To be fair no one here has any idea what Sorcerer or Warlock will look like, and we won't for at least 3 or 4 months.
I tried to say that earlier in this thread, and I was just basically ignored.
In addition to the first draft of the Cleric getting its subclass at 3rd level, this thread does also draw on (unclear and non-binding) statements that folks at Wizards have made around the idea that standardizing subclasses would be desirable.
I seem to remember that back during the D&D Next playtest in 2013, 'class archetypes' were more standardized (at one point they were independent of class entirely), and this was eventually abandoned for the D&D5 release because it didn't work. I don't expect them to be any more successful this time, but that doesn't render speculation invalid.
There are comment boxes in the playtest surveys for a reason.
This. Some people (nobody in particular) don't seem to understand that the UA articles are playtests i.e. NOT FINAL i.e. SUBJECT TO CHANGE. And if someone doesn't like the final product, they can just not play it.
Well... no. You're ignoring the thematic spells and domain ability to try and disprove and invalidate my opinion. I wasn't stating it as a fact, just how a change could feel to some, myself and players included.
Does it change much mechanically? No. I already acknowledged you can fluff the generic cleric level with spell selection and how you flavour Channel Divinity.
Does it change how it feels for the player, telling them that they've sworn service to a God of the storm but don't get anything thematic unless they spend 3 levels? In this instance yes.
Without getting into setting or game specifics too deeply, I don't give credence to the bit about gods not granting their powers quickly to PCs. D&D is a heroic fantasy game. Mechanically they DO get those powers that quickly and easily in 5e.
Now, it doesn't make much difference at the end of the day and we'll see how it shakes out when the final rules come out. I was just commenting how, whether it's a good change or not, there will be a feeling of thematic loss from the shift, which I'm sure will be quickly forgotten once people become accustomed to the new rules.
Another good point. I had a paladin take a level of sorc and it wouldn't have been anywhere near as fun if I had just been a ****** spellcaster in plate armor if I had to wait till level 3.
Looks like someone just wants an imba pwn build.
I was so n00bish at the time I thought true strike was a good spell.
Well... no. You're ignoring the thematic spells and domain ability to try and disprove and invalidate my opinion. I wasn't stating it as a fact, just how a change could feel to some, myself and players included.
Does it change much mechanically? No. I already acknowledged you can fluff the generic cleric level with spell selection and how you flavour Channel Divinity.
Does it change how it feels for the player, telling them that they've sworn service to a God of the storm but don't get anything thematic unless they spend 3 levels? In this instance yes.
Without getting into setting or game specifics too deeply, I don't give credence to the bit about gods not granting their powers quickly to PCs. D&D is a heroic fantasy game. Mechanically they DO get those powers that quickly and easily in 5e.
Now, it doesn't make much difference at the end of the day and we'll see how it shakes out when the final rules come out. I was just commenting how, whether it's a good change or not, there will be a feeling of thematic loss from the shift, which I'm sure will be quickly forgotten once people become accustomed to the new rules.
Why isn’t your statement that all sub classes should be at level 1? Training to be a battle master must be different than an arcane archer or rune knight. Dipping swords bard is different from Lore. Being gloomstalker requires vastly different training than a fey wanderer. If your feeling is dips should feel thematic for even 1 lvl why aren’t you pointing that out across the board for all sub classes?
In my personal experience, any time I thought that cantrip was "good", it's because I overlooked something about it. Initially, if you don't read it carefully, you might think that you can use it on someone else (like guidance), or that you can benefit from it the same turn if you find a way to do the necessary action that same turn (again like guidance).
It does make me wonder how they'll salvage true strike in One D&D. Will they make it a reaction like Guidance and Resistance, but for attack rolls? It's still a cantrip, so it can't afford to be too buffed.
If they make True Strike work like Guidance and Resistance, it's gonna be excellent. 10ft range is a good limitation, will look great in the hands of a protector cleric on the frontlines. Potentially turning one missed attack into a hit is not a big deal; a simple bless spell gives the same benefit to all attacks of three creatures for an entire minute, also applying to saving throws.
I was so n00bish at the time I thought true strike was a good spell.
Not even seppuku can wash away this kind of shame)
In my personal experience, any time I thought that cantrip was "good", it's because I overlooked something about it. Initially, if you don't read it carefully, you might think that you can use it on someone else (like guidance), or that you can benefit from it the same turn if you find a way to do the necessary action that same turn (again like guidance).
It does make me wonder how they'll salvage true strike in One D&D. Will they make it a reaction like Guidance and Resistance, but for attack rolls? It's still a cantrip, so it can't afford to be too buffed.
I've looked at it like a riddle and I've come up with two ways it could ever be useful.
1) You are a melee fighter who took metamagic adept and used the extended distance meta-magic on a for 60 feet away for your next turn.
2) You are a caster in a stupidly specific and contrived situation where your main attack cantrip is shut down, you have quicken metamagic, and you can't just retreat or something like any sane caster could be doing.
I'm pretty sure it's not the best even in those situations and they're so absurdly specific as to be laughable.
I was so n00bish at the time I thought true strike was a good spell.
Not even seppuku can wash away this kind of shame)
In my personal experience, any time I thought that cantrip was "good", it's because I overlooked something about it. Initially, if you don't read it carefully, you might think that you can use it on someone else (like guidance), or that you can benefit from it the same turn if you find a way to do the necessary action that same turn (again like guidance).
It does make me wonder how they'll salvage true strike in One D&D. Will they make it a reaction like Guidance and Resistance, but for attack rolls? It's still a cantrip, so it can't afford to be too buffed.
Making true strike a bonus action would make it a must have cantrip for a lot of classes.
I was so n00bish at the time I thought true strike was a good spell.
Not even seppuku can wash away this kind of shame)
In my personal experience, any time I thought that cantrip was "good", it's because I overlooked something about it. Initially, if you don't read it carefully, you might think that you can use it on someone else (like guidance), or that you can benefit from it the same turn if you find a way to do the necessary action that same turn (again like guidance).
It does make me wonder how they'll salvage true strike in One D&D. Will they make it a reaction like Guidance and Resistance, but for attack rolls? It's still a cantrip, so it can't afford to be too buffed.
Making true strike a bonus action would make it a must have cantrip for a lot of classes.
What if it allowed the caster to add their spellcasting attack bonus to the attack roll, in addition to any other applicable bonuses? Pathfinder 1e kind of fixes true strike by granting a flat +20 bonus to the attack roll, but obviously that's way too high a bonus.
Well... no. You're ignoring the thematic spells and domain ability to try and disprove and invalidate my opinion. I wasn't stating it as a fact, just how a change could feel to some, myself and players included.
Does it change much mechanically? No. I already acknowledged you can fluff the generic cleric level with spell selection and how you flavour Channel Divinity.
Does it change how it feels for the player, telling them that they've sworn service to a God of the storm but don't get anything thematic unless they spend 3 levels? In this instance yes.
Without getting into setting or game specifics too deeply, I don't give credence to the bit about gods not granting their powers quickly to PCs. D&D is a heroic fantasy game. Mechanically they DO get those powers that quickly and easily in 5e.
Now, it doesn't make much difference at the end of the day and we'll see how it shakes out when the final rules come out. I was just commenting how, whether it's a good change or not, there will be a feeling of thematic loss from the shift, which I'm sure will be quickly forgotten once people become accustomed to the new rules.
Why would an apprentice, which is basically what somebody who literally just got their power is, have the ability to suddenly use all domain thematic spells and abilities? Again, one D&D just handles this better, 5E gives way too much at level 1 for a number of classes. It's like walking into a new job which requires some basic computer hardware and software knowledge, with more of a focus on operating systems and suddenly gaining full knowledge of the inner workings of both the Windows AND Linux kernel, mysteriously.
When talking about the way people "feel", it's just stepping into conjectured opinion. Some players might say it's a positive thing and others negative, it's not really an argument based in logic, just opinion; You're free to have an opinion but I disagree that it is negative and instead positive because it doesn't suddenly mean that warrior running around for 6 levels, at level 7 now is an experienced cleric who knows literally everything about Torm despite never once having mentioned Torm when picking a level in Cleric. Saying this is an issue for Cleric is also like saying this is an issue for Paladin, where it really has NOT been an issue for Paladin who don't even swear their oath until 3rd level.
As for how quick players get power in 5E, yes they get it fast but they don't get say 9th level spells at 1st level, they don't get full master knowledge of a spell school or cleric domain at level 1, and that is where this comes in, the knowledge in how to use the power, which is described in the Cleric's fluff text that they indeed do need to learn things like texts and give devotion to their god, Devotion is not a one off thing, it's a continued over time thing where the devotion becomes stronger over time.
I was so n00bish at the time I thought true strike was a good spell.
Not even seppuku can wash away this kind of shame)
In my personal experience, any time I thought that cantrip was "good", it's because I overlooked something about it. Initially, if you don't read it carefully, you might think that you can use it on someone else (like guidance), or that you can benefit from it the same turn if you find a way to do the necessary action that same turn (again like guidance).
It does make me wonder how they'll salvage true strike in One D&D. Will they make it a reaction like Guidance and Resistance, but for attack rolls? It's still a cantrip, so it can't afford to be too buffed.
Making true strike a bonus action would make it a must have cantrip for a lot of classes.
True Strike needs a buff tho, so just add a downside with making it a bonus action, it could be limited to PB uses per day or it could lower the user's AC by 1 or 2 until the start of their next turn. Alternatively it could consume concentration for 1 minute, even if the spell itself failed a concentration saving throw, making it more of a finisher cantrip you use towards end of combat.
The limitation that Guidance and Resistance now have - being a Reaction, that you can only take when a roll is failed, by someone very close to you - is great for True Strike too. Realistically there is also another restriction that isn't written. And that's the fact the roll needs to fail by no more than 4, or else the spell isn't worth casting. Even if you don't know the DC, or AC in the case of true strike, you have a pretty good idea that a roll of a 5 isn't going to cut it usually. And a martial that takes true strike for themselves is often reluctant to give up their Reaction more than a Bonus Action sometimes. It would be a real decision. So I think the same approach would work here. Even if they make it something like a flat +2 instead of 1d4.
The limitation that Guidance and Resistance now have - being a Reaction, that you can only take when a roll is failed, by someone very close to you - is great for True Strike too. Realistically there is also another restriction that isn't written. And that's the fact the roll needs to fail by no more than 4, or else the spell isn't worth casting. Even if you don't know the DC, or AC in the case of true strike, you have a pretty good idea that a roll of a 5 isn't going to cut it usually. And a martial that takes true strike for themselves is often reluctant to give up their Reaction more than a Bonus Action sometimes. It would be a real decision. So I think the same approach would work here. Even if they make it something like a flat +2 instead of 1d4.
I think the more relevant part is truestrike buffing casters rather than martials. As a tendency 5e casters will have a reaction free more often. Still it seems reaction use is becoming more available., so it may not be a problem.
Also I think martials had more ways to gain advantage without resources, ( prone, frenzy, a second attack is similar but better ect.)
Now with all these changes the quickened spell will be more directly effected. They will have less cantrips to spend it on. Which may or may not be good for Interesting play.
The limitation that Guidance and Resistance now have - being a Reaction, that you can only take when a roll is failed, by someone very close to you - is great for True Strike too. Realistically there is also another restriction that isn't written. And that's the fact the roll needs to fail by no more than 4, or else the spell isn't worth casting. Even if you don't know the DC, or AC in the case of true strike, you have a pretty good idea that a roll of a 5 isn't going to cut it usually. And a martial that takes true strike for themselves is often reluctant to give up their Reaction more than a Bonus Action sometimes. It would be a real decision. So I think the same approach would work here. Even if they make it something like a flat +2 instead of 1d4.
I think the more relevant part is truestrike buffing casters rather than martials. As a tendency 5e casters will have a reaction free more often. Still it seems reaction use is becoming more available., so it may not be a problem.
Also I think martials had more ways to gain advantage without resources, ( prone, frenzy, a second attack is similar but better ect.)
Now with all these changes the quickened spell will be more directly effected. They will have less cantrips to spend it on. Which may or may not be good for Interesting play.
Yeah, I don't think it could work like the new Guidance, and still grant Advantage. It would have to be a d4 or just a flat small bonus. And only as a Reaction if an attack misses.
The limitation that Guidance and Resistance now have - being a Reaction, that you can only take when a roll is failed, by someone very close to you - is great for True Strike too. Realistically there is also another restriction that isn't written. And that's the fact the roll needs to fail by no more than 4, or else the spell isn't worth casting. Even if you don't know the DC, or AC in the case of true strike, you have a pretty good idea that a roll of a 5 isn't going to cut it usually. And a martial that takes true strike for themselves is often reluctant to give up their Reaction more than a Bonus Action sometimes. It would be a real decision. So I think the same approach would work here. Even if they make it something like a flat +2 instead of 1d4.
I think the more relevant part is truestrike buffing casters rather than martials. As a tendency 5e casters will have a reaction free more often. Still it seems reaction use is becoming more available., so it may not be a problem.
Also I think martials had more ways to gain advantage without resources, ( prone, frenzy, a second attack is similar but better ect.)
Now with all these changes the quickened spell will be more directly effected. They will have less cantrips to spend it on. Which may or may not be good for Interesting play.
Yeah, I don't think it could work like the new Guidance, and still grant Advantage. It would have to be a d4 or just a flat small bonus. And only as a Reaction if an attack misses.
That would still be much better than the current version.
If I had to rebuild True Strike from the ground up, here's what I'd do.
True Strike Cantrip Bonus Action One target within 60 yards. No Concentration. On your next physical melee, melee spell, or thrown weapon attack, you gain advantage. You may reroll any 1's or 2's you roll. If the attack connects you deal an additional 1d6 of the damage type on the hit. This does not apply to any subsiquent hits. This effect remains in place even if the foe moves out of range for up to three rounds. Once an attack is successful using true strike the effect cannot be applied to the same creature again until after a short rest.
If I had to rebuild True Strike from the ground up, here's what I'd do.
True Strike Cantrip Bonus Action One target within 60 yards. No Concentration. On your next physical melee, melee spell, or thrown weapon attack, you gain advantage. You may reroll any 1's or 2's you roll. If the attack connects you deal an additional 1d6 of the damage type on the hit. This does not apply to any subsiquent hits. This effect remains in place even if the foe moves out of range for up to three rounds. Once an attack is successful using true strike the effect cannot be applied to the same creature again until after a short rest.
I think it takes away a lot of the spell's simplicity, and making it a bonus action kinda breaks it. Also, bit of a nitpick, but the wording is way off. And distance is measured in increments of 5 feet, not yards.
Honestly, I'd suggest just making it a bonus action / advantage spell, but make it a level 1 spell again instead of cantrip. Still a great spell for gishes, but costs resource to use.
Honestly, I'd suggest just making it a bonus action / advantage spell, but make it a level 1 spell again instead of cantrip. Still a great spell for gishes, but costs resource to use.
EDIT - self only.
That could definitely work, though the effect of simply granting advantage probably wouldn't be enough for a 1st-level spell. Would definitely make it useable, though.
Edit: forgot about Silvery Barbs, which would in theory be a direct upgrade from True Strike.
We kinda derailed from the topic of subclasses at 1st level. Not that there was much left to discuss, though...
Probably not, but it should probably go to it's own thread of discussion, so to bring it back. Personally I don't think any class needs subclass at level 1 and the classes with the most broken multi-classes all had sub-classes at level 1 in 5E. However I'd still say there are class balance issues in 5E, classes get more power per level in tiers 1 & 2 than 3 & 4. Tiers 1 & 2 need to be toned down slightly and tiers 3 & 4 up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This. Some people (nobody in particular) don't seem to understand that the UA articles are playtests i.e. NOT FINAL i.e. SUBJECT TO CHANGE. And if someone doesn't like the final product, they can just not play it.
[REDACTED]
Well... no. You're ignoring the thematic spells and domain ability to try and disprove and invalidate my opinion. I wasn't stating it as a fact, just how a change could feel to some, myself and players included.
Does it change much mechanically? No. I already acknowledged you can fluff the generic cleric level with spell selection and how you flavour Channel Divinity.
Does it change how it feels for the player, telling them that they've sworn service to a God of the storm but don't get anything thematic unless they spend 3 levels? In this instance yes.
Without getting into setting or game specifics too deeply, I don't give credence to the bit about gods not granting their powers quickly to PCs. D&D is a heroic fantasy game. Mechanically they DO get those powers that quickly and easily in 5e.
Now, it doesn't make much difference at the end of the day and we'll see how it shakes out when the final rules come out. I was just commenting how, whether it's a good change or not, there will be a feeling of thematic loss from the shift, which I'm sure will be quickly forgotten once people become accustomed to the new rules.
I was so n00bish at the time I thought true strike was a good spell.
Not even seppuku can wash away this kind of shame)
Why isn’t your statement that all sub classes should be at level 1? Training to be a battle master must be different than an arcane archer or rune knight. Dipping swords bard is different from Lore. Being gloomstalker requires vastly different training than a fey wanderer. If your feeling is dips should feel thematic for even 1 lvl why aren’t you pointing that out across the board for all sub classes?
If they make True Strike work like Guidance and Resistance, it's gonna be excellent. 10ft range is a good limitation, will look great in the hands of a protector cleric on the frontlines. Potentially turning one missed attack into a hit is not a big deal; a simple bless spell gives the same benefit to all attacks of three creatures for an entire minute, also applying to saving throws.
I shall commit Sudoku!
I've looked at it like a riddle and I've come up with two ways it could ever be useful.
1) You are a melee fighter who took metamagic adept and used the extended distance meta-magic on a for 60 feet away for your next turn.
2) You are a caster in a stupidly specific and contrived situation where your main attack cantrip is shut down, you have quicken metamagic, and you can't just retreat or something like any sane caster could be doing.
I'm pretty sure it's not the best even in those situations and they're so absurdly specific as to be laughable.
Making true strike a bonus action would make it a must have cantrip for a lot of classes.
What if it allowed the caster to add their spellcasting attack bonus to the attack roll, in addition to any other applicable bonuses? Pathfinder 1e kind of fixes true strike by granting a flat +20 bonus to the attack roll, but obviously that's way too high a bonus.
[REDACTED]
Why would an apprentice, which is basically what somebody who literally just got their power is, have the ability to suddenly use all domain thematic spells and abilities? Again, one D&D just handles this better, 5E gives way too much at level 1 for a number of classes. It's like walking into a new job which requires some basic computer hardware and software knowledge, with more of a focus on operating systems and suddenly gaining full knowledge of the inner workings of both the Windows AND Linux kernel, mysteriously.
When talking about the way people "feel", it's just stepping into conjectured opinion. Some players might say it's a positive thing and others negative, it's not really an argument based in logic, just opinion; You're free to have an opinion but I disagree that it is negative and instead positive because it doesn't suddenly mean that warrior running around for 6 levels, at level 7 now is an experienced cleric who knows literally everything about Torm despite never once having mentioned Torm when picking a level in Cleric. Saying this is an issue for Cleric is also like saying this is an issue for Paladin, where it really has NOT been an issue for Paladin who don't even swear their oath until 3rd level.
As for how quick players get power in 5E, yes they get it fast but they don't get say 9th level spells at 1st level, they don't get full master knowledge of a spell school or cleric domain at level 1, and that is where this comes in, the knowledge in how to use the power, which is described in the Cleric's fluff text that they indeed do need to learn things like texts and give devotion to their god, Devotion is not a one off thing, it's a continued over time thing where the devotion becomes stronger over time.
True Strike needs a buff tho, so just add a downside with making it a bonus action, it could be limited to PB uses per day or it could lower the user's AC by 1 or 2 until the start of their next turn. Alternatively it could consume concentration for 1 minute, even if the spell itself failed a concentration saving throw, making it more of a finisher cantrip you use towards end of combat.
The limitation that Guidance and Resistance now have - being a Reaction, that you can only take when a roll is failed, by someone very close to you - is great for True Strike too. Realistically there is also another restriction that isn't written. And that's the fact the roll needs to fail by no more than 4, or else the spell isn't worth casting. Even if you don't know the DC, or AC in the case of true strike, you have a pretty good idea that a roll of a 5 isn't going to cut it usually. And a martial that takes true strike for themselves is often reluctant to give up their Reaction more than a Bonus Action sometimes. It would be a real decision. So I think the same approach would work here. Even if they make it something like a flat +2 instead of 1d4.
I think the more relevant part is truestrike buffing casters rather than martials. As a tendency 5e casters will have a reaction free more often. Still it seems reaction use is becoming more available., so it may not be a problem.
Also I think martials had more ways to gain advantage without resources, ( prone, frenzy, a second attack is similar but better ect.)
Now with all these changes the quickened spell will be more directly effected. They will have less cantrips to spend it on. Which may or may not be good for Interesting play.
Yeah, I don't think it could work like the new Guidance, and still grant Advantage. It would have to be a d4 or just a flat small bonus. And only as a Reaction if an attack misses.
That would still be much better than the current version.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If I had to rebuild True Strike from the ground up, here's what I'd do.
True Strike
Cantrip
Bonus Action
One target within 60 yards. No Concentration.
On your next physical melee, melee spell, or thrown weapon attack, you gain advantage. You may reroll any 1's or 2's you roll. If the attack connects you deal an additional 1d6 of the damage type on the hit. This does not apply to any subsiquent hits. This effect remains in place even if the foe moves out of range for up to three rounds. Once an attack is successful using true strike the effect cannot be applied to the same creature again until after a short rest.
We kinda derailed from the topic of subclasses at 1st level. Not that there was much left to discuss, though...
I think it takes away a lot of the spell's simplicity, and making it a bonus action kinda breaks it. Also, bit of a nitpick, but the wording is way off. And distance is measured in increments of 5 feet, not yards.
[REDACTED]
Honestly, I'd suggest just making it a bonus action / advantage spell, but make it a level 1 spell again instead of cantrip. Still a great spell for gishes, but costs resource to use.
EDIT - self only.
That could definitely work, though the effect of simply granting advantage probably wouldn't be enough for a 1st-level spell. Would definitely make it useable, though.
Edit: forgot about Silvery Barbs, which would in theory be a direct upgrade from True Strike.
[REDACTED]
Probably not, but it should probably go to it's own thread of discussion, so to bring it back. Personally I don't think any class needs subclass at level 1 and the classes with the most broken multi-classes all had sub-classes at level 1 in 5E. However I'd still say there are class balance issues in 5E, classes get more power per level in tiers 1 & 2 than 3 & 4. Tiers 1 & 2 need to be toned down slightly and tiers 3 & 4 up.