I'm still having issues with the spell/cantrip/maneuver versatilities...
Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks, traditionally have what i call PSE's (Power Source Entities) so swapping out spells/cantrips is more a "my source gifted me with this power instead"
I have a harder time with the Sorcerers, Bards, and less so on the Rangers getting to swap their spells after a long rest. I don't think its mechanically OP or Game-Breaking in any way...i just have problems with the rational behind why they can do that, suddenly being unable to cast a spell you cast the previous day. These classes already have the "swap spell on level up" mechanic to fix bad choices. I don't see the point in making these classes "prep casters"
BetaMaxArcana, my recommendation would be not to look at the concept, but rather the implementation. As a variant rule it's ultimately up to the DM to allow it or disallow it.
The real meat-and-potatoes of the request is to review how well and balanced the implementation is.
Personally, I think the implementation of the Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock Spells are good. They are limited in all the right ways to avoid stepping on the toes of the 'PSE's.
For example, I don't like the implementation of the cantrip swapping for Cleric/Druid/Wizard. If Cantrips are spells (see the rule note in the UA) then the standard rules should apply for the swapping of the cantrips. Clerics and Druids can just do it every day, Wizards have to find the cantrips written in spell books and scribe them in (and I am almost certain I have seen Spell books in official content with Cantrips listed as scribed spells inside)
In my opinion, all of these ranger abilities are fine as given in the document - just because they buff the weakest class/barb subclass doesn't mean that they're problematic. Quite the opposite, para mí.
I've got no problem with them buffing Ranger all the way through the roof, deserves some love. The problem is, with that no-concentration Hunter's Mark being used WIS mod/day instead of keyed to ranger level somehow, you aren't really buffing Rangers, you're buffing Ranger 1/Real Class X splashes. There already were plenty of builds that splashed Ranger 3, but not a whole lot of reasons to go beyond that for anything other than pure archer Hunters (and even they were probably better off as Ranger 3/Fighter 17).
These updates do help alleviate that (and finally make Beast Masters cool!), but front loading the Ranger with better abilities at level 1 doesn't really help people commit to the class long term.
Favored Foe goes too far. Its great for a straight Ranger but giving a non-concentration DPS boost as a level 1 class feature piles damage onto the more power-gamey multiclasses. Every assassin / gloomstalker / hexblade on the planet is drooling over this right now.
tbf if ur that against power gaming just dont allow it in ur game, its an optional rule. There are other more broken combinations like the machine gun eldritch blast sorcerer/warlock build that people should be worried about. If u wanna build the ultimate assassin that surprise attacks and crits for insane damage in order to take out a major threat before the battle kicks off you should be able to do that.
Does anyone think Deft Explorer (Tireless) will create problems with the currant version of Frenzy (Barbarian) and one level of multiclassing.
I wonder if the following should be removed:
“In addition, whenever you finish a short rest, your exhaustion level, if any, is decreased by 1.”
How do people fell about simplifying Favored Foe by simply saying:
“When you cast the Hunter’s Mark spell it is not a concentration spell for you.”
Does anyone know what happens to the Ranger capstone (level 20) ability? Does it now apply to Hunter’s Mark?
Primal Awareness provides a lot of spells to the Ranger. In my opinion the Ranger should have 5 Primal Awareness spells, 5 subclass spells and 15 spells chosen from the class spell list.
I would remove the following spells:
Detect Magic & Beast Sense.
i welcome thoughts on this. I also like the simplification of using spell slots for this. It forces the Ranger to decide between spells and skills. Which is appropriate for the class I think.
I would therefore remove:
”You can cast each of these spells once without expending a spell slot.”
I welcome your thoughts.
Thanks.
a few things
1 no i feel like its great giving a barbarian berserker the ability to dip in this to get around their exhaustion for frenzy. Its one of the least played barbarian subclasses due to the fact that exhaustion is a massive debuff to get for using a core class feature. And you get it for the ability to hit again as a bonus action which in of itself is not anything amazing compared to things like bear totem where ur just resistant to everything or a zealot who can do more damage and be revived easily. After 2 frenzys your barb is moving 15-20 ft a round and becomes a liability on the battlefield if god forbid u run into more than a couple of fights during an adventuring day and if ur not then the barb is just sitting on his class feature waiting to use it the one time against the big bad. You shouldnt be punished for doing the thing ur class is known for
2. its fine to simplify it but also keep in mind hunters mark used to be a core class ability based on previous editions and every ranger... EVERY ranger uses it and ends up taking up their concentration during a fight to keep it going so just having it be built into a core class feature again just makes sense and allows them to pick and use different spells.
3. i agree with the spell thing cause as it stands if this goes live when u add in the spells they get from their subclasses it bring the ranger to over 20 spells. A sorcerer whos a main caster at lvl 20 has 15 and there is no world where a quarter caster should get more spells than a full one. But they should still have beast sense it just fits into the lore of a ranger too well.
4. allowing them to use those spells without spell slots once a rest helps them track and use more utility spells without using up what little spell slots they already have
I'm still having issues with the spell/cantrip/maneuver versatilities...
Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks, traditionally have what i call PSE's (Power Source Entities) so swapping out spells/cantrips is more a "my source gifted me with this power instead"
I have a harder time with the Sorcerers, Bards, and less so on the Rangers getting to swap their spells after a long rest. I don't think its mechanically OP or Game-Breaking in any way...i just have problems with the rational behind why they can do that, suddenly being unable to cast a spell you cast the previous day. These classes already have the "swap spell on level up" mechanic to fix bad choices. I don't see the point in making these classes "prep casters"
there are certain ways it could work. People like to imagine sorcerers as x-men that are constantly learning new abilities. You went to sleep with a couple of spells and when you woke up you could do something new, your body just adapted or if ur a wild magic sorcerer you just shrug and chuck it up to one of the many random things that happen to you. Bards (more so lore but still) already get a bunch magical secrets where they pick up and learn spells that ordinarily would be locked off to divine classes or nature classes so its not too weird that they picked up a new trick in their spare time or maybe learned how to do a new spell from a party member that can do something similar or even an enemy. The rangers are deff the hardest sell cause its never super clearly defined where they even learn there magic
No matter the in-game lore, I am really excited about the spell versatility for my bard.
I chose spells that are niche and limited use, but that made sense for my character. I always felt I'm missing out on spells.
Now I can put some spells aside, focus on a day-to-day selection and get the situational spells back when I need them.
I always felt that only changing spells when leveling up was too restrictive. It's too much time between selecting a spell, realizing that you hardly ever use it, and being able to change it.
Regarding the Cantrip Versatility stepping on the Artificer's toes, the Artificer at 10th level can switch cantrips on a long rest (or short, I forget), whereas other prepared casters have to level up to switch. So, the Artificer still has that edge. Although, I might suggest watering down the Spell Versatility so that the known casters don't make out too much with it. For one, I wouldn't let them switch cantrips except at level up.
We also don't know what the final iteration of Artificer will look like. So they may have just straight up changed that feature to something else.
Regarding the Cantrip Versatility stepping on the Artificer's toes, the Artificer at 10th level can switch cantrips on a long rest (or short, I forget), whereas other prepared casters have to level up to switch. So, the Artificer still has that edge. Although, I might suggest watering down the Spell Versatility so that the known casters don't make out too much with it. For one, I wouldn't let them switch cantrips except at level up.
We also don't know what the final iteration of Artificer will look like. So they may have just straight up changed that feature to something else.
Has anyone realized (and maybe slightly disappointed) that most of these features are enhancements/additions to features. The ranger and barbarian are the only 2 to get replacement features.
Don't get me wrong, most of the enhancements are necessary or just nice to have (though I think the aura and smites & other similar things do step on toes & I'm uncomfortable with that), and if I'll be honest, I actually like my base class features that I dont even know if i would want a replacement but its just underwhelming with the tweet a few weeks ago that EVERY class will get swappable features
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).
Wizard can have more spells prepared than sorcerer can have spells known, and if your campaign has downtime, they could easily copy more spells into their book.
I actually don't agree with being able to switch out proficiencies. Like, in fiction, how would that work? Like "I studied diligently for years to become the best doctor I can be but *ding! level up* I'm really good at cartwheels now and have seemingly forgotten how to set a broken leg!"??
Late to the conversation here, but is this more a case of “I apprenticed to be a priest, but since becoming an adventurer, I’ve forgotten basically everything I was ever taught about Religion. However, in that time I’ve had to learn to be a really Stealthy” The level up point is a gameplay artifice, in the same way that when you get a ASI, you don’t wake up and *ding* can now bench an extra 100lb. If you’re actively using a skill, you wouldn’t forget it (and as a DM, I’d question a character wanting to drop a skill they actively used or which was core to their character) but in the same way that I’ve forgotten the vast majority of the academic content of my degree, it’s easy for skills you’re not using to atrophy.
Tbh, my biggest question about this and the other versatility options is how it interacts with the core training rules (ie, 250 days (or 10 weeks with a tutor per Xanathar’s) for languages and tools)
I actually don't agree with being able to switch out proficiencies. Like, in fiction, how would that work? Like "I studied diligently for years to become the best doctor I can be but *ding! level up* I'm really good at cartwheels now and have seemingly forgotten how to set a broken leg!"??
Late to the conversation here, but is this more a case of “I apprenticed to be a priest, but since becoming an adventurer, I’ve forgotten basically everything I was ever taught about Religion. However, in that time I’ve had to learn to be a really Stealthy” The level up point is a gameplay artifice, in the same way that when you get a ASI, you don’t wake up and *ding* can now bench an extra 100lb. If you’re actively using a skill, you wouldn’t forget it (and as a DM, I’d question a character wanting to drop a skill they actively used or which was core to their character) but in the same way that I’ve forgotten the vast majority of the academic content of my degree, it’s easy for skills you’re not using to atrophy.
Tbh, my biggest question about this and the other versatility options is how it interacts with the core training rules (ie, 250 days (or 10 weeks with a tutor per Xanathar’s) for languages and tools)
100% this. Players aren't likely to switch out a skill they use constantly. They're most likely going to drop a skill they were excited about during creation but have now realized they never use. And it's also likely they would buff a skill they've been trying to roll well on but haven't been able to so far. So it tracks that experience in a rarely used skill would atrophy while you dive into learning other skills.
Wizards can a) learn more spells just by leveling up than the sorcerer, not to mention learning spells by copying them b)switch all their spells prepared on a long rest, instead of just one (with this change), and c) have a massive spell list to learn from. Sorcerers can a) learn only a few spells, b) under these changes, switch all their spells out - obeying the restriction that the switches must be within the same spell levels - over a period of 15 days, where a wizard could do it in 8 hours, and c) have a teeny-tiny spell list to pick from when making those changes. So, no, the wizard is still clearly the winner here, even with these (much-needed) balance changes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm still having issues with the spell/cantrip/maneuver versatilities...
Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks, traditionally have what i call PSE's (Power Source Entities) so swapping out spells/cantrips is more a "my source gifted me with this power instead"
I have a harder time with the Sorcerers, Bards, and less so on the Rangers getting to swap their spells after a long rest. I don't think its mechanically OP or Game-Breaking in any way...i just have problems with the rational behind why they can do that, suddenly being unable to cast a spell you cast the previous day. These classes already have the "swap spell on level up" mechanic to fix bad choices. I don't see the point in making these classes "prep casters"
BetaMaxArcana, my recommendation would be not to look at the concept, but rather the implementation. As a variant rule it's ultimately up to the DM to allow it or disallow it.
The real meat-and-potatoes of the request is to review how well and balanced the implementation is.
Personally, I think the implementation of the Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock Spells are good. They are limited in all the right ways to avoid stepping on the toes of the 'PSE's.
For example, I don't like the implementation of the cantrip swapping for Cleric/Druid/Wizard. If Cantrips are spells (see the rule note in the UA) then the standard rules should apply for the swapping of the cantrips. Clerics and Druids can just do it every day, Wizards have to find the cantrips written in spell books and scribe them in (and I am almost certain I have seen Spell books in official content with Cantrips listed as scribed spells inside)
No, because of core rules. Someone can't be affected by two effects with the same name, or such.
In my opinion, all of these ranger abilities are fine as given in the document - just because they buff the weakest class/barb subclass doesn't mean that they're problematic. Quite the opposite, para mí.
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.
I've got no problem with them buffing Ranger all the way through the roof, deserves some love. The problem is, with that no-concentration Hunter's Mark being used WIS mod/day instead of keyed to ranger level somehow, you aren't really buffing Rangers, you're buffing Ranger 1/Real Class X splashes. There already were plenty of builds that splashed Ranger 3, but not a whole lot of reasons to go beyond that for anything other than pure archer Hunters (and even they were probably better off as Ranger 3/Fighter 17).
These updates do help alleviate that (and finally make Beast Masters cool!), but front loading the Ranger with better abilities at level 1 doesn't really help people commit to the class long term.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
tbf if ur that against power gaming just dont allow it in ur game, its an optional rule. There are other more broken combinations like the machine gun eldritch blast sorcerer/warlock build that people should be worried about. If u wanna build the ultimate assassin that surprise attacks and crits for insane damage in order to take out a major threat before the battle kicks off you should be able to do that.
a few things
1 no i feel like its great giving a barbarian berserker the ability to dip in this to get around their exhaustion for frenzy. Its one of the least played barbarian subclasses due to the fact that exhaustion is a massive debuff to get for using a core class feature. And you get it for the ability to hit again as a bonus action which in of itself is not anything amazing compared to things like bear totem where ur just resistant to everything or a zealot who can do more damage and be revived easily. After 2 frenzys your barb is moving 15-20 ft a round and becomes a liability on the battlefield if god forbid u run into more than a couple of fights during an adventuring day and if ur not then the barb is just sitting on his class feature waiting to use it the one time against the big bad. You shouldnt be punished for doing the thing ur class is known for
2. its fine to simplify it but also keep in mind hunters mark used to be a core class ability based on previous editions and every ranger... EVERY ranger uses it and ends up taking up their concentration during a fight to keep it going so just having it be built into a core class feature again just makes sense and allows them to pick and use different spells.
3. i agree with the spell thing cause as it stands if this goes live when u add in the spells they get from their subclasses it bring the ranger to over 20 spells. A sorcerer whos a main caster at lvl 20 has 15 and there is no world where a quarter caster should get more spells than a full one. But they should still have beast sense it just fits into the lore of a ranger too well.
4. allowing them to use those spells without spell slots once a rest helps them track and use more utility spells without using up what little spell slots they already have
there are certain ways it could work. People like to imagine sorcerers as x-men that are constantly learning new abilities. You went to sleep with a couple of spells and when you woke up you could do something new, your body just adapted or if ur a wild magic sorcerer you just shrug and chuck it up to one of the many random things that happen to you. Bards (more so lore but still) already get a bunch magical secrets where they pick up and learn spells that ordinarily would be locked off to divine classes or nature classes so its not too weird that they picked up a new trick in their spare time or maybe learned how to do a new spell from a party member that can do something similar or even an enemy. The rangers are deff the hardest sell cause its never super clearly defined where they even learn there magic
No matter the in-game lore, I am really excited about the spell versatility for my bard.
I chose spells that are niche and limited use, but that made sense for my character. I always felt I'm missing out on spells.
Now I can put some spells aside, focus on a day-to-day selection and get the situational spells back when I need them.
I always felt that only changing spells when leveling up was too restrictive. It's too much time between selecting a spell, realizing that you hardly ever use it, and being able to change it.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
We also don't know what the final iteration of Artificer will look like. So they may have just straight up changed that feature to something else.
I would say this latest UA all but confirms that.
Has anyone realized (and maybe slightly disappointed) that most of these features are enhancements/additions to features. The ranger and barbarian are the only 2 to get replacement features.
Don't get me wrong, most of the enhancements are necessary or just nice to have (though I think the aura and smites & other similar things do step on toes & I'm uncomfortable with that), and if I'll be honest, I actually like my base class features that I dont even know if i would want a replacement but its just underwhelming with the tweet a few weeks ago that EVERY class will get swappable features
I'd like to see Tireless as a Barbarian ability. Maybe change the temporary hit points so they get them upon raging.
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).
Wizard can have more spells prepared than sorcerer can have spells known, and if your campaign has downtime, they could easily copy more spells into their book.
Late to the conversation here, but is this more a case of “I apprenticed to be a priest, but since becoming an adventurer, I’ve forgotten basically everything I was ever taught about Religion. However, in that time I’ve had to learn to be a really Stealthy” The level up point is a gameplay artifice, in the same way that when you get a ASI, you don’t wake up and *ding* can now bench an extra 100lb. If you’re actively using a skill, you wouldn’t forget it (and as a DM, I’d question a character wanting to drop a skill they actively used or which was core to their character) but in the same way that I’ve forgotten the vast majority of the academic content of my degree, it’s easy for skills you’re not using to atrophy.
Tbh, my biggest question about this and the other versatility options is how it interacts with the core training rules (ie, 250 days (or 10 weeks with a tutor per Xanathar’s) for languages and tools)
100% this. Players aren't likely to switch out a skill they use constantly. They're most likely going to drop a skill they were excited about during creation but have now realized they never use. And it's also likely they would buff a skill they've been trying to roll well on but haven't been able to so far. So it tracks that experience in a rarely used skill would atrophy while you dive into learning other skills.
Wizards can a) learn more spells just by leveling up than the sorcerer, not to mention learning spells by copying them b)switch all their spells prepared on a long rest, instead of just one (with this change), and c) have a massive spell list to learn from. Sorcerers can a) learn only a few spells, b) under these changes, switch all their spells out - obeying the restriction that the switches must be within the same spell levels - over a period of 15 days, where a wizard could do it in 8 hours, and c) have a teeny-tiny spell list to pick from when making those changes. So, no, the wizard is still clearly the winner here, even with these (much-needed) balance changes.
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.