Fighter: Pretty satisfied. The new features are interesting. The changes to Eldritch Knight are awesome.
Only complaint is that Flex is gone.
Warlock: Overall satisfied. New features and revisions are good. GOO and Archfey got good improvements. Pact of Chain went back to it’s 2014 version with additional options Slaad Tadpole and a Skeleton.
Complaint’s: Dark One’s Blessing needs improvement something like what the Undead Warlock had. Was hoping it would be intelligence based not charisma. And they need to include an invocation for Pact of the Chain that increases the Familiar’s survivability and combat capabilities.
Wizard: Pretty satisfied. The subclasses are pretty good. The revised features are good.
Complaint’s: Necromancy wasn’t one of the subclasses. Modify Spell and Create Spell aren’t options.😢😋( I do hope WotC adds something similar to the DMG for all spell-caster classes so they can modify their own spells).
It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion of Playtest 7 is. Doesn't matter what's in the document, or what the design team has to say about any of it.
"The Community" is already in the process of pitching an Internet-wide overwhelming screaming tantrum about the thing, and within a few weeks' time it'll get thrown out and discarded completely, just like every other One D&D playtest so far.
I don't know why any of us who actually wanted this revision in the first place are even bothering anymore.
at level 3 while raging, the UA7 barbarian may make one of their barbarian skill checks as a Strength check. one of those skills is Perception.
therefore, i put forward that this playtest is for fans of cartoon wolves/coyotes who can now in-game grip their own protruding eyeballs and adjust them like binoculars to the fascination/horror of the rest of the party.
gotta give the people what they want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
I think a lot of changes that are being made to 5E are the wrong ones - dont get me wrong, hexblade multiclasses was terrifying, but I feel like the changes 5E needs, such as better options for unarmed combatants, streamlined spellcasting, more simple customisation such as eldritch invocations, and a reworking and balancing of classes that keeps the core themes alive were kinda missed in exchange for more spell complexity, less customisation, and stuff. and when things like the reworked druid and bard backfired (the druid stat block was a great idea but was done in the worst way) WOTC scrapped the changes, rather than being creative and consolidating what people wanted with what was needed for the class, as they have so little time before the core rules actually come out, and I feel kinda bad for the designers who have some great ideas but never work out how to apply them properly.
I'm also really really sad about Warlock losing the ability to chose ability scores at first level, I wish all classes could choose one out of two ability scores... like a Wisdom or Dexterity Monk, and a Wisdom or Charisma Cleric, or an Intelligence or Wisdom Wizard, or a Constitution or Strength Barbarian, and have features like attack damage scale off the chosen ability score... maybe some balance issues would happen for sure but I think that itd be really cool and also itd fix the front-loading of the hexblade and things like that
The difference between 3.0 and 3.5 back in the day was such that you couldn't play with two characters from different editions at all. The changes proposed for One were even bigger than anything 3.5 did, so, with time running ever shorter, I can see why they are basically just ironing out the nitpicks, considering their number one goal is backward compatibility. I am satisfied with that, although I would have liked to see some of the stuff that was axed, and will say so in the Survey.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Rather than creating my own thread, I'm just going to turn this into the "overall thoughts on UA7" Thread.
Barbarian
It's about what I expected. I'm a little confused as to why they didn't make Rage recover a use on a short rest. Crawford made it sound as though they were trying to make all classes benefit from short rests, yet Barbs literally get nothing outside a 11th level feature. They could honestly use it, as Rage is an essential feature that now has a strong utility component.
Why did they nerf Brutal Critter? It's still ever so slightly better than 2014, but even the more powerful one last UA was trash! It's only a 0.65~1.95 increase to damage when using reckless. And this is the only damage buff they get for t3+.
Still love the new Relentless Rage.
Persistent Rage only letting you get another rage when your out is dumb.
Indomitable Might now comes in 5 levels too late (at least).
Primal Champion is back to 2014! Expect now they no longer have unlimited Rages, so the class is actually WEAKER than it's 2014 counterpart. Unless 6th+ spells get massive nerfs I see no reason to play one past 12th. (Which may be too generous given how there damage is falls off after 10th level)
Overall like the Subclasses though. New Totem may need some tweaks though.
Fighter
They actually gave Fighter an out of combat feature? THANK GOD!! I'm mildly annoyed that it consumes uses of Second Wind, but a win is a win I guess.
Action Surge recovering on a Short Rest is still driving me nuts. Either tie it to Long Rests or let it recover on initiative rolls. We don't need Fighters to be swingy.
Who on Earth needs 6 weapon masteries? In what game are people switching between 6 weapons? Just let us have an additional weapon mastery on all of our weapons. It wouldn't be OP. Heck, it'd probably be far more fun.
Tactical Shift is nice! Approved!
Master of Armaments comes in WAY TOO late. It's also not that great.
Why did they nerf Indomitable!?!?! It needed that buff! Edit: False Alarm, I'm just illiterate.
Studied Strike is okay
I'm enraged that the fourth attack was moved back to 20 instead of down to 17. Warlock get's four attacks at level 17, but I guess that's too op for our Fighter characters.
Brawler is just the Tasha Fighting Styles mixed with the old Tavern Brawler feat. Lol
Sorcerer
Annoyed that we are losing some good spells, but at least we have more prepared spells at least?
New Innate Sorcery is P cool!
New Twinned Spell looks decent.
Oh look! Features that recover things only when your out! While I will continue to complain about it being bad design, it's actually VERY exploitable when used in tandem with Font of Magic. They till need to cut it out.
No Sorcerous Vitality? Why? Did people hate it? That's dumb!
Okay, so I get that Apotheosis was OP before. But, they didn't need to scale back THAT hard. Like most capstones I don't think it's worth it.
Why does Draconic/Wild Magic not get extra spells when the Tasha's ones do?
Warlock Oh boy....
Still devastated that they removed choosing your modifier.
I still think regaining all your Pact slots on a short rest is a bad design.
Oh and the Warlock spell list is back...woohoo... Crawford claimed that they are making a lot more spells up-castable, however it's...funny that the only Warlock spell included lost it.
Oh look guys! We get a worse version of Arcane Recovery!! Look at us swimming in that 1 extra spell we can cast!!
It's also funny how it just turns into Eldritch Mastery at 20th. Like, was WoTC scared that having 6 spellslots recoverable per day was broken at 20th level? Wait till they learn about Wish and True Polymorph!
I do like that Agonizing Blast is no longer purely tied to Eldritch Blast. Though I kind of wish they did more with it. As it currently stands Eldritch Blast is still the must pick levels 5+.
Not sure how I fully feel about Pact Boons being Invocations, but I'm not against it.
Glad most of the innovations have lower level requirements.
I low key wonder if they removed Medium Armor training to encourage people use Armor of Shadows. Like, why is this still here? Who is going to take an invocation for 1 AC?
Wizard
It's fine.
I understand why the spell creation was removed. It was cool, but Op AF.
I get the change to Spell Mastery, but they REALLY need to boost the damage of low level spells if you want people using them at all. Cantrips outdo them at this level. Though maybe they aren't trying to have you take them?
I find it funny that the subclasses they chose to release are the ones they needed to work on the least. Necromancy and Transmutation needed this rule update the most. And honestly with how plan the Wizard class is they probably would have done well releasing them.
Misc.
Despite complaining about it earlier, I LOVE the new Counterspell. They could honestly have it up-cast though by adding a +1 to the DC per level. A potential +6 DC sounds like a lot until you remember that high CR creatures like Liches have like +10 Con. It's also far less punishing in this version.
I'm happy with the changes with the Heavy Property. Limiting Small creatures instead of weak ones felt bad. Though Dex for ranged weapons feels odd. Like, the item weights a lot, right? How is Dex helping with that. I don't see an issues with forcing Longbow users to have a 13 Str.
Hey, at least monk has Topple now I guess? Lol
Cleave still feels wonky and Flex being gone is p good.
Regression, regression all around. Disappointment gives way to indifference. By now I'm pretty confident that it's shaping up to be 5e with the same old problems. But at least we got weapon masteries and cunning strikes. If they don't cut it for the sake of backwards compatibility, of course.
The difference between 3.0 and 3.5 back in the day was such that you couldn't play with two characters from different editions at all. The changes proposed for One were even bigger than anything 3.5 did, so, with time running ever shorter, I can see why they are basically just ironing out the nitpicks, considering their number one goal is backward compatibility. I am satisfied with that, although I would have liked to see some of the stuff that was axed, and will say so in the Survey.
Indeed, but then I wonder why they publish the books again? A new Tasha would have been enough. An add-on that slightly modifies the game.
If you make deep changes to the game, which in my opinion are necessary, many things cannot be backward compatible. I think that is clear. So what they are doing is simply reverting the proposed changes, and fixing little things here and there.
Is this a good decision? In my opinion it is a mistake. And I explain myself. They are reverting most of the changes because a lot of people threatened not to buy the new edition (or the revised edition, or whatever they want to call it) if it wasn't backwards compatible. But my question is, why buy these books that are going to be published if you already have the ones from 2014? Most of the content is already in the 2014 PHB. So you're buying the same book again, with a little lick of paint. Is the book going to sell better than if it actually had changes, or would it have sold worse if it weren't retro compatible? Well the truth is that it is difficult to say. But I think it will sell worse, and that it will be a commercial failure (in terms of what I expected a year ago with the announcement of a new edition).
Indeed, but then I wonder why they publish the books again? A new Tasha would have been enough. An add-on that slightly modifies the game.
If you make deep changes to the game, which in my opinion are necessary, many things cannot be backward compatible. I think that is clear. So what they are doing is simply reverting the proposed changes, and fixing little things here and there.
Is this a good decision? In my opinion it is a mistake. And I explain myself. They are reverting most of the changes because a lot of people threatened not to buy the new edition (or the revised edition, or whatever they want to call it) if it wasn't backwards compatible. But my question is, why buy these books that are going to be published if you already have the ones from 2014? Most of the content is already in the 2014 PHB. So you're buying the same book again, with a little lick of paint. Is the book going to sell better than if it actually had changes, or would it have sold worse if it weren't retro compatible? Well the truth is that it is difficult to say. But I think it will sell worse, and that it will be a commercial failure (in terms of what I expected a year ago with the announcement of a new edition).
you might not be the target audience. as i feel compelled to say each time i see it asked: there's a dnd anniversary coming up. someone sees value in a "new and improved" sticker to go beside the "50th!" sticker on some new print runs. seems like a bit of a gamble since they could easily just reprint the old 5e one more time. but big corporations aren't known for taking big risks (neither financially nor creatively). just assume the ROI works out to an influx of new warm bodies.
i feel like we're fortunate to get even this much this year. hope and speculation in this forum is fun but a diversion none the less. if you manage your expectations it doesn't have to feel overly bad. just another reminder that all the innovation is coming from the 3rd party content providers and small publishers, although their forums aren't as lively.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Indeed, but then I wonder why they publish the books again? A new Tasha would have been enough. An add-on that slightly modifies the game.
If you make deep changes to the game, which in my opinion are necessary, many things cannot be backward compatible. I think that is clear. So what they are doing is simply reverting the proposed changes, and fixing little things here and there.
Is this a good decision? In my opinion it is a mistake. And I explain myself. They are reverting most of the changes because a lot of people threatened not to buy the new edition (or the revised edition, or whatever they want to call it) if it wasn't backwards compatible. But my question is, why buy these books that are going to be published if you already have the ones from 2014? Most of the content is already in the 2014 PHB. So you're buying the same book again, with a little lick of paint. Is the book going to sell better than if it actually had changes, or would it have sold worse if it weren't retro compatible? Well the truth is that it is difficult to say. But I think it will sell worse, and that it will be a commercial failure (in terms of what I expected a year ago with the announcement of a new edition).
you might not be the target audience. as i feel compelled to say each time i see it asked: there's a dnd anniversary coming up. someone sees value in a "new and improved" sticker to go beside the "50th!" sticker on some new print runs. seems like a bit of a gamble since they could easily just reprint the old 5e one more time. but big corporations aren't known for taking big risks (neither financially nor creatively). just assume the ROI works out to an influx of new warm bodies.
i feel like we're fortunate to get even this much this year. hope and speculation in this forum is fun but a diversion none the less. if you manage your expectations it doesn't have to feel overly bad. just another reminder that all the innovation is coming from the 3rd party content providers and small publishers, although their forums aren't as lively.
Yes, well, you are right. The problem is that they created the expectations. I mean, the changes in the first playtest were not a new edition, but they were deep enough to talk about a 5.5
All that has disappeared. and that's why I'm disappointed. Especially because of the way it has been given, and who they are listening to (which is the one who makes the most noise).
On the other hand, at least in my environment, a year ago everyone was very hopeful about the new edition. Now no one pays attention to the playtest, since they say they are not going to buy it. It is obviously a small sample. But if we extrapolate it, the failure can be epic.
Indeed, but then I wonder why they publish the books again? A new Tasha would have been enough. An add-on that slightly modifies the game.
If you make deep changes to the game, which in my opinion are necessary, many things cannot be backward compatible. I think that is clear. So what they are doing is simply reverting the proposed changes, and fixing little things here and there.
Is this a good decision? In my opinion it is a mistake. And I explain myself. They are reverting most of the changes because a lot of people threatened not to buy the new edition (or the revised edition, or whatever they want to call it) if it wasn't backwards compatible. But my question is, why buy these books that are going to be published if you already have the ones from 2014? Most of the content is already in the 2014 PHB. So you're buying the same book again, with a little lick of paint. Is the book going to sell better than if it actually had changes, or would it have sold worse if it weren't retro compatible? Well the truth is that it is difficult to say. But I think it will sell worse, and that it will be a commercial failure (in terms of what I expected a year ago with the announcement of a new edition).
you might not be the target audience. as i feel compelled to say each time i see it asked: there's a dnd anniversary coming up. someone sees value in a "new and improved" sticker to go beside the "50th!" sticker on some new print runs. seems like a bit of a gamble since they could easily just reprint the old 5e one more time. but big corporations aren't known for taking big risks (neither financially nor creatively). just assume the ROI works out to an influx of new warm bodies.
i feel like we're fortunate to get even this much this year. hope and speculation in this forum is fun but a diversion none the less. if you manage your expectations it doesn't have to feel overly bad. just another reminder that all the innovation is coming from the 3rd party content providers and small publishers, although their forums aren't as lively.
Yes, well, you are right. The problem is that they created the expectations. I mean, the changes in the first playtest were not a new edition, but they were deep enough to talk about a 5.5
All that has disappeared. and that's why I'm disappointed. Especially because of the way it has been given, and who they are listening to (which is the one who makes the most noise).
On the other hand, at least in my environment, a year ago everyone was very hopeful about the new edition. Now no one pays attention to the playtest, since they say they are not going to buy it. It is obviously a small sample. But if we extrapolate it, the failure can be epic.
I don't think we can extrapolate like that. I myself just wouldn't buy the new edition if it wasn't backwards compatible. I have some issues with 5e but almost all of them, if not all, are fixed in the last two playtests. I think the group that just wants to use 10 years of books is bigger than the group that won't buy the new 3 books because they don't add enough. Besides, the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide are a big part of the picture we just won't see until the books are out. The playtest is apparently just for the Handbook.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Indeed, but then I wonder why they publish the books again? A new Tasha would have been enough. An add-on that slightly modifies the game.
If you make deep changes to the game, which in my opinion are necessary, many things cannot be backward compatible. I think that is clear. So what they are doing is simply reverting the proposed changes, and fixing little things here and there.
Is this a good decision? In my opinion it is a mistake. And I explain myself. They are reverting most of the changes because a lot of people threatened not to buy the new edition (or the revised edition, or whatever they want to call it) if it wasn't backwards compatible. But my question is, why buy these books that are going to be published if you already have the ones from 2014? Most of the content is already in the 2014 PHB. So you're buying the same book again, with a little lick of paint. Is the book going to sell better than if it actually had changes, or would it have sold worse if it weren't retro compatible? Well the truth is that it is difficult to say. But I think it will sell worse, and that it will be a commercial failure (in terms of what I expected a year ago with the announcement of a new edition).
you might not be the target audience. as i feel compelled to say each time i see it asked: there's a dnd anniversary coming up. someone sees value in a "new and improved" sticker to go beside the "50th!" sticker on some new print runs. seems like a bit of a gamble since they could easily just reprint the old 5e one more time. but big corporations aren't known for taking big risks (neither financially nor creatively). just assume the ROI works out to an influx of new warm bodies.
i feel like we're fortunate to get even this much this year. hope and speculation in this forum is fun but a diversion none the less. if you manage your expectations it doesn't have to feel overly bad. just another reminder that all the innovation is coming from the 3rd party content providers and small publishers, although their forums aren't as lively.
Yes, well, you are right. The problem is that they created the expectations. I mean, the changes in the first playtest were not a new edition, but they were deep enough to talk about a 5.5
All that has disappeared. and that's why I'm disappointed. Especially because of the way it has been given, and who they are listening to (which is the one who makes the most noise).
On the other hand, at least in my environment, a year ago everyone was very hopeful about the new edition. Now no one pays attention to the playtest, since they say they are not going to buy it. It is obviously a small sample. But if we extrapolate it, the failure can be epic.
I don't think we can extrapolate like that. I myself just wouldn't buy the new edition if it wasn't backwards compatible. I have some issues with 5e but almost all of them, if not all, are fixed in the last two playtests. I think the group that just wants to use 10 years of books is bigger than the group that won't buy the new 3 books because they don't add enough. Besides, the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide are a big part of the picture we just won't see until the books are out. The playtest is apparently just for the Handbook.
I agree. I probably wouldn't buy the new edition if it wasn't backwards compatible. I am, however, genuinely curious as to what problems you had with 5e that have been fixed in the last two playtests. For the most part, it seems like they have doubled down on the existing problems with the game rather than fixing things. As a prime example, Pact of the Blade is now essentially crucial benefits of a Hexblade dip for the low cost of a single feat.
I agree. I probably wouldn't buy the new edition if it wasn't backwards compatible. I am, however, genuinely curious as to what problems you had with 5e that have been fixed in the last two playtests. For the most part, it seems like they have doubled down on the existing problems with the game rather than fixing things. As a prime example, Pact of the Blade is now essentially crucial benefits of a Hexblade dip for the low cost of a single feat.
Honestly Pact of the Blade should have had that feature from 2014 onwards. The new Player's Handbook playtest buffs things that were UP and nerfs things that were OP, while also fixing some glaring issues (invisibility still granting advantage even if they see you, weapons being basically the same between each other etc.). All in all, they were really going for the satisfaction you feel from using a class. Now no class, other than Monk, sucks to play in some way, and the Monk and Druid are coming in Playtest 8 I believe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Anyone else who would rather have the Hexblade patron than the Celestial?
The main reason most people played Hexblade is now baked into Pact of the Blade. They are probably not sure how to give it a unique identity given the change to Pact of the Blade.
I agree. I probably wouldn't buy the new edition if it wasn't backwards compatible. I am, however, genuinely curious as to what problems you had with 5e that have been fixed in the last two playtests. For the most part, it seems like they have doubled down on the existing problems with the game rather than fixing things. As a prime example, Pact of the Blade is now essentially crucial benefits of a Hexblade dip for the low cost of a single feat.
Honestly Pact of the Blade should have had that feature from 2014 onwards. The new Player's Handbook playtest buffs things that were UP and nerfs things that were OP, while also fixing some glaring issues (invisibility still granting advantage even if they see you, weapons being basically the same between each other etc.). All in all, they were really going for the satisfaction you feel from using a class. Now no class, other than Monk, sucks to play in some way, and the Monk and Druid are coming in Playtest 8 I believe.
Totally agree about Pact of the Blade and Invisibility. I disagree that no other class sucks to play. At low levels, I agree, but the Barbarian, as an example, still does not scale beyond level 10 really or 14 if it has a really cool subclass feature. Brutal Critical cripples t3 and t4 advancement for the class meaning you're still almost always going to be better off going 9 Barb/11 Fighter every time especially with the loss of unlimited rage.
Honestly, Battlemaster Fighter was largely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, martial build in the game and it rightfully got quite a few buffs, yet they are not even bringing the other martials up to the current Battlemaster's level. With the current playtest, an 11 Pact of the Blade Warlock with a 3 level dip into Draconic Sorcery Sorcerer is going to be as capable an unarmored melee combatant as a Barbarian at the same level, have spells to provide additional utility, and be an excellent face.
Anyone else who would rather have the Hexblade patron than the Celestial?
Meh; on the spell list side the smites are all niche relative to Eldritch Smite, particularly given that they use concentration, and honestly with Warlocks simply knowing the full Patron list it might be a bit much to give out that many. Shield is easy to get onto a build already and honestly not great with limited slots, and none of the others really jump out. AC is a little light, but it's easy to get Medium Armor and shield profs with the new feat even on a level 1 build, so the basic Gish components are all independently available now. Beyond that it's just a cursing class, so honestly if they want to carry that aspect forward they might want to just retool the flavor and spell list as they ditch the gish aspects of it. Either that or they need to just drop Blade as a Pact concept if they're going to dedicate a subclass to it, because otherwise the distribution of subclass features vs invocations gets wonky, as happened with Hexblade. Honestly, I'd rather they swapped Celestial out for Genie.
I like Celestial, since Arcane casters do typically lack healing.
Celestial PotB with the Lightly Armored feat is a pretty good gish. Magical Cunning appears to have been intended to replace the free casting of a Patron Spell they tried with the UA5 playtest. I'm not sure it works since it has that awful "if all your Pact Magic slots are expended" clause. Simply being to regain half your slots (rounded up) for a 1 minute ritual would be okay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fighter: Pretty satisfied. The new features are interesting. The changes to Eldritch Knight are awesome.
Only complaint is that Flex is gone.
Warlock: Overall satisfied. New features and revisions are good. GOO and Archfey got good improvements. Pact of Chain went back to it’s 2014 version with additional options Slaad Tadpole and a Skeleton.
Complaint’s: Dark One’s Blessing needs improvement something like what the Undead Warlock had. Was hoping it would be intelligence based not charisma. And they need to include an invocation for Pact of the Chain that increases the Familiar’s survivability and combat capabilities.
Wizard: Pretty satisfied. The subclasses are pretty good. The revised features are good.
Complaint’s: Necromancy wasn’t one of the subclasses. Modify Spell and Create Spell aren’t options.😢😋( I do hope WotC adds something similar to the DMG for all spell-caster classes so they can modify their own spells).
It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion of Playtest 7 is. Doesn't matter what's in the document, or what the design team has to say about any of it.
"The Community" is already in the process of pitching an Internet-wide overwhelming screaming tantrum about the thing, and within a few weeks' time it'll get thrown out and discarded completely, just like every other One D&D playtest so far.
I don't know why any of us who actually wanted this revision in the first place are even bothering anymore.
Please do not contact or message me.
I honestly don't understand what this playtest is for. There is almost nothing to test, almost everything is like 2014.
at level 3 while raging, the UA7 barbarian may make one of their barbarian skill checks as a Strength check. one of those skills is Perception.
therefore, i put forward that this playtest is for fans of cartoon wolves/coyotes who can now in-game grip their own protruding eyeballs and adjust them like binoculars to the fascination/horror of the rest of the party.
gotta give the people what they want.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I think a lot of changes that are being made to 5E are the wrong ones - dont get me wrong, hexblade multiclasses was terrifying, but I feel like the changes 5E needs, such as better options for unarmed combatants, streamlined spellcasting, more simple customisation such as eldritch invocations, and a reworking and balancing of classes that keeps the core themes alive were kinda missed in exchange for more spell complexity, less customisation, and stuff. and when things like the reworked druid and bard backfired (the druid stat block was a great idea but was done in the worst way) WOTC scrapped the changes, rather than being creative and consolidating what people wanted with what was needed for the class, as they have so little time before the core rules actually come out, and I feel kinda bad for the designers who have some great ideas but never work out how to apply them properly.
I'm also really really sad about Warlock losing the ability to chose ability scores at first level, I wish all classes could choose one out of two ability scores... like a Wisdom or Dexterity Monk, and a Wisdom or Charisma Cleric, or an Intelligence or Wisdom Wizard, or a Constitution or Strength Barbarian, and have features like attack damage scale off the chosen ability score... maybe some balance issues would happen for sure but I think that itd be really cool and also itd fix the front-loading of the hexblade and things like that
Resident Mushroom 🍄
Honestly, I consider that a plus. 1 extra damage per hit on average is not good value from a Mastery, and now Monks have access to Topple.
The difference between 3.0 and 3.5 back in the day was such that you couldn't play with two characters from different editions at all. The changes proposed for One were even bigger than anything 3.5 did, so, with time running ever shorter, I can see why they are basically just ironing out the nitpicks, considering their number one goal is backward compatibility. I am satisfied with that, although I would have liked to see some of the stuff that was axed, and will say so in the Survey.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Rather than creating my own thread, I'm just going to turn this into the "overall thoughts on UA7" Thread.
Regression, regression all around. Disappointment gives way to indifference. By now I'm pretty confident that it's shaping up to be 5e with the same old problems. But at least we got weapon masteries and cunning strikes. If they don't cut it for the sake of backwards compatibility, of course.
Indeed, but then I wonder why they publish the books again? A new Tasha would have been enough. An add-on that slightly modifies the game.
If you make deep changes to the game, which in my opinion are necessary, many things cannot be backward compatible. I think that is clear. So what they are doing is simply reverting the proposed changes, and fixing little things here and there.
Is this a good decision? In my opinion it is a mistake. And I explain myself. They are reverting most of the changes because a lot of people threatened not to buy the new edition (or the revised edition, or whatever they want to call it) if it wasn't backwards compatible. But my question is, why buy these books that are going to be published if you already have the ones from 2014? Most of the content is already in the 2014 PHB. So you're buying the same book again, with a little lick of paint. Is the book going to sell better than if it actually had changes, or would it have sold worse if it weren't retro compatible? Well the truth is that it is difficult to say. But I think it will sell worse, and that it will be a commercial failure (in terms of what I expected a year ago with the announcement of a new edition).
you might not be the target audience. as i feel compelled to say each time i see it asked: there's a dnd anniversary coming up. someone sees value in a "new and improved" sticker to go beside the "50th!" sticker on some new print runs. seems like a bit of a gamble since they could easily just reprint the old 5e one more time. but big corporations aren't known for taking big risks (neither financially nor creatively). just assume the ROI works out to an influx of new warm bodies.
i feel like we're fortunate to get even this much this year. hope and speculation in this forum is fun but a diversion none the less. if you manage your expectations it doesn't have to feel overly bad. just another reminder that all the innovation is coming from the 3rd party content providers and small publishers, although their forums aren't as lively.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Yes, well, you are right. The problem is that they created the expectations. I mean, the changes in the first playtest were not a new edition, but they were deep enough to talk about a 5.5
All that has disappeared. and that's why I'm disappointed. Especially because of the way it has been given, and who they are listening to (which is the one who makes the most noise).
On the other hand, at least in my environment, a year ago everyone was very hopeful about the new edition. Now no one pays attention to the playtest, since they say they are not going to buy it. It is obviously a small sample. But if we extrapolate it, the failure can be epic.
I don't think we can extrapolate like that. I myself just wouldn't buy the new edition if it wasn't backwards compatible. I have some issues with 5e but almost all of them, if not all, are fixed in the last two playtests. I think the group that just wants to use 10 years of books is bigger than the group that won't buy the new 3 books because they don't add enough. Besides, the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide are a big part of the picture we just won't see until the books are out. The playtest is apparently just for the Handbook.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
I agree. I probably wouldn't buy the new edition if it wasn't backwards compatible. I am, however, genuinely curious as to what problems you had with 5e that have been fixed in the last two playtests. For the most part, it seems like they have doubled down on the existing problems with the game rather than fixing things. As a prime example, Pact of the Blade is now essentially crucial benefits of a Hexblade dip for the low cost of a single feat.
Anyone else who would rather have the Hexblade patron than the Celestial?
Honestly Pact of the Blade should have had that feature from 2014 onwards. The new Player's Handbook playtest buffs things that were UP and nerfs things that were OP, while also fixing some glaring issues (invisibility still granting advantage even if they see you, weapons being basically the same between each other etc.). All in all, they were really going for the satisfaction you feel from using a class. Now no class, other than Monk, sucks to play in some way, and the Monk and Druid are coming in Playtest 8 I believe.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
The main reason most people played Hexblade is now baked into Pact of the Blade. They are probably not sure how to give it a unique identity given the change to Pact of the Blade.
Totally agree about Pact of the Blade and Invisibility. I disagree that no other class sucks to play. At low levels, I agree, but the Barbarian, as an example, still does not scale beyond level 10 really or 14 if it has a really cool subclass feature. Brutal Critical cripples t3 and t4 advancement for the class meaning you're still almost always going to be better off going 9 Barb/11 Fighter every time especially with the loss of unlimited rage.
Honestly, Battlemaster Fighter was largely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, martial build in the game and it rightfully got quite a few buffs, yet they are not even bringing the other martials up to the current Battlemaster's level. With the current playtest, an 11 Pact of the Blade Warlock with a 3 level dip into Draconic Sorcery Sorcerer is going to be as capable an unarmored melee combatant as a Barbarian at the same level, have spells to provide additional utility, and be an excellent face.
Meh; on the spell list side the smites are all niche relative to Eldritch Smite, particularly given that they use concentration, and honestly with Warlocks simply knowing the full Patron list it might be a bit much to give out that many. Shield is easy to get onto a build already and honestly not great with limited slots, and none of the others really jump out. AC is a little light, but it's easy to get Medium Armor and shield profs with the new feat even on a level 1 build, so the basic Gish components are all independently available now. Beyond that it's just a cursing class, so honestly if they want to carry that aspect forward they might want to just retool the flavor and spell list as they ditch the gish aspects of it. Either that or they need to just drop Blade as a Pact concept if they're going to dedicate a subclass to it, because otherwise the distribution of subclass features vs invocations gets wonky, as happened with Hexblade. Honestly, I'd rather they swapped Celestial out for Genie.
I like Celestial, since Arcane casters do typically lack healing.
Celestial PotB with the Lightly Armored feat is a pretty good gish. Magical Cunning appears to have been intended to replace the free casting of a Patron Spell they tried with the UA5 playtest. I'm not sure it works since it has that awful "if all your Pact Magic slots are expended" clause. Simply being to regain half your slots (rounded up) for a 1 minute ritual would be okay.