply to everyone.
As for Dragonborn the addition of Darkvision is basically one of the biggest/most common complaint about them, I have a feeling that alone will get them the results needed to stay as is in the next stage of testing.
At this point, who doesn't have darkvision? The rules for lighting pretty much only apply to humans and a couple others.
Just Human and Halfling in the PHB.
Neither ardling nor goliath have darkvision, in the latest UA. And the rules for lighting still apply to everyone.
I am not sure either of those will be in the PHB let alone in their current state. I think Goliath will be in the giants book instead and Ardling is probably up for another revision, so I wasn't counting them.
At this point, who doesn't have darkvision? The rules for lighting pretty much only apply to humans and a couple others.
Just Human and Halfling in the PHB.
Ardlings also don't get Darkvision. Goliath too, if the Goliath being in this UA means they'll be a core race in the next PHB.
So Humans, Halflings, Ardlings, and Goliaths don't have Darkvision.
Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, Gnomes, Tieflings, and Dragonborn do have Darkvision.
Still more with it than without but it's not massively one sided.
Personally I still feel like non-Drow elves shouldn't have Darkvision. Most images of elven cities I've seen are all bright, well lit enchanted forests or beautiful lakeside meadows. They don't exactly live underground like dwarves, gnomes, and draconic creatures. That's just my opinion though.
I am not sure either of those will be in the PHB let alone in their current state. I think Goliath will be in the giants book instead and Ardling is probably up for another revision, so I wasn't counting them.
Sorry about that, I was writing my post when you made this response.
That said, if you watch their video about the new UA race options they say outright that they've been considering adding Goliath to the PHB for a long time and that they want to do this so that players looking for the Strongman fantasy aren't funneled into playing orcs and only orcs. So it seems the intent at least is for Goliath to be made into a core race.
On the whole thought of 'over powered casters' it might be a feature, not a bug. There is what could be seen as text for world building/tone setting in the beginning of the PHB.
"For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival. Without the healing magic of clerics and paladins, adventurers would quickly succumb to their wounds. Without the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors might be overwhelmed by powerful foes. Without the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold."
I could be part of the change over ti.e from the early version of the game where magic was more rare and casters had more mechanical restraints.
On the whole thought of 'over powered casters' it might be a feature, not a bug. There is what could be seen as text for world building/tone setting in the beginning of the PHB.
"For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival. Without the healing magic of clerics and paladins, adventurers would quickly succumb to their wounds. Without the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors might be overwhelmed by powerful foes. Without the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold."
I could be part of the change over ti.e from the early version of the game where magic was more rare and casters had more ical restraints.
They have stated that balance is something that matters to them. I do not believe they want to make casters more powerful than non-casters.
On the whole thought of 'over powered casters' it might be a feature, not a bug. There is what could be seen as text for world building/tone setting in the beginning of the PHB.
"For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival. Without the healing magic of clerics and paladins, adventurers would quickly succumb to their wounds. Without the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors might be overwhelmed by powerful foes. Without the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold."
I could be part of the change over ti.e from the early version of the game where magic was more rare and casters had more mechanical restraints.
(That's a part of the 5e PHB because D&D 4e made martial characters just as powerful as spellcasters, and the fanbase rioted. Apparently, "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" is essential to the identity of D&D to a significant part of the community.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
On the whole thought of 'over powered casters' it might be a feature, not a bug. There is what could be seen as text for world building/tone setting in the beginning of the PHB.
"For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival. Without the healing magic of clerics and paladins, adventurers would quickly succumb to their wounds. Without the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors might be overwhelmed by powerful foes. Without the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold."
I could be part of the change over ti.e from the early version of the game where magic was more rare and casters had more mechanical restraints.
(That's a part of the 5e PHB because D&D 4e made martial characters just as powerful as spellcasters, and the fanbase rioted. Apparently, "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" is essential to the identity of D&D to a significant part of the community.)
Disagree, there are many other reasons to hate 4e, the scaling of different classes relative to each other wasn't the core problem. Rather the homogenization of the classes by giving martials and casters very similar abilities was moreso at issue. Why have 13 different classes if they all do basically the same thing?
The class feels a little lackluster but I think that's mostly because it is the primary divine caster and therefore, outside of channel divinity options, spells are really the focus, and the spells themselves are largely unchanged.
The issue though is that class features shouldn't just be spells if we already have casting. What's the point of spell-like channel divinity when we have spells? I'm not asking for channel divinity to be stronger at all (at least without a nerf somewhere else or a cost as casters are already overpowered) but if it exists it should have an identity.
100% agree, with the fact that it is long-rest recharge and has basically nothing unique about it - just some generic healing or damage - makes it totally lack luster. It doesn't give cleric any extra staying power in dungeon crawls since it is LR recharge, it doesn't have any special mechanics, it's just a free casting of a generic spell a few times per day. Why not just take the Harness Divine Power CD from Tasha's instead?
That seems to be looking at it from the most uncharitable way possible. You could also say that the basic channel divinity options let you cover all of the cleric bases, without using any of your spell slots. At first level a cleric can twice per day heal or cause 2d8 damage, or turn undead. That should be enough healing or turning for a first level party, leaving both of you spell slots open for what ever fun flavorful spells you want.
I'd much rather have 4 spell slots than 2 generic CDs and 2 spell slots. If they want a generic use of CD I much prefer the Harness Divine Power to this Divine Spark.
Why have 13 different classes if they all do basically the same thing?
NGL: this has been a feeling of mine about 5E for a long time. There are a ton of subclasses that mirror the cleric and its subclasses, and it feels like almost every class gets to cast spells. I'm not saying all 5E classes feel the exact same, but it often times feels like they're just minor pivots rather than being significantly different from each other. I'd love to see a robust version of rangers that don't cast spells, for instance.
As for Dragonborn the addition of Darkvision is basically one of the biggest/most common complaint about them, I have a feeling that alone will get them the results needed to stay as is in the next stage of testing.
At this point, who doesn't have darkvision? The rules for lighting pretty much only apply to humans and a couple others.
Just Human and Halfling in the PHB.
Neither ardling nor goliath have darkvision, in the latest UA. And the rules for lighting still apply to everyone.
I am not sure either of those will be in the PHB let alone in their current state. I think Goliath will be in the giants book instead and Ardling is probably up for another revision, so I wasn't counting them.
JC stated that Goliath was for the PHB in one the new videos.
NGL: this has been a feeling of mine about 5E for a long time. There are a ton of subclasses that mirror the cleric and its subclasses, and it feels like almost every class gets to cast spells. I'm not saying all 5E classes feel the exact same, but it often times feels like they're just minor pivots rather than being significantly different from each other. I'd love to see a robust version of rangers that don't cast spells, for instance.
Or a barbarian subclass that is not about dealing more damage during rage in a slightly different way.
NGL: this has been a feeling of mine about 5E for a long time. There are a ton of subclasses that mirror the cleric and its subclasses, and it feels like almost every class gets to cast spells. I'm not saying all 5E classes feel the exact same, but it often times feels like they're just minor pivots rather than being significantly different from each other. I'd love to see a robust version of rangers that don't cast spells, for instance.
Or a barbarian subclass that is not about dealing more damage during rage in a slightly different way.
Done: That's the Ancestral Guardian and the Totem Barbarian.
Honestly, Barbarian at least has a unique feel compared to the other classes (or at least it did until the Rune Knight was added). There is so much overlap between the others that they hardly feel special anymore. The Starry Druid and Celestial Warlock feels more "cleric-y" than some cleric subclasses, the Scout Rogue feels more "ranger-y" than some ranger subclasses, the Rune Knight feels more "barbarian-y" than some barbarian subclasses, some ranger builds feel more "monk-y" than some monks, and the Creation Bard feels more "artificer-y" than some artificers.
Neither ardling nor goliath have darkvision, in the latest UA. And the rules for lighting still apply to everyone.
I am not sure either of those will be in the PHB let alone in their current state. I think Goliath will be in the giants book instead and Ardling is probably up for another revision, so I wasn't counting them.
Ardlings also don't get Darkvision. Goliath too, if the Goliath being in this UA means they'll be a core race in the next PHB.
So Humans, Halflings, Ardlings, and Goliaths don't have Darkvision.
Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, Gnomes, Tieflings, and Dragonborn do have Darkvision.
Still more with it than without but it's not massively one sided.
Personally I still feel like non-Drow elves shouldn't have Darkvision. Most images of elven cities I've seen are all bright, well lit enchanted forests or beautiful lakeside meadows. They don't exactly live underground like dwarves, gnomes, and draconic creatures. That's just my opinion though.
deleted: reiteration, no point.
Sorry about that, I was writing my post when you made this response.
That said, if you watch their video about the new UA race options they say outright that they've been considering adding Goliath to the PHB for a long time and that they want to do this so that players looking for the Strongman fantasy aren't funneled into playing orcs and only orcs. So it seems the intent at least is for Goliath to be made into a core race.
On the whole thought of 'over powered casters' it might be a feature, not a bug. There is what could be seen as text for world building/tone setting in the beginning of the PHB.
"For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival. Without the healing magic of clerics and paladins, adventurers would quickly succumb to their wounds. Without the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors might be overwhelmed by powerful foes. Without the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold."
I could be part of the change over ti.e from the early version of the game where magic was more rare and casters had more mechanical restraints.
They have stated that balance is something that matters to them. I do not believe they want to make casters more powerful than non-casters.
(That's a part of the 5e PHB because D&D 4e made martial characters just as powerful as spellcasters, and the fanbase rioted. Apparently, "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" is essential to the identity of D&D to a significant part of the community.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Disagree, there are many other reasons to hate 4e, the scaling of different classes relative to each other wasn't the core problem. Rather the homogenization of the classes by giving martials and casters very similar abilities was moreso at issue. Why have 13 different classes if they all do basically the same thing?
I'd much rather have 4 spell slots than 2 generic CDs and 2 spell slots. If they want a generic use of CD I much prefer the Harness Divine Power to this Divine Spark.
NGL: this has been a feeling of mine about 5E for a long time. There are a ton of subclasses that mirror the cleric and its subclasses, and it feels like almost every class gets to cast spells. I'm not saying all 5E classes feel the exact same, but it often times feels like they're just minor pivots rather than being significantly different from each other. I'd love to see a robust version of rangers that don't cast spells, for instance.
JC stated that Goliath was for the PHB in one the new videos.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Or a barbarian subclass that is not about dealing more damage during rage in a slightly different way.
Done: That's the Ancestral Guardian and the Totem Barbarian.
Honestly, Barbarian at least has a unique feel compared to the other classes (or at least it did until the Rune Knight was added). There is so much overlap between the others that they hardly feel special anymore. The Starry Druid and Celestial Warlock feels more "cleric-y" than some cleric subclasses, the Scout Rogue feels more "ranger-y" than some ranger subclasses, the Rune Knight feels more "barbarian-y" than some barbarian subclasses, some ranger builds feel more "monk-y" than some monks, and the Creation Bard feels more "artificer-y" than some artificers.