Sorcerer and Warlock subclasses make sense for 1st level (not to say they wouldn't make sense at 3rd), but I've never understood why Clerics have always chosen their domain at 1st level. It's not like your choosing your god when you choose your subclass, you're just choosing what aspect of your god you follow the most. Nothing about a domain makes it essential to a Cleric's power, whereas the other 1st level subclasses (and Paladin) only really have the class as a result of the subclass. You can't have a Sorcerer without an origin, or a Warlock without a patron, or a Paladin without an oath, but a domain is not essential to a Cleric.
Anyways, I like 3rd level subclasses more. It gives the character/player time to grow into the class and limits multiclass shenanigans a great deal. If you're a more experienced player and want to start with a fully-grown character... start at 3rd level. I don't think it breaks logic too much with Warlocks and Sorcerers getting subclasses at 3rd level, even. You obviously need an origin or patron to be of the class, but it makes sense for said origin/patron to only fully manifest or reveal itself after some time. And it's not like you can't decide which subclass you want before 3rd level, so not every backstory will have to be "I have sorcerous powers because of some unknown lineage or event in my life" or "I made a pact with a completely unknown entity."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I’m fully in favor of them using a standardized keyword system, I just think they should make them bold instead of capitalizing them. It’s done wonders for WH40k.
I’m also glad they’re reconsidering their move towards 100% standardized subclass levels. For some classes, notably clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks it just makes more sense that they get their subclass at 1st level, while 3rd makes more sense for the other classes. However I do think the subsequent subclass levels should be standardized at 6th, 10th, and 14th levels.
I’m curious what makes you feel that the higher subclass levels should be standardised. I’m not against it (it makes it neat and tidy!): I just feel like I haven’t spotted the point of standardised progression. Is there a benefit I’m missing?
I’m fully in favor of them using a standardized keyword system, I just think they should make them bold instead of capitalizing them. It’s done wonders for WH40k.
I’m also glad they’re reconsidering their move towards 100% standardized subclass levels. For some classes, notably clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks it just makes more sense that they get their subclass at 1st level, while 3rd makes more sense for the other classes. However I do think the subsequent subclass levels should be standardized at 6th, 10th, and 14th levels.
I’m curious what makes you feel that the higher subclass levels should be standardised. I’m not against it (it makes it neat and tidy!): I just feel like I haven’t spotted the point of standardised progression. Is there a benefit I’m missing?
It means you don't ever have to wait too long to get another subclass feature. Like, with the Rogue progression you have to wait 6 whole levels after choosing your subclass to get the second feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I’m fully in favor of them using a standardized keyword system, I just think they should make them bold instead of capitalizing them. It’s done wonders for WH40k.
I’m also glad they’re reconsidering their move towards 100% standardized subclass levels. For some classes, notably clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks it just makes more sense that they get their subclass at 1st level, while 3rd makes more sense for the other classes. However I do think the subsequent subclass levels should be standardized at 6th, 10th, and 14th levels.
I’m curious what makes you feel that the higher subclass levels should be standardised. I’m not against it (it makes it neat and tidy!): I just feel like I haven’t spotted the point of standardised progression. Is there a benefit I’m missing?
It means you don't ever have to wait too long to get another subclass feature. Like, with the Rogue progression you have to wait 6 whole levels after choosing your subclass to get the second feature.
Thanks: that does make sense. Some classes do have big gaps between their subclass features.
Plus, most campaigns die at certain levels, around 6thish, around 10thish, and around 14thish anyway, so it treats those subclass features as like mini capstones, providing natural points in the progression for campaigns to end.
Not to mention that very, very few campaigns get anywhere near close enough to smell 15th level, let alone actually hitting 15th level, so in reality anything from 15th-20th levels is essentially just there for show and not actual game play for the overwhelming majority of tables.
Plus, most campaigns die at certain levels, around 6thish, around 10thish, and around 14thish anyway, so it treats those subclass features as like mini capstones, providing natural points in the progression for campaigns to end.
Eh, the most notable mini capstones are levels 5 and 11. If a game instead goes a few levels past one of those things, it's because you want to give people the chance to play with their toys, and that applies to any other capstone too.
I’m fully in favor of them using a standardized keyword system, I just think they should make them bold instead of capitalizing them. It’s done wonders for WH40k.
I’m also glad they’re reconsidering their move towards 100% standardized subclass levels. For some classes, notably clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks it just makes more sense that they get their subclass at 1st level, while 3rd makes more sense for the other classes. However I do think the subsequent subclass levels should be standardized at 6th, 10th, and 14th levels.
They aren't moving subclasses back to 1st level. They said that they are keeping the all subclasses are gained at 3rd, but moving all the later features back to the current PHB progression. It is actually a dumb idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
I’m fully in favor of them using a standardized keyword system, I just think they should make them bold instead of capitalizing them. It’s done wonders for WH40k.
I’m also glad they’re reconsidering their move towards 100% standardized subclass levels. For some classes, notably clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks it just makes more sense that they get their subclass at 1st level, while 3rd makes more sense for the other classes. However I do think the subsequent subclass levels should be standardized at 6th, 10th, and 14th levels.
They aren't moving subclasses back to 1st level. They said that they are keeping the all subclasses are gained at 3rd, but moving all the later features back to the current PHB progression. It is actually a dumb idea.
I'm confused by how they've decided that people don't care about the subclass progression; none of the surveys have asked any questions about it, and they removed the ratings for "Subclass Feature" class features from the more recent ones iirc.
Personally I think standardising sub-class progression was a great change, but that's because it was such an obviously needed thing to do. It would be more accurate to say I'm negative about 5e's wildly inconsistent progressions, rather than positive about OneD&D's proposed standardisation, because it's simply how it always should have been.
I also think capitalisation is a mistake; bold or even bold in a different font would be a much better way of doing this to highlight when something is a keyword with a specific game meaning. Even better with different styles. One of my favourite things on D&D Beyond is the tooltips with different styles for conditions, magic items, spells etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
bold in a different font would be a much better way of doing this to highlight when something is a keyword with a specific game meaning.
Maybe not that font though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
bold in a different font would be a much better way of doing this to highlight when something is a keyword with a specific game meaning.
Maybe not that font though.
Sadly the forum font selection isn't great, we've basically got Impact or Arial Black and that's it, and I didn't notice how weirdly squeezed together the forum version of Impact is, meanwhile Arial Black has the opposite problem, can't win! 😝
Yet we've got both webdings and wingdings which are basically pointless now that UTF (full fonts with emojis etc.) are a thing.
So yeah, fully agree; hopefully Wizards of the Coast have access to more fonts than I do. 😂
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
And why not simply clarify with full sentence? Instead capitalize, simply put "poisoned condition" and go. Giving it so many turns only to save a few words sound lazy to me.
And why not simply clarify with full sentence? Instead capitalize, simply put "poisoned condition" and go. Giving it so many turns only to save a few words sound lazy to me.
The idea is to make it visually and immediately clear when they're referring to something with a specific definition you need to know.
While they could say "poisoned condition" it's common for effects to say things like "make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned for 1 minute" and while this is generally clear what is meant, if poisoned were highlighted it just clarifies at a glance that what is meant is the specific game term poisoned and not something else, whereas capitalisation arguably doesn't achieve this, and adding more words doesn't really either if the goal is just for a player to see at a glance that this spell applies (or deals with) the poisoned condition.
Experiences will differ, but I find players pay more attention to key points in rules, rather than the full text, it's better if players pick up or reference the correct points quickly rather than having to go for a full reading wherever possible (as fully reading one or more rules massively slows the game down). Formatting and structure are common techniques in games, especially those intended to be played quickly, to make it easier for players to digest the key details straight away.
They could almost do this for other things as well like highlighting words such as and and or to reduce common misunderstandings where a player has missed that effects are optional rather than combined (or vice versa), or to highlight what the trigger is to reduce the cases of players who think they can do something forgetting they need to do something else first (like bonus actions that trigger after the attack action etc.)., but that would require a very careful (and consistently applied) set of styling to do right, otherwise it will just become really cluttered, it's probably beyond the scope of what's possible with rules based on D&D 5e (too freeform, and the required structure might be too restrictive).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
"make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or get poisoned condition for 1 minute".
I think is the real way to clarify. Using calling rules to set rules, is like crossing references. At the end you need to remember something over another thing and more.
"make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or get poisoned condition for 1 minute".
I think is the real way to clarify. Using calling rules to set rules, is like crossing references. At the end you need to remember something over another thing and more.
Nah. Keywords (like poisoned) make things easier. They’re instantly visible, cut down significantly on word count, and are easily cross referenced.
The capitalization thing made me instantly think about how the rules forum is going to absolutely explode with people pointing to capital letters, or lack of capital letters, to prove their point.
I don't think that will be a big deal. Keywords like Poisoned or Grappled are already hyperlinked on DDB, so it's not like we wouldn't have otherwise been able to tell what was one and what wasn't.
Not sure I like the idea of Rogue going back to its old sub class progression and it was always a really big gap for new tricks. But if the base class gets loaded enough with cool tricks 4-8 it might be okay. I couldn't give it my full attention as i am working but it seemed to me they were implying that 2024 D&D is compatible with the adventures but not much else. Which is what i suspected so I may be having a confirmation bias issue.
This is what I'm much more concerned about. Old subclass progressions are full of giant gaps, e.g. Rogues getting nothing from their subclass for 6 levels, Bards for 8, and Clerics for 9. Why would they go back to that when the response to the change was a net positive?
I’m fully in favor of them using a standardized keyword system, I just think they should make them bold instead of capitalizing them. It’s done wonders for WH40k.
I’m also glad they’re reconsidering their move towards 100% standardized subclass levels. For some classes, notably clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks it just makes more sense that they get their subclass at 1st level, while 3rd makes more sense for the other classes. However I do think the subsequent subclass levels should be standardized at 6th, 10th, and 14th levels.
They aren't moving subclasses back to 1st level. They said that they are keeping the all subclasses are gained at 3rd, but moving all the later features back to the current PHB progression. It is actually a dumb idea.
That is a dumb idea.
It's literally the worst of both worlds. The folks who want the original progressions largely did so because they liked subclasses at 1st level, so they'll be upset, and the folks who liked the new standardized progressions will be upset too. I'm baffled by it.
Well yes, as a homebrew you can do whatever you want. But the issue is whether these books are going to be official or not. From the video it does not seem so, since Crawdford does not mention them at any time.
Seriously, there was nothing in that video that requires two days (or greater) for the community to digest before the next play test comes out.
Why do you assume that's the only reason they haven't released a new UA yet? Seems like a pretty baseless thing to think.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorcerer and Warlock subclasses make sense for 1st level (not to say they wouldn't make sense at 3rd), but I've never understood why Clerics have always chosen their domain at 1st level. It's not like your choosing your god when you choose your subclass, you're just choosing what aspect of your god you follow the most. Nothing about a domain makes it essential to a Cleric's power, whereas the other 1st level subclasses (and Paladin) only really have the class as a result of the subclass. You can't have a Sorcerer without an origin, or a Warlock without a patron, or a Paladin without an oath, but a domain is not essential to a Cleric.
Anyways, I like 3rd level subclasses more. It gives the character/player time to grow into the class and limits multiclass shenanigans a great deal. If you're a more experienced player and want to start with a fully-grown character... start at 3rd level. I don't think it breaks logic too much with Warlocks and Sorcerers getting subclasses at 3rd level, even. You obviously need an origin or patron to be of the class, but it makes sense for said origin/patron to only fully manifest or reveal itself after some time. And it's not like you can't decide which subclass you want before 3rd level, so not every backstory will have to be "I have sorcerous powers because of some unknown lineage or event in my life" or "I made a pact with a completely unknown entity."
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I’m curious what makes you feel that the higher subclass levels should be standardised. I’m not against it (it makes it neat and tidy!): I just feel like I haven’t spotted the point of standardised progression. Is there a benefit I’m missing?
It means you don't ever have to wait too long to get another subclass feature. Like, with the Rogue progression you have to wait 6 whole levels after choosing your subclass to get the second feature.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Thanks: that does make sense. Some classes do have big gaps between their subclass features.
Plus, most campaigns die at certain levels, around 6thish, around 10thish, and around 14thish anyway, so it treats those subclass features as like mini capstones, providing natural points in the progression for campaigns to end.
Not to mention that very, very few campaigns get anywhere near close enough to smell 15th level, let alone actually hitting 15th level, so in reality anything from 15th-20th levels is essentially just there for show and not actual game play for the overwhelming majority of tables.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Eh, the most notable mini capstones are levels 5 and 11. If a game instead goes a few levels past one of those things, it's because you want to give people the chance to play with their toys, and that applies to any other capstone too.
They aren't moving subclasses back to 1st level. They said that they are keeping the all subclasses are gained at 3rd, but moving all the later features back to the current PHB progression. It is actually a dumb idea.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
That is a dumb idea.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm confused by how they've decided that people don't care about the subclass progression; none of the surveys have asked any questions about it, and they removed the ratings for "Subclass Feature" class features from the more recent ones iirc.
Personally I think standardising sub-class progression was a great change, but that's because it was such an obviously needed thing to do. It would be more accurate to say I'm negative about 5e's wildly inconsistent progressions, rather than positive about OneD&D's proposed standardisation, because it's simply how it always should have been.
I also think capitalisation is a mistake; bold or even bold in a different font would be a much better way of doing this to highlight when something is a keyword with a specific game meaning. Even better with different styles. One of my favourite things on D&D Beyond is the tooltips with different styles for conditions, magic items, spells etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Maybe not that font though.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Sadly the forum font selection isn't great, we've basically got Impact or Arial Black and that's it, and I didn't notice how weirdly squeezed together the forum version of Impact is, meanwhile Arial Black has the opposite problem, can't win! 😝
Yet we've got both webdings and wingdings which are basically pointless now that UTF (full fonts with emojis etc.) are a thing.
So yeah, fully agree; hopefully Wizards of the Coast have access to more fonts than I do. 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
And why not simply clarify with full sentence? Instead capitalize, simply put "poisoned condition" and go. Giving it so many turns only to save a few words sound lazy to me.
The idea is to make it visually and immediately clear when they're referring to something with a specific definition you need to know.
While they could say "poisoned condition" it's common for effects to say things like "make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned for 1 minute" and while this is generally clear what is meant, if poisoned were highlighted it just clarifies at a glance that what is meant is the specific game term poisoned and not something else, whereas capitalisation arguably doesn't achieve this, and adding more words doesn't really either if the goal is just for a player to see at a glance that this spell applies (or deals with) the poisoned condition.
Experiences will differ, but I find players pay more attention to key points in rules, rather than the full text, it's better if players pick up or reference the correct points quickly rather than having to go for a full reading wherever possible (as fully reading one or more rules massively slows the game down). Formatting and structure are common techniques in games, especially those intended to be played quickly, to make it easier for players to digest the key details straight away.
They could almost do this for other things as well like highlighting words such as and and or to reduce common misunderstandings where a player has missed that effects are optional rather than combined (or vice versa), or to highlight what the trigger is to reduce the cases of players who think they can do something forgetting they need to do something else first (like bonus actions that trigger after the attack action etc.)., but that would require a very careful (and consistently applied) set of styling to do right, otherwise it will just become really cluttered, it's probably beyond the scope of what's possible with rules based on D&D 5e (too freeform, and the required structure might be too restrictive).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
"make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw or get poisoned condition for 1 minute".
I think is the real way to clarify. Using calling rules to set rules, is like crossing references. At the end you need to remember something over another thing and more.
Nah. Keywords (like poisoned) make things easier. They’re instantly visible, cut down significantly on word count, and are easily cross referenced.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Its easy to put the word in a different shade, or colour too.... I mean writings in 2023... sure got some tricks under the sleeve.
I can't remember where on the forum, but someone had figured the date pattern of the new UA.
Any idea on the next one ?
I don't think that will be a big deal. Keywords like Poisoned or Grappled are already hyperlinked on DDB, so it's not like we wouldn't have otherwise been able to tell what was one and what wasn't.
This is what I'm much more concerned about. Old subclass progressions are full of giant gaps, e.g. Rogues getting nothing from their subclass for 6 levels, Bards for 8, and Clerics for 9. Why would they go back to that when the response to the change was a net positive?
It's literally the worst of both worlds. The folks who want the original progressions largely did so because they liked subclasses at 1st level, so they'll be upset, and the folks who liked the new standardized progressions will be upset too. I'm baffled by it.
Well yes, as a homebrew you can do whatever you want. But the issue is whether these books are going to be official or not.
From the video it does not seem so, since Crawdford does not mention them at any time.
Two days and no play test?
Seriously, there was nothing in that video that requires two days (or greater) for the community to digest before the next play test comes out.
Why do you assume that's the only reason they haven't released a new UA yet? Seems like a pretty baseless thing to think.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)