Off topic but about ranger , can the new beast companions wear armour to boost ac.
I'm pretty sure that is up to DMs discretion as I don't know of any official rules about that, but the original rules of adding your proficiency bonus to the AC is still applied.
*Edit; I completely forgot about Barding, though with the proficiency bonus to AC I'm not sure if the cost would be worth it. I'm pretty sure that's more intended for non magical mounts and the like*
Depending on the critter, certain types of barding may beat their innate armor bonus, and the proficiency-toAC bit from Beastmaster stacks with its normal armor calculation, Ring of Prot-style. It's expensive, but given the tendency of beasts to have all the HP total of a moist bundt cake , could be worth it for a beast your character is eminently attached to.
Cold takes on the variants and hot ones on the commentary around them:
Versatility Options: To anyone who dislikes this, who hurt you? As someone who played a worst case scenario with useless skills and niche spells that pigeon holed me into a specific kind of play with an inflexible DM. (Base Ranger, Waterdeep campaign) I would have loved a rule to point to that allowed me to swap out my skills and spells to be more useful to the group. Allowing people to make a change to their character doesn't affect you if you dont want to do it and would be greatly appreciated by the people who would consider the swap. Also not every game balance decision needs a narrative explanation, if you want one just make it up in a way that makes sense for you.
Classes: great overall just a few notes
Barbarians: Why do they have to sacrifice danger sense and Fast movement? This stinks of the "it was the first thing they experimented with but they failed to alter it to parody the rest" syndrome. Make them both enhancements and keep it moving. Survival Instincts is a great opportunity to have the barbarian useful outside of combat and that's why they dont get athletics on that list.
Bards: More flexibility more better, but it would have been nice to see better song of rest scaling and making counter charm actually useful.
Cleric: I kinda would have liked to see the ability to use your channel divinity to cast a 1st level spell with no concentration instead (them asking their god to cast it) but this is fine too if a bit limited. I am not sure why blessed strikes exists?
Druid: Awesome
Fighter: They might as well roll battlemaster manuvers into the base class, just give fighters the Martial Adept feat already. I do like the extra options that make a battlemaster seem less of a meathead than others but this was a stealth subclass buff to a subclass that was already awesome.
Monk: FFS it doesn't give your monk proficiency with weapons you dont already get with the base class. Outside of Dwarves and Elves you dont have any martial proficiency past what you could pick up as starting equipment. Kensai Monks gain proficiency with weapons they choose when they pick them. The only thing this does is give you monk weapon scaling with darts and slings. Everything else is less controversial and pretty ok.
Paladin: My wish for channel divinity is the same as clerics, it would be an awesome limited use buff but its fine as is i guess. Blessed warrior is an amazing trade off for a less martial more religious type of character, too bad the cleric cantrip list is kinda meh.
Ranger: Leave everything mechanically as is but move the Favored Foe to 2nd level (or leave it where it is who cares min/maxers gonna min/max). This is the exact work the ranger needed to be the general survivalist you think of when you talk about a ranger. Deft Explorer makes the class mechanically sound with every option, Favored Foe opens up its spell casting options, and primal awareness cements the class as the go to ambassador between nature and civilization as it is described in the book. The beasts are a good start but could use some tweaks to really make them pop in the mid game. Also Druidic warrior is nice.
Rouge: I like it but it is the biggest reason i dont understand why barbarians have to choose but other classes gets an upgrade for free.
Sorcerer: I love the idea of them being able to use their natural magic to just be better at things. People need to realize that Imbuing Touch is awesome in low magic settings and can be given to more martial allies in tough encounters, plus its free why complain?
Warlock: Just wow. They really can fill any role and people still complain.
Wizard: They dont get much, they dont need much. Any ability the other classes gained from this UA the wizard already has and have a better version of. Bigger spell list, more spells known, better spell recovery. The only thing they might have needed was something to make their early game more survivable.
Fighting Styles: This is overall good, a great way to flavor you warrior especially unarmed and thrown weapon fighting which were awkward and feat locked. For those who seem to think unarmed steps on the monks toes just do the math and you will find the damage simply worse than a fighters normal kit and barely competitive with a monk who gets more attacks earlier and scale up. Unarmed you do 1d6 bludgening with a shield and 1d8 with nothing, if you chose to use a warhammer you would get 1d8 with a shield and 1d10 with nothing. Not to mention you would be able to use the dueling style and get bonus damage out of it. Monks on the other hand get two attacks at 1st level, three at 5th level and by the time fighter catches up the monk will be doing the same damage with the same number of attacks and thats not including ki moves.
Overall i think its pretty great and gives people the flexibility to react to the way the playstyle develops. I dont want the wah wah's here misleading anyone to thinking anything here is game busting in any way leading to an over correction that born from theory crafting.
Todd Kenrick said they willing but it will take quite a while to program in.
Do we know where he said that? How long is "quite awhile"? A month?
When it is ready, don't ask for a timeline because they don't have one yet. Expect a month and hope it is sooner.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
An additional choice of fighting style, in lieu of any of the typical ones. In that vein it's actually pretty bad compared to a regular fighting style, though much like Martial Adept, Battlemasters may end up using it to expand their maneuver list.
I wonder if we will get a feat to take a fighting style.
Also the blight-sight one. It doesn't have a range does it? meaning a ranger can take it and shot blindly for 300 feat or so. (with sharpshooter)(it'd be funny and hilarious). And would invisible attackers still have advantage towards a blight sighted foe?
What people always forget about the "disadvantage while blind/against invisible" rules is that you still have to know where you're targeting your attack. Theoretically? Yes. Blind Fighting removes the disadvantage for an unseen-but-unhidden (which is a weird state, but go with it for now) target being attacked with arrows. As a DM, however, here's the conversation I'd have.
Player: "Okay, I use my Blind Fighting and attack the invisible assassin!" Yurei: "Cool. Where are you attacking?" Player: "...where the assassin is?" Yurei: "right; where is that? Point to me on the map where your arrow is going." Player: "That's not how Blind Fighting works!" Yurei: "It absolutely is. Blind Fighting is not See Invisible, Truesight, blindsight, or any of the other things that let you know where a target is. If you know where your target is, Blind Fighting will let you attack without disadvantage, which is really cool and works especially well for a couple of melee Ranger spell combos. You, however, are shooting at random hoping to pick the right direction for your arrow. So. Where do you shoot?"
One could certainly attempt. For the aforementioned three hundred foot shot, no. If you're blinded or the target's invisible, I'd argue a DM is perfectly entitled to tell you to point to a square on the map. For closer shots? It'd depend on the distance and how noisy the target is. In melee combat, especially against an enemy already attacking you, that'd possibly just work off of passive, since that's the sort of situation Blind Fighting is really meant for.
Also I don't like how they are giving everyone smite spells, it seems a bit cruel to the paladin spell list core defining feature. Paladin spells I am fine with, except spirit guardians. I like what they did with ranger, especially the primevial awareness replacement. What they did for warlock is great, but they should not be getting animate dead by any means other than maybe a once per long rest infusion. Aim should be an action that anyone can take, not just as a rogue for cunning action (making true strike even worse, but lets be honest that isn't that big a deal). Also, the cleric level 8 replacement is OP. +1d8 damage every turn, for both weapon and spell attacks. Warlocks should be able to switch their spells, sorcerers should be able to switch their cantrips, bards should not.
I personally don't know of a single paladin, or Battle Smit hartificer, who actuallu uses Smites. Every paladin I know saves his/her spell slots for Divine Smites instead. The artificer has so many uses for his/her bonus action that that individual isn't going to waste it, and a spell slot, on a smite.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
One concern that I have about this is that I feel it makes the Sorcerer too strong compared to the Wizard. I realize that the Wizard as it currently stands is stronger, but reversing that shouldn't be the answer. If your campaign allows for lots of downtime/travel montages, you could switch out your entire list of spells between major encounters. Wizards, meanwhile, are stuck with what they have in their book, and their only advantage is that they can have a few more spells available at a given moment. What I would suggest instead is to completely redo the Sorcerer's capstone ability (to what, I don't know) and give them a means of recovering some of their sorcery points on a short rest.
I suppose this would apply to Bards, Rangers, and Warlocks as well, but it stuck out with Sorcerers to me because they are defined almost exclusively by their spells. Warlocks have invocations, boons, and in combat they're pretty much spamming Eldritch Blast/Hexblade no matter what their list is. Bards don't have quite as much variety in their spells as Sorcerers, but they get a lot of interaction and exploration out of their other class features, and they have Bardic Inspiration. And Rangers don't depend on their spells too much for combat (other than Hunter's Mark).
Wait how does this make sorcerers more powerful than wizards? Wizards can change out their entire list of prepared spells for the day every long rest this feature would just allow a sorcerer to change 1 spell for another of equal level when they long rest. Wizards start with 6 spells and get 2 new ones every level up. Which means at 20th level they have a minimum of 44 spells known that they can choose from to prepare. This is not including spells that they find during their journey as an adventurer through scrolls or enemy wizard spell books etc. By comparison a Sorcerer at 20th level is hard capped at 15 and without this feature can only change the ones they learn when they level up.
1) Wizard's don't have more than a fraction of their potential spells in their spell books. With this, the sorcerer has access to ALL the spells available to them with out having to find/buy them, gain them by leveling up, snf fon't have to pay for those new spells they do gain. I'm sorry, but this is a feature I would not allow in my game unless the socerer has to spend gold to exchange a spell. Their magic is in their blood, and without a full blood transfusion I wouldn't allow it. WotC is already short shifting wizards, again, and this is just adding insult to injury.
As much as some of this stuff is needed, especially in the case of the Beast Master ranger, the rest is just adding icing to the many ability other classes have in addition to whatever spellcassting they may have. What do they give wizards? The ability to change cantrips, which they are giving to other classes, and a few new, already exisiting spells. Something any decent DM has probably homebrewed months or years ago.
Personally, as much as some of this material is needed (desperately?), I will not be using (or playtesting) it and will not being allow its use in my games. Call it a boycott if you like, but I am tired of wi8zards always getting the short end of the stick just because they have a spellbook.
<end of rant> <reservign the right to rant as needed>
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Did you consider Onomancy to be Wizards getting that short end too? Also I find it weird that you'd throw out the entire thing when you admit that at least some of the changes are much needed.
The last time I wanted an archetype for a wizard that was introduced in a UA article was the Lore master. What did we get, the War Mage, which while nice at low level, is only something I usually take as a 2 level dip into it as a GISH character.
I don't believed for a moment that Onomancy as displayed will go live period. As a diehard fan of wizards in all versions of wizards going back to Basic (4e doesn't exist at all to me, in fact I switched to Pathfinder because of it) I find WotC's treatment of wizards a slap in the face. Wizards are powerful are we? I don't see any other class having to pay to add spells to their repertoire. We have to fin/buy or level up to get those spells. Then PAY for the privilege of adding them to our spell book. We get the fewest additional abilities of any class. As an Intelligence-based class, we should know more skills than a rogue or bard; especially knowledge skills. Instead, as the smartest of all classes, even a range gets more.
A sorcerer gets less spells that a wizar? Yes, they do; but . . . they get usedul abilities to make up for it. Sorcerer points and Metamagics along more than make up for the difference. Now they want to give the sorcerer, bard, and the warlock the ability to change one of their spells on a long rest; something usually reserved for wizards, clerics, and paladin. Because the Artificers were given cantrips, now they want to give all 1/2 casters cantrips; somethign that was goign to be uniquest to artificers? The artificer is not even out yet officially and they are taking away class abilities that made them special.
I am sorry, but this article should not have been put out until we see what the artificer gets The ability to change cantrips when leveling was to be a artificer ability? The ability to change a cantrip at the end of a short or long rest was going to be a 10th level ability. How can we make informed opinions when we don't even know what the artificer will be yet. All we have is hints and innuendo.
To me, seeing this article is like opening presents at Christmas. Everyone else gets nifty toys while you get a sweater and a coupe of pairs of new socks.
Iam sorry. I am tired and grumpy tonight and this article just tipped over the iceberg. Many of the wizard archetypes need as much enhancements as other archetypes listed here; some more so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
People seem to be forgetting that the long-rest spell swap on the innate casters is restricted to level-for-level.
A sorcerer doesn't have access to "its entire spell list" - it has access to whatever spells of the tier it's swapping out are. Want to change out that Chaos Bolt for Dragon's Breath? Nope - got to wait till you level up.
Half the point of this document is to give players a rule to point their DM at when their DM has a tree up their ass about forcing the player to stick to a choice they made in error, or when less informed about the game than they otherwise might be - or to illustrate to DMs that their game will survive if they let their players change their mind on something once in a while. A lot of DMs, especially newer ones, have this idea that the balance of D&D is a finely-honed knife's edge that the slightest variance or deviation from ZA RURUZ will shatter beyond salvation.
No. Balance in this game is not quite an illusion, but it's pretty close. It's loose, floppy, messy, and not even remotely on a razor's edge. Swapping Religion for History, Acid Splash for Prestidigitation, or Stinking Cloud for Slow will not destroy your game. Only you being a terrible DM will destroy your game.
As for wizards needing something new? I mean...are they not already considered the pinnacle of arcane casters? The largest spell list by far, the most picks from that spell list, and the ability to prepare more spells than any of the innate casters know (Aberrant Minds aside for now). Yeah, they don't get a huge number of extra features, but they're also not really intended to need them. They can substitute a spell for an extra feature because they get more spells from a bigger list than anybody else, and time and time again people have borne out the idea that this makes them the strongest/most diverse arcane casters in the game. Sorcerers are often held to be drastically underpowered, and while bards are sometimes held to be a stronger class overall, wizards kick the shit out of them in terms of sheer magical swolitude.
One concern that I have about this is that I feel it makes the Sorcerer too strong compared to the Wizard. I realize that the Wizard as it currently stands is stronger, but reversing that shouldn't be the answer. If your campaign allows for lots of downtime/travel montages, you could switch out your entire list of spells between major encounters. Wizards, meanwhile, are stuck with what they have in their book, and their only advantage is that they can have a few more spells available at a given moment. What I would suggest instead is to completely redo the Sorcerer's capstone ability (to what, I don't know) and give them a means of recovering some of their sorcery points on a short rest.
I suppose this would apply to Bards, Rangers, and Warlocks as well, but it stuck out with Sorcerers to me because they are defined almost exclusively by their spells. Warlocks have invocations, boons, and in combat they're pretty much spamming Eldritch Blast/Hexblade no matter what their list is. Bards don't have quite as much variety in their spells as Sorcerers, but they get a lot of interaction and exploration out of their other class features, and they have Bardic Inspiration. And Rangers don't depend on their spells too much for combat (other than Hunter's Mark).
Wait how does this make sorcerers more powerful than wizards? Wizards can change out their entire list of prepared spells for the day every long rest this feature would just allow a sorcerer to change 1 spell for another of equal level when they long rest. Wizards start with 6 spells and get 2 new ones every level up. Which means at 20th level they have a minimum of 44 spells known that they can choose from to prepare. This is not including spells that they find during their journey as an adventurer through scrolls or enemy wizard spell books etc. By comparison a Sorcerer at 20th level is hard capped at 15 and without this feature can only change the ones they learn when they level up.
1) Wizard's don't have more than a fraction of their potential spells in their spell books. With this, the sorcerer has access to ALL the spells available to them with out having to find/buy them, gain them by leveling up, snf fon't have to pay for those new spells they do gain. I'm sorry, but this is a feature I would not allow in my game unless the socerer has to spend gold to exchange a spell. Their magic is in their blood, and without a full blood transfusion I wouldn't allow it. WotC is already short shifting wizards, again, and this is just adding insult to injury.
As much as some of this stuff is needed, especially in the case of the Beast Master ranger, the rest is just adding icing to the many ability other classes have in addition to whatever spellcassting they may have. What do they give wizards? The ability to change cantrips, which they are giving to other classes, and a few new, already exisiting spells. Something any decent DM has probably homebrewed months or years ago.
Personally, as much as some of this material is needed (desperately?), I will not be using (or playtesting) it and will not being allow its use in my games. Call it a boycott if you like, but I am tired of wi8zards always getting the short end of the stick just because they have a spellbook.
<end of rant> <reservign the right to rant as needed>
Im sorry but by 6th level a wizards has more spells known than a max level sorcerer. I feel bad for anyone who likes sorcerers that has to play in one of your games. Sorcerers have long been a class that is viewed as underpowered. In a duel between a sorcerer and a Wizard of equal level (especially if its a war magic or evocation wizard) the Wizard will come out on top 9 times out of 10. If your a 6th level sorcerer and you want to change ONE spell out using these rules you need to FORGET a spell of equal level and switch it out for another one. You are giving up that spell entirely to learn a different one and your saying you would penalize the player with a gold cost in order to make that happen? Meanwhile the wizard has 16 spells he's learned and can switch ALL of them out for free whenever he rests compared to the sorcerers 7 at the same level? Like excuse me?
Im sorry that you've felt the wizard has been getting the short end of the stick with their current 12 subclasses and over 290 spells of which they learn a minimum of 44 and a maximum of ALL OF THEM if you have DM thats constantly letting you track down scrolls compared to the sorcerers current 7 subclasses (2 of which r freakin UA and not allowed in nitpicky dms games like you) and 162 spells that they only get to know 15 of. In an ideal world where you play a game up to level 20 with rules as is the sorcerer can change his spells 15 times total compared to the wizard just doing it every time he wakes up. No "Decent" DM would screw over the potential of a player to have a better time with their Sorcerer by forcing them to do ridiculous blood transfusions and pay money to unlock new abilities tied to their bloodline when theirs something available made by Wotc to try out. Any DM that just denies these things without ever actually trying them in game to see whether its actually broken or not and just screams broken upon how it sounds alone should already be a red flag.
As a sorcerer, your strategy should be to find a spell/metamagic combination that suits you. You have no real reason to switch out spells, and the VAST majority of your spells are damaging spells. The MOST this UA does to the sorcerer is let them switch from thunderwave to charm person when they finish a long rest, if they are in a social situation.
you have plenty of reason to switch out spells. For instance you have fire spells. Your party has been doing research on this enemy and knows its resistant to fire attacks or even gets empowered by them. U dont have a wizard in the party so now you need to switch up ur tactics. Ok u take a few more days to strategize and change ur spells from fire based to cold based or like u said get some social interaction spells. Theres also the case where not everyones a veteran dnd player. Some people pick a spell cause its sounds like itd fit them or it may seem useful but ends up being situational. Shouldnt be penalized for not knowing every single intricacy of every spell ya know?
Im sorry but by 6th level a wizards has more spells known than a max level sorcerer. I feel bad for anyone who likes sorcerers that has to play in one of your games. Sorcerers have long been a class that is viewed as underpowered. In a duel between a sorcerer and a Wizard of equal level (especially if its a war magic or evocation wizard) the Wizard will come out on top 9 times out of 10. If your a 6th level sorcerer and you want to change ONE spell out using these rules you need to FORGET a spell of equal level and switch it out for another one. You are giving up that spell entirely to learn a different one and your saying you would penalize the player with a gold cost in order to make that happen? Meanwhile the wizard has 16 spells he's learned and can switch ALL of them out for free whenever he rests compared to the sorcerers 7 at the same level? Like excuse me?
Im sorry that you've felt the wizard has been getting the short end of the stick with their current 12 subclasses and over 290 spells of which they learn a minimum of 44 and a maximum of ALL OF THEM if you have DM thats constantly letting you track down scrolls compared to the sorcerers current 7 subclasses (2 of which r freakin UA and not allowed in nitpicky dms games like you) and 162 spells that they only get to know 15 of. In an ideal world where you play a game up to level 20 with rules as is the sorcerer can change his spells 15 times total compared to the wizard just doing it every time he wakes up. No "Decent" DM would screw over the potential of a player to have a better time with their Sorcerer by forcing them to do ridiculous blood transfusions and pay money to unlock new abilities tied to their bloodline when theirs something available made by Wotc to try out. Any DM that just denies these things without ever actually trying them in game to see whether its actually broken or not and just screams broken upon how it sounds alone should already be a red flag.
At sixth level, a wizard will have 16 spells in their spellbook, while the sorcerer will know 7 spells. On a long rest, the wizard can switch between those spells, while the sorcerer can switch one of their spells known for any other of their spells known from their entire spell list. I would also agree that the sorcerer subclass features are mostly better than the wizard subclass features (though, prior to Spell Versatility, this isn't even remotely bad). How broken this is in favor of the sorcerer depends on two factors: availability of downtime, and availability of resources for the wizard to add new spells. If the party is under consistent pressure, the sorcerer can't just ask for a few days off so they can redo their spell list. If they can, they get a lot more out of this. I've played five campaigns, a homebrewed one, Out of the Abyss, Curse of Strahd, Storm King's Thunder, and Tomb of Annihilation. In OotA and ToA, you're low on resources for much of it and under constant pressure. The same is true for Strahd as well, but that one takes place over such a small timescale that every individual day counts and it'll limit even the sorcerer's ability to switch out spells. By contrast, Storm King's Thunder and the homebrew campaign that introduced me to 5th Edition were both very generous with resources from early on, and downtime was readily available.
Were I to DM and run Tomb of Annihilation, I would be very hesitant to allow the Spell Versatility (that, or only allow it to be used when a milestone of sorts was completed that didn't result in a level up). Were I to run Storm King's Thunder, I would absolutely allow it, since the wizard should have no problem filling out their spellbook.
Im sorry but by 6th level a wizards has more spells known than a max level sorcerer. I feel bad for anyone who likes sorcerers that has to play in one of your games. Sorcerers have long been a class that is viewed as underpowered. In a duel between a sorcerer and a Wizard of equal level (especially if its a war magic or evocation wizard) the Wizard will come out on top 9 times out of 10. If your a 6th level sorcerer and you want to change ONE spell out using these rules you need to FORGET a spell of equal level and switch it out for another one. You are giving up that spell entirely to learn a different one and your saying you would penalize the player with a gold cost in order to make that happen? Meanwhile the wizard has 16 spells he's learned and can switch ALL of them out for free whenever he rests compared to the sorcerers 7 at the same level? Like excuse me?
Im sorry that you've felt the wizard has been getting the short end of the stick with their current 12 subclasses and over 290 spells of which they learn a minimum of 44 and a maximum of ALL OF THEM if you have DM thats constantly letting you track down scrolls compared to the sorcerers current 7 subclasses (2 of which r freakin UA and not allowed in nitpicky dms games like you) and 162 spells that they only get to know 15 of. In an ideal world where you play a game up to level 20 with rules as is the sorcerer can change his spells 15 times total compared to the wizard just doing it every time he wakes up. No "Decent" DM would screw over the potential of a player to have a better time with their Sorcerer by forcing them to do ridiculous blood transfusions and pay money to unlock new abilities tied to their bloodline when theirs something available made by Wotc to try out. Any DM that just denies these things without ever actually trying them in game to see whether its actually broken or not and just screams broken upon how it sounds alone should already be a red flag.
At sixth level, a wizard will have 16 spells in their spellbook, while the sorcerer will know 7 spells. On a long rest, the wizard can switch between those spells, while the sorcerer can switch one of their spells known for any other of their spells known from their entire spell list. I would also agree that the sorcerer subclass features are mostly better than the wizard subclass features (though, prior to Spell Versatility, this isn't even remotely bad). How broken this is in favor of the sorcerer depends on two factors: availability of downtime, and availability of resources for the wizard to add new spells. If the party is under consistent pressure, the sorcerer can't just ask for a few days off so they can redo their spell list. If they can, they get a lot more out of this. I've played five campaigns, a homebrewed one, Out of the Abyss, Curse of Strahd, Storm King's Thunder, and Tomb of Annihilation. In OotA and ToA, you're low on resources for much of it and under constant pressure. The same is true for Strahd as well, but that one takes place over such a small timescale that every individual day counts and it'll limit even the sorcerer's ability to switch out spells. By contrast, Storm King's Thunder and the homebrew campaign that introduced me to 5th Edition were both very generous with resources from early on, and downtime was readily available.
Were I to DM and run Tomb of Annihilation, I would be very hesitant to allow the Spell Versatility (that, or only allow it to be used when a milestone of sorts was completed that didn't result in a level up). Were I to run Storm King's Thunder, I would absolutely allow it, since the wizard should have no problem filling out their spellbook.
tbf in those games you wouldnt even need to take days off eventually the party will have to rest somewhere and sleep for the night and thats another opportunity to switch things out so yeah depending on the setting it can be useful or completely useless. This is also understanding that you wont HAVE to switch out spells every time but its an option available to the player.
The sorcerer subclass features being better than a wizards is questionable and depends on what you value as a player. Is summoning a hound of ill omen better than being able to drop a cone of cold or fireball on the party and make sure only the enemies get hurt? Is being able to add 2d4 to a saving throw or attack roll better than forcing a creature trying to save on a spell or hit an ally use that nat 1 u rolled in the morning instead of whatever they rolled initially? Is having a bubble shield of temp HP that recovers whenever you use an abjuration spell better than having dragon scales that ups ur AC? Most of the time i find that people mainly think the sorcerers meta magic just makes up for everything which is not always the case
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm pretty sure that is up to DMs discretion as I don't know of any official rules about that, but the original rules of adding your proficiency bonus to the AC is still applied.
*Edit; I completely forgot about Barding, though with the proficiency bonus to AC I'm not sure if the cost would be worth it. I'm pretty sure that's more intended for non magical mounts and the like*
Todd Kenrick said they willing but it will take quite a while to program in.
Depending on the critter, certain types of barding may beat their innate armor bonus, and the proficiency-toAC bit from Beastmaster stacks with its normal armor calculation, Ring of Prot-style. It's expensive, but given the tendency of beasts to have all the HP total of a moist bundt cake , could be worth it for a beast your character is eminently attached to.
Please do not contact or message me.
Cold takes on the variants and hot ones on the commentary around them:
Overall i think its pretty great and gives people the flexibility to react to the way the playstyle develops. I dont want the wah wah's here misleading anyone to thinking anything here is game busting in any way leading to an over correction that born from theory crafting.
Do we know where he said that? How long is "quite awhile"? A month?
When it is ready, don't ask for a timeline because they don't have one yet. Expect a month and hope it is sooner.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Is Superior Technique supposed to be an add-on for every fighter, or 'just' an additional fighting style you may chose?
Or both?
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
An additional choice of fighting style, in lieu of any of the typical ones. In that vein it's actually pretty bad compared to a regular fighting style, though much like Martial Adept, Battlemasters may end up using it to expand their maneuver list.
Please do not contact or message me.
I wonder if we will get a feat to take a fighting style.
Also the blight-sight one. It doesn't have a range does it? meaning a ranger can take it and shot blindly for 300 feat or so. (with sharpshooter)(it'd be funny and hilarious). And would invisible attackers still have advantage towards a blight sighted foe?
What people always forget about the "disadvantage while blind/against invisible" rules is that you still have to know where you're targeting your attack. Theoretically? Yes. Blind Fighting removes the disadvantage for an unseen-but-unhidden (which is a weird state, but go with it for now) target being attacked with arrows. As a DM, however, here's the conversation I'd have.
Player: "Okay, I use my Blind Fighting and attack the invisible assassin!"
Yurei: "Cool. Where are you attacking?"
Player: "...where the assassin is?"
Yurei: "right; where is that? Point to me on the map where your arrow is going."
Player: "That's not how Blind Fighting works!"
Yurei: "It absolutely is. Blind Fighting is not See Invisible, Truesight, blindsight, or any of the other things that let you know where a target is. If you know where your target is, Blind Fighting will let you attack without disadvantage, which is really cool and works especially well for a couple of melee Ranger spell combos. You, however, are shooting at random hoping to pick the right direction for your arrow. So. Where do you shoot?"
Please do not contact or message me.
One could certainly attempt. For the aforementioned three hundred foot shot, no. If you're blinded or the target's invisible, I'd argue a DM is perfectly entitled to tell you to point to a square on the map. For closer shots? It'd depend on the distance and how noisy the target is. In melee combat, especially against an enemy already attacking you, that'd possibly just work off of passive, since that's the sort of situation Blind Fighting is really meant for.
Please do not contact or message me.
I personally don't know of a single paladin, or Battle Smit hartificer, who actuallu uses Smites. Every paladin I know saves his/her spell slots for Divine Smites instead. The artificer has so many uses for his/her bonus action that that individual isn't going to waste it, and a spell slot, on a smite.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
1) Wizard's don't have more than a fraction of their potential spells in their spell books. With this, the sorcerer has access to ALL the spells available to them with out having to find/buy them, gain them by leveling up, snf fon't have to pay for those new spells they do gain. I'm sorry, but this is a feature I would not allow in my game unless the socerer has to spend gold to exchange a spell. Their magic is in their blood, and without a full blood transfusion I wouldn't allow it. WotC is already short shifting wizards, again, and this is just adding insult to injury.
As much as some of this stuff is needed, especially in the case of the Beast Master ranger, the rest is just adding icing to the many ability other classes have in addition to whatever spellcassting they may have. What do they give wizards? The ability to change cantrips, which they are giving to other classes, and a few new, already exisiting spells. Something any decent DM has probably homebrewed months or years ago.
Personally, as much as some of this material is needed (desperately?), I will not be using (or playtesting) it and will not being allow its use in my games. Call it a boycott if you like, but I am tired of wi8zards always getting the short end of the stick just because they have a spellbook.
<end of rant>
<reservign the right to rant as needed>
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
The last time I wanted an archetype for a wizard that was introduced in a UA article was the Lore master. What did we get, the War Mage, which while nice at low level, is only something I usually take as a 2 level dip into it as a GISH character.
I don't believed for a moment that Onomancy as displayed will go live period. As a diehard fan of wizards in all versions of wizards going back to Basic (4e doesn't exist at all to me, in fact I switched to Pathfinder because of it) I find WotC's treatment of wizards a slap in the face. Wizards are powerful are we? I don't see any other class having to pay to add spells to their repertoire. We have to fin/buy or level up to get those spells. Then PAY for the privilege of adding them to our spell book. We get the fewest additional abilities of any class. As an Intelligence-based class, we should know more skills than a rogue or bard; especially knowledge skills. Instead, as the smartest of all classes, even a range gets more.
A sorcerer gets less spells that a wizar? Yes, they do; but . . . they get usedul abilities to make up for it. Sorcerer points and Metamagics along more than make up for the difference. Now they want to give the sorcerer, bard, and the warlock the ability to change one of their spells on a long rest; something usually reserved for wizards, clerics, and paladin. Because the Artificers were given cantrips, now they want to give all 1/2 casters cantrips; somethign that was goign to be uniquest to artificers? The artificer is not even out yet officially and they are taking away class abilities that made them special.
I am sorry, but this article should not have been put out until we see what the artificer gets The ability to change cantrips when leveling was to be a artificer ability? The ability to change a cantrip at the end of a short or long rest was going to be a 10th level ability. How can we make informed opinions when we don't even know what the artificer will be yet. All we have is hints and innuendo.
To me, seeing this article is like opening presents at Christmas. Everyone else gets nifty toys while you get a sweater and a coupe of pairs of new socks.
Iam sorry. I am tired and grumpy tonight and this article just tipped over the iceberg. Many of the wizard archetypes need as much enhancements as other archetypes listed here; some more so.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
People seem to be forgetting that the long-rest spell swap on the innate casters is restricted to level-for-level.
A sorcerer doesn't have access to "its entire spell list" - it has access to whatever spells of the tier it's swapping out are. Want to change out that Chaos Bolt for Dragon's Breath? Nope - got to wait till you level up.
Half the point of this document is to give players a rule to point their DM at when their DM has a tree up their ass about forcing the player to stick to a choice they made in error, or when less informed about the game than they otherwise might be - or to illustrate to DMs that their game will survive if they let their players change their mind on something once in a while. A lot of DMs, especially newer ones, have this idea that the balance of D&D is a finely-honed knife's edge that the slightest variance or deviation from ZA RURUZ will shatter beyond salvation.
No. Balance in this game is not quite an illusion, but it's pretty close. It's loose, floppy, messy, and not even remotely on a razor's edge. Swapping Religion for History, Acid Splash for Prestidigitation, or Stinking Cloud for Slow will not destroy your game. Only you being a terrible DM will destroy your game.
As for wizards needing something new? I mean...are they not already considered the pinnacle of arcane casters? The largest spell list by far, the most picks from that spell list, and the ability to prepare more spells than any of the innate casters know (Aberrant Minds aside for now). Yeah, they don't get a huge number of extra features, but they're also not really intended to need them. They can substitute a spell for an extra feature because they get more spells from a bigger list than anybody else, and time and time again people have borne out the idea that this makes them the strongest/most diverse arcane casters in the game. Sorcerers are often held to be drastically underpowered, and while bards are sometimes held to be a stronger class overall, wizards kick the shit out of them in terms of sheer magical swolitude.
What are you hoping for, exactly?
Please do not contact or message me.
Im sorry but by 6th level a wizards has more spells known than a max level sorcerer. I feel bad for anyone who likes sorcerers that has to play in one of your games. Sorcerers have long been a class that is viewed as underpowered. In a duel between a sorcerer and a Wizard of equal level (especially if its a war magic or evocation wizard) the Wizard will come out on top 9 times out of 10. If your a 6th level sorcerer and you want to change ONE spell out using these rules you need to FORGET a spell of equal level and switch it out for another one. You are giving up that spell entirely to learn a different one and your saying you would penalize the player with a gold cost in order to make that happen? Meanwhile the wizard has 16 spells he's learned and can switch ALL of them out for free whenever he rests compared to the sorcerers 7 at the same level? Like excuse me?
Im sorry that you've felt the wizard has been getting the short end of the stick with their current 12 subclasses and over 290 spells of which they learn a minimum of 44 and a maximum of ALL OF THEM if you have DM thats constantly letting you track down scrolls compared to the sorcerers current 7 subclasses (2 of which r freakin UA and not allowed in nitpicky dms games like you) and 162 spells that they only get to know 15 of. In an ideal world where you play a game up to level 20 with rules as is the sorcerer can change his spells 15 times total compared to the wizard just doing it every time he wakes up. No "Decent" DM would screw over the potential of a player to have a better time with their Sorcerer by forcing them to do ridiculous blood transfusions and pay money to unlock new abilities tied to their bloodline when theirs something available made by Wotc to try out. Any DM that just denies these things without ever actually trying them in game to see whether its actually broken or not and just screams broken upon how it sounds alone should already be a red flag.
As a sorcerer, your strategy should be to find a spell/metamagic combination that suits you. You have no real reason to switch out spells, and the VAST majority of your spells are damaging spells. The MOST this UA does to the sorcerer is let them switch from thunderwave to charm person when they finish a long rest, if they are in a social situation.
you have plenty of reason to switch out spells. For instance you have fire spells. Your party has been doing research on this enemy and knows its resistant to fire attacks or even gets empowered by them. U dont have a wizard in the party so now you need to switch up ur tactics. Ok u take a few more days to strategize and change ur spells from fire based to cold based or like u said get some social interaction spells. Theres also the case where not everyones a veteran dnd player. Some people pick a spell cause its sounds like itd fit them or it may seem useful but ends up being situational. Shouldnt be penalized for not knowing every single intricacy of every spell ya know?
At sixth level, a wizard will have 16 spells in their spellbook, while the sorcerer will know 7 spells. On a long rest, the wizard can switch between those spells, while the sorcerer can switch one of their spells known for any other of their spells known from their entire spell list. I would also agree that the sorcerer subclass features are mostly better than the wizard subclass features (though, prior to Spell Versatility, this isn't even remotely bad). How broken this is in favor of the sorcerer depends on two factors: availability of downtime, and availability of resources for the wizard to add new spells. If the party is under consistent pressure, the sorcerer can't just ask for a few days off so they can redo their spell list. If they can, they get a lot more out of this. I've played five campaigns, a homebrewed one, Out of the Abyss, Curse of Strahd, Storm King's Thunder, and Tomb of Annihilation. In OotA and ToA, you're low on resources for much of it and under constant pressure. The same is true for Strahd as well, but that one takes place over such a small timescale that every individual day counts and it'll limit even the sorcerer's ability to switch out spells. By contrast, Storm King's Thunder and the homebrew campaign that introduced me to 5th Edition were both very generous with resources from early on, and downtime was readily available.
Were I to DM and run Tomb of Annihilation, I would be very hesitant to allow the Spell Versatility (that, or only allow it to be used when a milestone of sorts was completed that didn't result in a level up). Were I to run Storm King's Thunder, I would absolutely allow it, since the wizard should have no problem filling out their spellbook.
tbf in those games you wouldnt even need to take days off eventually the party will have to rest somewhere and sleep for the night and thats another opportunity to switch things out so yeah depending on the setting it can be useful or completely useless. This is also understanding that you wont HAVE to switch out spells every time but its an option available to the player.
The sorcerer subclass features being better than a wizards is questionable and depends on what you value as a player. Is summoning a hound of ill omen better than being able to drop a cone of cold or fireball on the party and make sure only the enemies get hurt? Is being able to add 2d4 to a saving throw or attack roll better than forcing a creature trying to save on a spell or hit an ally use that nat 1 u rolled in the morning instead of whatever they rolled initially? Is having a bubble shield of temp HP that recovers whenever you use an abjuration spell better than having dragon scales that ups ur AC? Most of the time i find that people mainly think the sorcerers meta magic just makes up for everything which is not always the case