Honestly, I just love the clean up of the rules, correcting things that had been present on the game because of bad wording (Such as Goodberry + Disciple of Life) and, also, making things easier on the player side, to avoid those strict DMs that love to make things harder (Such as guidance being a reaction).
Aside from the fact that they seem to want to move all subclasses to lv3 (Which still bugs me and I hope they revert back), the rules seem clearer as a whole and that is just *chef's kiss*
The background AS makes sense and I prefer than it being related to species for sure. And I love that they are being more specific on custom backgrounds than they were on the PHB, which might make people to actually use it on their games.
Frankly been disappointed with the presentation of One D&D so far. What could have been more readily a popularly a "consolidated" edition has apparently lost out to a superficial refresh. Drop in some well known house rules as proposed RAW, shift the class level banners a little bit to make backwards compatibility just wee annoying enough that some folks will just buy into the new edition to avoid tedium moments, telegraphing that final product, at least in print form will likely come in a PHB, DMG, MM, with "meatier" XGtE and Tasha's and Van Richten's etc. in some brand cycle "coming soon" stage. Think this was a blown opportunity, and with the most recent loss of WotC's community capital, I don't have my hopes up. Which is fine in my world, because I very much like my 5e game and at this time I don't see much reason to buy a new set of core rules.
The new rules feel boring. The removal of species-specific traits is one that I disagree with pretty heavily. I like making a decision and sticking with it, despite either positive or negative outcomes. Because without the potential for a negative outcome, the positive outcomes are less enthralling and more expected. A reduction in choice makes for a more pleasurable experience, hence the Paradox of Choice.
Species-specific traits are not gone. ASIs tied to lineage are. And frankly it makes much more sense that your character has gained the ASIs from their background.
I'm mostly excited to see the changes made to classes and species. Ranger and Dragonborn are much better off than they were in core 5e and I am excited to see how they tackle the other classes going forward. I also love the new origins system as it makes character background more diverse and impactful on your overall build. It also means I don't need to take a nerf for being a dragonborn druid unless for some reason I choose to distribute my attributes that way.
I hope they get back into putting out the UA updates soon. I'm incredibly curious as to what they have planned for wizards especially, as while they aren't exactly a weak class I do feel that they're kind of lacking in sub-class impactfulness. Druid as well given that is my favorite class and there's a lot they can potentially do to strike a better balance between being a full caster and using wildshape.
I gotta say, some of my favorite things about 5e are the Backgrounds, thebomds, traits, and such. They need to add a values (virtues and vices) again, and that will give folks a better overall tool for character behavior than certain other things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The more I read these polls and the polls I see on things like Youtube and Reddit from people the more I am convinced more people need to have more experience in polling bias and how to remove bias from the available answers if they want actual data. But of course I guess expecting this forum to give "actual data" on a poll is probably not what most are looking for given the forums small sample size.
I hope they get back into putting out the UA updates soon. I'm incredibly curious as to what they have planned for wizards especially, as while they aren't exactly a weak class I do feel that they're kind of lacking in sub-class impactfulness.
My theory is that the Wizard subclasses will focus on two schools of magic each, instead of one, given the fact that each class will have 4 subclasses.
I would split the spell school subclasses like this:
I hope they get back into putting out the UA updates soon. I'm incredibly curious as to what they have planned for wizards especially, as while they aren't exactly a weak class I do feel that they're kind of lacking in sub-class impactfulness.
My theory is that the Wizard subclasses will focus on two schools of magic each, instead of one, given the fact that each class will have 4 subclasses.
I would split the spell school subclasses like this:
War magic (Abjuration and Evocation)
Illusionist (Enchantment and Illusion)
Life/Death magic (Divination and Necromancy)
Alteration (Conjuration and Transmutation)
4 in the PHB. Not 4 ever. They could do it like this, and leave open some room for other things, like bladesinger or scribe. But they could also give us just 4 magic school subclasses, and put the others in later books, or mix and match.
The more I read these polls and the polls I see on things like Youtube and Reddit from people the more I am convinced more people need to have more experience in polling bias and how to remove bias from the available answers if they want actual data. But of course I guess expecting this forum to give "actual data" on a poll is probably not what most are looking for given the forums small sample size.
Sample size isn’t really the issue. It’s that it’s a self-selecting group, not weighted, and trivially easy for the same person to give multiple responses under multiple accounts. No internet poll ever can give good data. They are all, always just for fun.
I'm distinctly hoping the 'School of Magic' subclasses go away entirely for wizards, or are condensed down into one 'Specialist' subclass. There does not need to be eight different separate wizard subclasses dealing with nothing but minor variations on spell theme.
I'm distinctly hoping the 'School of Magic' subclasses go away entirely for wizards, or are condensed down into one 'Specialist' subclass. There does not need to be eight different separate wizard subclasses dealing with nothing but minor variations on spell theme.
The entirety of the "school of magic" stuff from day one has me twitchy (and day one was 1979, so a lot of twitches) inthe same way other folks think about nine known issues, lol.
I like your idea of combining tem and providing with a single subclass.
however, it reminded me I still have to set up three additional schools (that follow completely different rules for categorization) and I want to whine about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'm distinctly hoping the 'School of Magic' subclasses go away entirely for wizards, or are condensed down into one 'Specialist' subclass. There does not need to be eight different separate wizard subclasses dealing with nothing but minor variations on spell theme.
I am hoping that kind of like current Warlock pacts / invocations or the OneD&D Cleric's Holy Order feature that a specialized school of magic could act as a sort of "subclass lite" that provide more customization with small boosts to casting certain types of spells or abilities that work well in tandem with them. Things like ease of copying spells of the chosen type or abilities modeled around existing ones like Expert Divination, Empowered Evocation, or Split Enchantment would be what I have in mind.
Id love to see something like a party with two different Bladesinger wizards where one has a focus in Abjuration for a defensive fighting style while the other has a focus in Illusion for stealth and evasion. Play into those 'Bladesinging" styles from SCAG
I'm distinctly hoping the 'School of Magic' subclasses go away entirely for wizards, or are condensed down into one 'Specialist' subclass. There does not need to be eight different separate wizard subclasses dealing with nothing but minor variations on spell theme.
I am hoping that kind of like current Warlock pacts / invocations or the OneD&D Cleric's Holy Order feature that a specialized school of magic could act as a sort of "subclass lite" that provide more customization with small boosts to casting certain types of spells or abilities that work well in tandem with them. Things like ease of copying spells of the chosen type or abilities modeled around existing ones like Expert Divination, Empowered Evocation, or Split Enchantment would be what I have in mind.
Id love to see something like a party with two different Bladesinger wizards where one has a focus in Abjuration for a defensive fighting style while the other has a focus in Illusion for stealth and evasion. Play into those 'Bladesinging" styles from SCAG
This! I've been dreaming of making a "Necromancy-based Bladesinger" option for awhile now, and this would be the perfect way to implement it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'm distinctly hoping the 'School of Magic' subclasses go away entirely for wizards, or are condensed down into one 'Specialist' subclass. There does not need to be eight different separate wizard subclasses dealing with nothing but minor variations on spell theme.
This was something I had thought about: The idea of a "Specialist" wizard - a single subclass with an initial feature of "Pick a school - you are specialised in that school. You can copy/learn spells of that school in half the time/money and gain one of the following features based on your selection:" Followed by a bulleted list of features (or possibly feats) for each school.
It may end up as a rather wordy subclass, but far less wordy than one subclass for each school. And, importantly, it then opens up design space for other subclasses (War Wizard, Mentalist, whatever).
I hope they get back into putting out the UA updates soon. I'm incredibly curious as to what they have planned for wizards especially, as while they aren't exactly a weak class I do feel that they're kind of lacking in sub-class impactfulness.
My theory is that the Wizard subclasses will focus on two schools of magic each, instead of one, given the fact that each class will have 4 subclasses.
I would split the spell school subclasses like this:
War magic (Abjuration and Evocation)
Illusionist (Enchantment and Illusion)
Life/Death magic (Divination and Necromancy)
Alteration (Conjuration and Transmutation)
4 in the PHB. Not 4 ever. They could do it like this, and leave open some room for other things, like bladesinger or scribe. But they could also give us just 4 magic school subclasses, and put the others in later books, or mix and match.
Have they actually said each class is getting four subclasses, or is that an assumption because of the announcement of 48 subclasses?
4 subclasses per base class for 12 base classes and 48 total subs has been confirmed by the dev team, yes. That's the (currently known) intent for One on release.
Mostly, I am excited about the opportunity to agitate for the inclusion of more historically accurate armour types, along with an increase in the effectiveness of armour in general.
I also hope for a few much-needed nerfs to caster classes.
That's about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly, I just love the clean up of the rules, correcting things that had been present on the game because of bad wording (Such as Goodberry + Disciple of Life) and, also, making things easier on the player side, to avoid those strict DMs that love to make things harder (Such as guidance being a reaction).
Aside from the fact that they seem to want to move all subclasses to lv3 (Which still bugs me and I hope they revert back), the rules seem clearer as a whole and that is just *chef's kiss*
The background AS makes sense and I prefer than it being related to species for sure. And I love that they are being more specific on custom backgrounds than they were on the PHB, which might make people to actually use it on their games.
Species-specific traits are not gone. ASIs tied to lineage are. And frankly it makes much more sense that your character has gained the ASIs from their background.
[REDACTED]
I'm mostly excited to see the changes made to classes and species. Ranger and Dragonborn are much better off than they were in core 5e and I am excited to see how they tackle the other classes going forward. I also love the new origins system as it makes character background more diverse and impactful on your overall build. It also means I don't need to take a nerf for being a dragonborn druid unless for some reason I choose to distribute my attributes that way.
I hope they get back into putting out the UA updates soon. I'm incredibly curious as to what they have planned for wizards especially, as while they aren't exactly a weak class I do feel that they're kind of lacking in sub-class impactfulness. Druid as well given that is my favorite class and there's a lot they can potentially do to strike a better balance between being a full caster and using wildshape.
I gotta say, some of my favorite things about 5e are the Backgrounds, thebomds, traits, and such. They need to add a values (virtues and vices) again, and that will give folks a better overall tool for character behavior than certain other things.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The more I read these polls and the polls I see on things like Youtube and Reddit from people the more I am convinced more people need to have more experience in polling bias and how to remove bias from the available answers if they want actual data. But of course I guess expecting this forum to give "actual data" on a poll is probably not what most are looking for given the forums small sample size.
My theory is that the Wizard subclasses will focus on two schools of magic each, instead of one, given the fact that each class will have 4 subclasses.
I would split the spell school subclasses like this:
War magic (Abjuration and Evocation)
Illusionist (Enchantment and Illusion)
Life/Death magic (Divination and Necromancy)
Alteration (Conjuration and Transmutation)
[REDACTED]
4 in the PHB. Not 4 ever. They could do it like this, and leave open some room for other things, like bladesinger or scribe. But they could also give us just 4 magic school subclasses, and put the others in later books, or mix and match.
Sample size isn’t really the issue. It’s that it’s a self-selecting group, not weighted, and trivially easy for the same person to give multiple responses under multiple accounts. No internet poll ever can give good data. They are all, always just for fun.
I'm distinctly hoping the 'School of Magic' subclasses go away entirely for wizards, or are condensed down into one 'Specialist' subclass. There does not need to be eight different separate wizard subclasses dealing with nothing but minor variations on spell theme.
Please do not contact or message me.
I root for a better organized book that is easy to reference
The entirety of the "school of magic" stuff from day one has me twitchy (and day one was 1979, so a lot of twitches) inthe same way other folks think about nine known issues, lol.
I like your idea of combining tem and providing with a single subclass.
however, it reminded me I still have to set up three additional schools (that follow completely different rules for categorization) and I want to whine about it.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Lol I checked almost all of the boxes) I love iterative changes when they're due. And DnD is in dire need of adjustments and renewal.
I am hoping that kind of like current Warlock pacts / invocations or the OneD&D Cleric's Holy Order feature that a specialized school of magic could act as a sort of "subclass lite" that provide more customization with small boosts to casting certain types of spells or abilities that work well in tandem with them. Things like ease of copying spells of the chosen type or abilities modeled around existing ones like Expert Divination, Empowered Evocation, or Split Enchantment would be what I have in mind.
Id love to see something like a party with two different Bladesinger wizards where one has a focus in Abjuration for a defensive fighting style while the other has a focus in Illusion for stealth and evasion. Play into those 'Bladesinging" styles from SCAG
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
This! I've been dreaming of making a "Necromancy-based Bladesinger" option for awhile now, and this would be the perfect way to implement it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This was something I had thought about: The idea of a "Specialist" wizard - a single subclass with an initial feature of "Pick a school - you are specialised in that school. You can copy/learn spells of that school in half the time/money and gain one of the following features based on your selection:" Followed by a bulleted list of features (or possibly feats) for each school.
It may end up as a rather wordy subclass, but far less wordy than one subclass for each school. And, importantly, it then opens up design space for other subclasses (War Wizard, Mentalist, whatever).
Have they actually said each class is getting four subclasses, or is that an assumption because of the announcement of 48 subclasses?
Posted as a normal reply because the Quote button doesn't seem to want to work.
I don't have a source, but I recall WotC confirming that each class will have 4 subclasses to choose.
[REDACTED]
It was in one of the videos.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
4 subclasses per base class for 12 base classes and 48 total subs has been confirmed by the dev team, yes. That's the (currently known) intent for One on release.
Please do not contact or message me.
Mostly, I am excited about the opportunity to agitate for the inclusion of more historically accurate armour types, along with an increase in the effectiveness of armour in general.
I also hope for a few much-needed nerfs to caster classes.
That's about it.