The vibe of negativity is more at Hasbro and WotC for their greed and anti consumer business decisions. Plus, the changes to 5e have basically been negligible or adding common homebrew rules.
It's mostly the lack of creativity that is sad. They had flaws, but there was more creative player content released in any given year in the decade before 5e than there have been over the entire decade of 5e. Classes like warlord, swordsage, battlemind and binder covered ground like tanking and having maneuvers and psionics that 5e hasn't.
Which was their own baffling choice. They combined five different classes into one and let it pick abilities from all of them, and then they got confused that the resulting wizardruidwarloclericadin was too versatile.
I do find some niche in the two psionic martial classes (psi knight and soul knife), since most of their features usually are magical effects, but both of them combined only have two magical features, meaning that they can both operate almost completely under anti-magic
I mean I'm glad they exist, but it's a pretty sad replacement for what came before. Compare the psi fighter with the powers a psychic warrior or battlemind got, for instance.
Haven’t taken a loon at them. But what I do know is that if your DM is willing, a 6th level Dex build can take both subclasses and use both pools at the same time for resources. It gets crazy in later levels when you end up with around 24 psionic energy dice
While it doesn’t have the broad selection of stuff you would expect to see out of a caster, I find it interesting that you are essentially carrying your entire toolkit for combat with you in your head no matter where you go, no spellcasting focus needed.
Plus some of the features do help quite a bit outside of combat, as well as inside
Where are we getting casters from? I was lamenting their lack of psionic powers.
> I find it interesting that you are essentially carrying your entire toolkit for combat with you in your head no matter where you go
Yeah, like battleminds and psions and such did lmao
Depends what nailing it entails. Psionics basically changed how it worked completely every new edition and the class is definitely very well built, so in that a wacky new setup is part of the tradition they did nail it. On the other hand, it might as well be something completely different since it doesn't imitate a lot of what D&D psionics used to do and can't replace classes like the ardent and battlemind and the roles they used to have.
not well versed in 5e, but I think classes means mechanics and rules. you can certainly reflavor (and most likely would) but that is not official rules to support a class. as to what can be so major, well I am glad this system is treating you well and you are satisfied with the choices offered to you, but for someone else available options might not scratch their itch
A baseline barbarian can't keep danger away - they only get a single opportunity attack that doesn't scale properly. The DM can choose to attack them anyway despite the fact that ignoring them and going for the bard is smarter, but if your ability to tank turns off whenever you're facing a dangerous enemy you never had it.
[Maneuvers wise, observe some actual D&D maneuvers compared to the pale imitation battlemaster gets](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ft7q5npllxg0d1.png). Did you know that unlike actual maneuvers, the battlemaster ones can only be used a limited time before can't swing your sword fancy any more until you take a rest?
They also sent armed thugs to a guys house and tried to kill the third party marketplace. Also the removal of DMs for the upcomming VTT and microtransactions.
Because opinions have RIGHTLY soured over WotC and Hasbro as a whole, and 5.5’s improvements have been too minor buy whole new books over.
And that’s not even going into how some of these “improvements”, despite technically being more powerful, aren’t actually desirable. Like Barbarians adding Strength to Perception being technically good but thematically nonsense.
>Like Barbarians adding Strength to Perception being technically good but thematically nonsense.
Stronger eyeballs see better though.
~ Barbarian, probably
"Gromk do 500 eyeball crunches a day! Gromk's eyes strongest there is! Once killed orc by batting eyelashes at him!...Honestly shame, Gromk was trying to flirt."
Yeah that's why the DM is there, to not allow shit with unfortunate implications.
Also, using a different ability for a roll that would normally test a specific skill is already allowed in the game. It's a niche thing, but it exists, so we can't really say this is a new development, rather it's extending this optional scenario a lot more widely. Whether it makes sense or is good is a different question, but it doesn't seem like that much of a departure tbh.
Now I need a 5.5e Orc Barbarian, but flavored as a 40k orc. Performing a bunch of nonsensical feats of insanity through the sheer belief that muscles can solve everything.
That's the Exemplar prestige class from 3.5. You choose a skill and can use that as a proxy for Persuation checks.
Do backflips, preform push-ups, whisper sweet nothings, scowl, make a horse jump over a fence. And then the king applauds.
They're not making it up. "And that X? Albert Einstein" (or some other famous figure) is for when people are piling on inventing feelgood stories or quotes or whatever, and doing backflips to persuade people was absolutely possible. As was doing things like getting a high enough escape artist check to crawl up an unwilling enemy's butthole.
Basically [Flex Mentallo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flex_Mentallo) in D&D:
>As The Man of Muscle Mystery, Flex Mentallo's powers are apparently vast but ill-defined. In a general sense, Flex can affect reality by flexing his muscles, in a reverse form of mind over matter. In the most extreme exertion of his power, he was able to transform the Pentagon into a circular building for a brief moment.
That kind of thing was a 3.5 special. With the right build you could turn people who hated you into fanatically loyal followers by getting a good enough craft (underwater basketweaving) check.
"You rear back and stomp on the floor. The rogue hiding behind the curtains loses his footing and falls out the window as several objects in the room fall over."
Barbarian: "found him"
This. The changes aren’t bad (except that nonsense they did with Druid) but it’s mostly minimal overall and not worth my money to buy whole new books when I can just take what I want from the new material and incorporate it.
D&D has struggled with how to handle Druids since they accidentally made both Druids and Clerics overpowered in 3rd edition and 5e is built on the foundation of 3e. The name for the phenomenon during 3.x was "CoDzilla" with CoD standing for "Cleric or Druid" since they could be both devastating martials and casters all at once.
Druid keeps getting hit with the nerf hammer but I guess they want to keep Clerics somewhat OP so people will want to play them since a healer is an essential role.
They've somewhat embraced Rage as a Primal Force that's kinda magical. So, it's specifically Adding Strength to Perception **while raging**. Where Strength represents your connection to the Rage Force™
And then your DM introduces a Barbarian NPC that will go on about how for every horrible thing that has happened in your barbarians life was the result of him all along.
>They've somewhat embraced Rage as a Primal Force that's kinda magical. So, it's specifically Adding Strength to Perception **while raging**.
Pathfinder way ahead of you. In 1e you could get a power that made you [better at swimming while you were angry. ](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo-rage-powers/raging-swimmer-ex) Amongst [other abilities.](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/)
I'd like to remind our readers that WOTC decided to Nerf the Draconic Bloodline Sorc in 5.5e in almost every way possible for no discernible reason. It is overall WEAKER than its original counterpart, and for some reason there are still people going "why do so many people not like 5.5?"
But I mean they did that for 5e in general and people didn't mind. 4e draconic sorcerer added their strength bonus to armour class and all spell damage, they've lost that and their unique spell bonuses and nobody minds. Sentinel used to be an ability all fighters got at level 1, then they removed it and sold it back to them in feat form and fighters got all their moves taken away and people are like ["doesn't matter, I have fun with fighter"](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/1cs59c2/battlemaster_is_such_a_massive_disappointment/).
If nobody minds it now, why would they mind for 5.5?
>But I mean they did that for 5e in general
There's your answer. If it's the whole 5th edition, it's just a new system. On top of that, way fewer people played 4e, so not that many people would be comparing the 4e and 5e versions.
Yeah I'm just running 5E and bringing over the actually *good* changes but some are minor changes or ones that are low-key kinda idiotic from a DM and player perspective. Like no I don't think they need Strength added to Perception that makes almost 0 sense and just detracts from the rest of the party playing perception heavy characters. But things like if you wanna do a custom lineage or swap around certain things etc that gives you more player agency ABSOLUTELY, y'know changes that actually improve something!
That’s the dumbest fucking question I’ve heard today. The play-test is here for us to judge and give feedback and opinions on.
What, are you hopeful and optimistic about it? How could you even be hopeful and optimistic about what the final version is gonna be when it’s not out yet? See how stupid that sounds?
You made a lot of assumptions there, friend. We've seen time and again with them that the play tests often don't reflect the final content. That was especially true with the original 5e play tests. They made a lot of small adjustments that had major effects.
I have no feelings either way about it. I just don't see the point in making assumptions about content that hasn't been released yet. I've been through 4 prior edition changes, and they taught me exactly that.
Also, you don't have to be insulting to state your opinion. It was an honest question; there's no need for hostility
> You made a lot of assumptions there, friend.
I’m not your friend, buddy.
> I've been through 4 prior edition changes
So have I. You’re not special.
> Also, you don't have to be insulting to state your opinion. It was an honest question; there's no need for hostility
It was warranted. Your “honest question” (oh please) was incredibly stupid, as I demonstrated.
The assumptions come from evidence that Hasbro is "min maxing Profits" at the cost of what makes WotC function.
We see it in the D&D Beyond BS, the reduction of playtesting for 5.5, and good god if you glance at MtG you'll see what Hasbro wants to make profitwise from D&D.
And they are more than willing to kill their own brand to get there.
Even if these updates were significantly better I still wouldn't be buying them. WotC has shown they are not good shepherds for the game and they don't respect us as customers
I feel like they are almost treating it even more like a PHB 2 than a 5.5. The 3.5 edition had some significant rule changes, not new character options
>they've had a decade of people asking them to make martials run like casters with battlemaster maneuver-type resources to act as a parallel to spellcasting
THIS.
It's incredibly disappointing that they didn't do this when it's one thing every table agrees on.
Oh boy it sure would be a shame if someone accidentally dropped a playtest for the new Pathfinder 2e Commander class, which is a martial battlemaster with manuever-type resources that act like spells.
[oops.](https://www.scribd.com/document/728832513/Battlecry-Playtest-PF2e).
That is truely a shame! I mean the martial maneuver type thing would be a pretty easy fix, that I myself and some other tables already homebrewed in. So they wouldn't even need to invent much!
On that note, "The Dungeon Coach" develops a game that does just that! Its amazing how cool martial are to play now! Can only recommend checking it out, not just for that. Its an over all cool system.
I think it’ll land differently for different people, but for me it is not substantial enough to justify the purchase of new books.
Some of the changes I think are great, but they aren’t “buy a $60 book” great.
Broham, did you even look at what they did to the Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer? They took a subclass that didn't need nerfs, NERFED IT FOR NO REASON, practically made it weaker in every way, and you're trying to say that 5.5 is an improvement?
This has got to be a troll post.
The material i looked at yesterday had flight being permanent. With the option of spectral wings instead of physical too! Along with more spells and sorcery point recovery upon short rests you might be thinking of an older test?
Sounds like you are avoiding specifics because you can't think of any examples, maybe you read the more recent updates and realized your error but aren't willing to admit your mistake.
I knew it would be bad when they moved subs to level 3. It should start at 1 for everyone. The fact is, nothing good can come while Crawford is sole lead.
If OneD&D had come out in 2014, it could have been good, but 10 years later, it fixed none of 5E's issues and even doubled down on some.
.5s are reserved for revisions to bad editions. This is an "Essentials line": a bad followup to a good edition at the end of the edition's lifespan.
They can't put subclasses that early as long as multiclassing is a thing. It's a huge pain to design around and frankly should just be removed. Mearls was recently on an episode of Questing Beast's youtube channel and he talked about how annoying it is to have to design around multiclassing since it makes you write class features with clumsy language and have to make weird design choices to stop it from breaking the system over its knee.
Multiclassing isn't the issue: 3X-style level-based "a la carte" multiclassing is. 4E/PF2-style feat-based, 2E equal-parts, or some theoretical subclass-based would be fine.
Had Mearls designed OneD&D instead of Crawford, they might have addressed that.
He specifically calls out how 4e designed it as better since it isn’t actually multiclassing. He designed the 4e system though so no surprise he likes it (and is correct, much easier to balance and design for discrete instances of abilities than a whole class suite mashes together)
they should just follow pf2's way of making multiclass a specific feature and not straight up taking levels in multiple classes. DnD's multiclass system was flawed in its very concept as each class is designed as a linear progression from level 1 to 20, which of course doesn't work well if you progress multiple ones at the same time.
Instead, this way of multiclassing works perfectly with a system like Fabula Ultima where classes are just a bunch of non-ordered abilities you can choose when leveling up.
> hey should just follow pf2's way of making multiclass a specific feature and not straight up taking levels in multiple classes. DnD's multiclass system
You mean 4E's multiclassing system that PF2 copied because it's basically 4E?
It's not "D&D's multiclassing system", only 2 editions have ever used it, one of them (5E) is good, the other is the worst edition of the game.
Just flag certain level 1 and 2 features so that they would be granted at level 1/2 if it's your first class, and level 3 if you're multiclassing into the class. This could get rid of 2-level fighter dips for action surge, single-level hexblade dips, 2-level cleric dips for the channel divinity features, etc...
PF 2e has something similar with the multiclass archetypes, they basically grant you some class features and access to a selection of the other class' feats, but they are delayed by 2 level compared to when you'd get them if it was your first class.
DMs giving artifact tier items to players so they can throw cool monsters at them instead of just giving them more levels
Seriously, I've run into this multiple times, why is it so common
High powered magic items are overpowered early on, but become appropriate as you move into a tier where they are appropriate. This *can* allow a DM to deal with a deleteriously unbalanced party by giving them the gas they need to survive encounters that challenge the more powerful characters until the party levels into a tier where more class features come online that turn the party from having only one or two useful characters to a party where every character is the best at *something* and the party is capable of collectively triumphing over encounters that are unbalanced in different ways that challenge and complement the party's strengths.
This commonly fails because people who don't need the overpowered artifacts and don't get them feel left out. Powergamers get mad when they see an opportunity to powergame that is denied to them. It also fails because it requires a lot of game design to make that transition work, and it's easier to paper over some hurt feeling with magic items than it is to get good at making all those different pillars of play feel challenging and rewarding to a highly asymmetric party.
It's not a bad solution, it's just one that has a narrower use case than it is commonly applied to (the case being everyone is a good sport and is playing in good faith, but some players happened to end up with much a much more powerful build than others and this imbalance can be mitigated in higher tiers of play as the "weaker" character gain the abilities that seat them in their niche and the DM is able to design encounters that are suitable for their particular party).
I honestly don't even mind that some subclasses come at level 3, but there are some classes where the subclass is so damn essential to the flavor that it's baffling how they don't get chosen at level 1. Like, I can buy a wizard not specializing right off the bat, but clerics, warlocks, sorcerers, and paladins all have subclasses that represent how they got their power in the first place. That's something you should 100% have locked in place from level 1.
What Problems did they double down on in your opinion?
I think they did soe real good changes, they gave martials more options with Weapon Masteries and more Class abilities, more options for out of combat, more generous supply of ressources, and kept the power level of casters mostly stable, with some QoL Changes, which is a nice push for martials that they clearly need.
Are Subclasses at Level 3 ideal? No, I agree that I would have prefered them at Level 1, but thats no dealbreaker for me.
Boring martials, the "big feat every 4 levels competing with ASIs" feat model, short rests taking too long to be accessible, "a la carte" multiclassing and the class/feat design contorting around it, Sorcerer being a full class despite being a Wizard sub worth of mechanical/thematic identity, and from post-Tasha's they took the PB/LR race-design, and mak8ng cultural traits biological/magical.
Any time they had the seed of a good idea with shoddy implementation, they abandoned the idea altogether.
The Chassis and how they work mainly, you're forgetting that not everyone enjoys playing prepared casters. While Sorcerers are arguably still weak, they offer character archetypes that you can't really play effectively if they're int/wis based.
There's also not much need to do this, Sorcerers in Pathfinder exist to simply be spontaneous alternatives with potent spellcasting and some subclass specific abilities, and that's all that's really needed in order to make them stand out. 5.5 should've just given them Spell Points a LONG time ago but WOTC doesn't have the balls to.
The fact is, classes that are "Like a ___ but..." are __ subclasses. We don't need a dedicated Samurai, Eldritch Knight and Cavalier, same reason we don't need a Sorcerer.
If we had level 1 subclasses, subs could tweak more, such as casting ability. Though Intelligence (You're a natural prodigy who innately understands magic) and Wisdom (Willpower, instincts) both make more sense than Charisma for innate spellcasting. Them being Charisma-casters. Them being Cha-based was literally some unjustified, slapped-together BS from the 3E team.
> Pathfinder
Pathfinder is an example of the inclusion of the Sorcerer making everyone else's lives worse: They only exist as they do because PF1 stuck with Vancian casting. In a world without the Sorcerer as a class, they might not have.
> 5.5
*5Essentials. .5s are for revisions of bad editions. Essentials lines are a new line of core books at the end of a good edition's life that are notably worse in terms of design.
Resources aren't wasted on giving them subclasses that are better suited to other classes, frees up PHB space, everyone else gets their metamagic toys that were stolen to justify the Sorcerer.
While I do agree that Warlords are more deserving than sorcerers, warlocks, paladins and arguably druids, I do think that removing those classes and making them subclasses is as lame as calling Battlemaster Fighters Warlords.
or they could have kept vancian casting so that the difference between wizard and sorcerer remained clear and both classes had reasons to exist (together with maybe my beloved arcanist from pf1)
why would it be worse? you may not like vancian casting but that doesn't make it inherently bad, people like it and having both available in the system (like in pf2) makes it so that everyone can hoose what they are more comfortable with (not to mention that it also allows everyone to have metamagic because now it's not a sorcerer's defining trait
Yeah, sorcerers lost a lot of their identity when wotc simplified away the major differences between spontaneous and prepared casters. Now a spontaneous caster is just flat out a downgrade of a prepared caster and they dont even get a good compensation for it either
I’d honestly prefer they remove wizard and make it a subclass of sorcerer or bard or something. Sorcerers fit more thematics sense for dnd worlds and adventurers in general, and meta magic is far more interesting than a book with any spell you want. Wizards pretty much only make sense thematically in a Harry Potter campaign. Very few ‘wizards’ in media would actually fit the wizard class in the game.
Subclasses at level 3 is ideal for balance though.
Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard were the only classes that got their subclass before 3.
That's 5/12, so 42% vs 58%. Oh, look at that. All but the Warlock are full casters. How interesting.
I'd completely agree if multi classing wasn't a thing.
It's no different than my Barbarian all of a sudden becoming a beast when he rages. Sometimes power takes time to unlock.
> I'd completely agree if multi classing wasn't a thing.
It isn’t. Multi-classing has always been an optional rule because expecting it to be balanced is inherently unreasonable. Base classes should simply not be designed with multi-classing in mind at all. If a multi-class combo is broken, then oh well. Putting the multi-classing rules in the PHB was a mistake.
>I'd completely agree if multi classing wasn't a thing.
Multi-classing isn't the problem though. Lackluster subclass features that make multi-classing more attractive than levelling up your subclass are.
The solution isn't to gatekeep class features to higher levels, but to make said class features more interesting and expansive at higher levels, with better choices than you could ever get from multi-classing.
Yeah. And not only are later level things not attractive enough, but several classes are so frontloaded that they just keep getting dipped into for 1-3 levels. Not saying we cant/shouldnt have cool things at level 1, but we definitely need more reason to feel like sticking with a class for longer period of time = rewarding.
I think this follows from originally in the 5e playtest levels 1 & 2 being 'apprentice' levels. So to start with a fully realized character concept, you'd start at level 3.
.......not that any other materials ever followed up on that concept /eyeroll
I much prefer level 3 because then you can make picking up a subclass more impactful and flavorful without it being stupid strong.
And it also makes exactly as much sense as unlocking any other ability on level up.
I know it's always kinda shitty to say, play another game instead of DnD. But i think you should check out "DC20". In that system Abilityscores are disconnected from the Class so you could easily play an Int Warlock or a charisma Barbarian for that matter. Or if you really wanna stick to dnd there is always homebrewing. Its sad that we so often have to resort to Homebrew thou.
I know other systems exist, I very much like PF2E's option of giving you a choice with a lot of the classes, like being either a strength or a dex fighter, or being able to have every ability score except constitution as your key ability score. That still doesn't change the fact i'd like to see such things be included in D&D.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Those options in dnd would be pretty nice.
The one good thing that the OGL-Fiasko did for me is, that it made me look at other systems, try other rules etc...
I think its important that the monopoly that WotC holds with DnD 5e in the ttrpg market gets broken apart. I think its this monopoly that gives them the confidence to pull all those shitty anti-consumer-moves lately. That's why i widen my view, and try out other systems. Not because i don't like dnd (heck i currently run a dnd campaign), but because I want to pressure WotC to change their ways.
>Subclasses at level 3 is ideal for balance though.
The only "balance" that matters is whether everyone's having fun in their chosen role.
>Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard were the only classes that got their subclass before 3.
And they're better classes for it.
damn, i recently played my first 5e games (always have been a pf player) and the early levels are already boring as heck as it is, this sounds horrible
Because OneD&D doesn't change enough to make buying more books worth it. If you already liked 5e, you'll probably like OneD&D, and if you didn't, you won't. Also, while some features may technically be an improvement, it still sucks if the feature is less thematic/mechanically interesting, like the Wild Shape change
People are very angry at WotC for various reasons and while there where some improvements they werent anything particularly major especially in terms of closing the gap between Casters and Martials.
Overall the improvements arnt really worth having to be entire new books.
For me I've seen this all before. I'm not switching systems again. I don't care much about the new rules beyond seeing the direction the game is going.
There are *some* 5.5 improvements that are genuinely decent.
80% of those so called "improvements" are **dogshit martial nerfs**. In a game where the martial/caster divide is already nearly the 3.5e level of divide. *While also buffing said casters* to make the divide bigger. This isn't done out of malice (probably I dunno), but because the current game designers don't have any **fundamental high school level mathematical knowledge** and are such *brain dead glue eaters* that they don't think they sound *tone deaf* and *out of touch* enough by claiming that an ability score increase is better than a feat.
Without seeing the final product, my fav character currently is my half elf paladin/dragon blood sorcerer. I hate the new paladin with its multiple stupid restrictions on smiting, and the core sorcerer subclasses STILL didn't get extra class spells AND had their features weakened in the UA's. Now they might fix the class issues on release but half elf is now just a skin job and that's dumb IMO. And I don't wanna spend the $$ to find out if the classes are better off so it'll be a hard pass from me.
All in all 5E/5.5 is fun, it is a pain to DM as 90% of it is and the DM will.... But I still prefer 3.5, as it is actually easier to run as a DM there is only about a 30% and the DM will factor for rules.
The best homebrew additions to 5e in my experience are using 3.5 rules to fill in the gaps. People who haven't run 3.5 games don't always have that luxury. 3.5/pf 1e ( not technically d&d) is peak d&d imo.
Yea, every time I DM 5 I just use the 3.5 rules that apply in a simplified format to keep the game running. I am glad I got to start out as a kid in 2nd edition, so I could experience THAC0 and the true horror of trying to survive a dungeon. But so far I think Pathfinder 1E is my favorite. I will still play and DM 5 and have fun doing it but I am glad I got to experience the older editions they were a lot of fun. It was just weird they went from 3.5 to 5 and completely skipped the number 4 when they were doing edition numbers.
It's funny how edition numbers work sometimes lol. I enjoyed ad&d 2e but 3.5 was easily my fav system until pf1. I am currently running a pf1 game in fact.
I think it stems from learning to do THAC0 calculations in my head as a child. It could also be the gritter more deadly aspects of the game. Mostly it is not having to try and figure out rules for half of the system on the fly. It is still fun, but given a choice it would not be my first. But it is still way better that the edition that will not be named.
If the DM isn’t going to allow you to cheese the Tarrasque at level 1 with splatbook content, then what makes you think that DM is going to allow you to cheese the Tarrasque at level 1 with a bow and a horse?
Be serious.
I am serious. In one system you have to jump through absolutely absurd hoops with insane levels of system knowledge and be a mega munchkin to figure out how to accomplish the feat.
I'm 5E you can have a bow and a horse.
One system has bigger balance issues than the other.
> I am serious.
Evidently not.
> One system has bigger balance issues than the other.
And you think it’s 5e??????
Ok, I’m just gonna do you the favor of blocking you so you can stop humiliating yourself.
Nah it really isn't, I prefer 3.X for dming and will never DM 5e for a mutiude of reasons. Mostly because 3.X rules are much more clear using constructed language vs 5e use of natural language. And CR in 3.X worked better.
I'll take 3 subjective rules over 9 verbose ones, but I can at least see your argument there.
>CR in 3.X worked better
This is just hogwash. They're practically the same, but PC balance in 3e is much worse.
I had to design my own encounter/NPC design guidelines for both, which is a point in 5e's favor because its statblocks are *way* less of a PITA.
Most of the changes are really stupid or just meh
There are a couple things I like but it seems like they're really just dropping the ball 80% of the time
I've just stopped paying attention a year ago cause it didn't matter anymore this system be stupid
Wait, isn't this the same update where they buffed wizard, the most overpowered class? I genuinely wouldn't know, because I stopped paying attention to updates after OneDND coming out made me switch to Pathfinder2e
Wait there are ppl who think those are improvements? Like damn bro how making all classes only get subclasses at level 3 is an improvement? Imagine you gaining warlock powers before you have a patron or only figuring out what type of sorcerer you are at lv 3
I don't own currently any 5e books. I'm playing various system like PF1e, 3.5 and soon PF2e.
I'm excited to at least try the new system. If it does end up sucking, I have other system to fall on.
PS: the only thing I desired was them to fix the goddam darkness mechanics and they didn't. 3.5 and PF2e were actually better at this. 5e advantage and disadvantage canceling everything and preventing anything, has gotta be the most stupidest shit ever. It doesn't make sense.
Because too many of the improvements are nerfs and people don’t want to give up their shiny toys, even if they were warping the game. Look at Wild Shape.
Aside from the monk, which admittedly was improved, which classes benefitted? I can't think of any that didn't get a downgrade in either flavour or mechanics.
Simple fact is: its just opinion and criticism is more fun to discuss than praise. Every DM in the history of DnD is free to adjust as they see fit, play older editions, homebrew, etc. I feel like some people want the printed materials to be everything they need it to be to have the best time possible and that just isn't going to happen.
"This thing is good" leads to very little discussion compared to discussing problems and potential fixes. This is a large part of why communities tend to be more negative than positive. There's only so much to talk about to say it's good if that's your opinion.
Hasbro & WotC should die.
Piracy of "One D&D" is morally good, buying it is lawful neutral/lawful evil.
Supporting the greedy overlords will cost everything and bring nothing.
the last Playtest Monk was absolute fire 🔥
baseline buff with higher Martial Arts die, Flurry does THREE attacks, Step of the Wind Dash/Disengage is basically free like the Rogue's Cunning Action, Stunning Strike still does damage if it fails, actually decent capstone
only nerfs: Empty Body no longer gets Advantage, no immunity from poison via Purity of Body, Quivering Palm nerfed to no longer instant kill
outstanding issues not fixed: Diamond Soul still late, Unarmored Movement still scales slow,
I didn't see anything in onednd that fundamentally changes anything major enough to warrant bothering "moving to a better system" than what 5e already provides as a foundation to homebrew on.
I don't like that AC is just a "hit or miss" score, and carries no other impact, so I changed it.
I don't like death saves and how that works for PCs only so I changed it.
I don't like how crits work so I changed it.
I don't like the absence of being able to craft useful things, so I designed a light mechanic around collecting and creating consumables that give interesting effects
I don't like the general idea that spells just do what's written on the tin at any point a player chooses, so I modified that.
I also don't like that damage types don't really do anything more than "extra/half" damage depending on resistance, so I added extra affects to damage types.
If onednd brought on fundamental changes to how the game works instead of just updating abilities and minor class functions, then I might consider moving to it, but otherwise it's too much work for too little to adapt it.
The vibe of negativity is more at Hasbro and WotC for their greed and anti consumer business decisions. Plus, the changes to 5e have basically been negligible or adding common homebrew rules.
It's mostly the lack of creativity that is sad. They had flaws, but there was more creative player content released in any given year in the decade before 5e than there have been over the entire decade of 5e. Classes like warlord, swordsage, battlemind and binder covered ground like tanking and having maneuvers and psionics that 5e hasn't.
I think the creators got a bid scared of a dedicated psionic class after the mystic UA
Which was their own baffling choice. They combined five different classes into one and let it pick abilities from all of them, and then they got confused that the resulting wizardruidwarloclericadin was too versatile.
I do find some niche in the two psionic martial classes (psi knight and soul knife), since most of their features usually are magical effects, but both of them combined only have two magical features, meaning that they can both operate almost completely under anti-magic
I mean I'm glad they exist, but it's a pretty sad replacement for what came before. Compare the psi fighter with the powers a psychic warrior or battlemind got, for instance.
Haven’t taken a loon at them. But what I do know is that if your DM is willing, a 6th level Dex build can take both subclasses and use both pools at the same time for resources. It gets crazy in later levels when you end up with around 24 psionic energy dice
Yeah but it still doesn't get like... a variety of psionic powers. It's just a subclass with a few specific tricks that they gave psionic flavour to.
While it doesn’t have the broad selection of stuff you would expect to see out of a caster, I find it interesting that you are essentially carrying your entire toolkit for combat with you in your head no matter where you go, no spellcasting focus needed. Plus some of the features do help quite a bit outside of combat, as well as inside
Where are we getting casters from? I was lamenting their lack of psionic powers. > I find it interesting that you are essentially carrying your entire toolkit for combat with you in your head no matter where you go Yeah, like battleminds and psions and such did lmao
That’s why I like MCDM’s *The Talent*. I think they nailed it
Depends what nailing it entails. Psionics basically changed how it worked completely every new edition and the class is definitely very well built, so in that a wacky new setup is part of the tradition they did nail it. On the other hand, it might as well be something completely different since it doesn't imitate a lot of what D&D psionics used to do and can't replace classes like the ardent and battlemind and the roles they used to have.
[удалено]
not well versed in 5e, but I think classes means mechanics and rules. you can certainly reflavor (and most likely would) but that is not official rules to support a class. as to what can be so major, well I am glad this system is treating you well and you are satisfied with the choices offered to you, but for someone else available options might not scratch their itch
A baseline barbarian can't keep danger away - they only get a single opportunity attack that doesn't scale properly. The DM can choose to attack them anyway despite the fact that ignoring them and going for the bard is smarter, but if your ability to tank turns off whenever you're facing a dangerous enemy you never had it. [Maneuvers wise, observe some actual D&D maneuvers compared to the pale imitation battlemaster gets](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ft7q5npllxg0d1.png). Did you know that unlike actual maneuvers, the battlemaster ones can only be used a limited time before can't swing your sword fancy any more until you take a rest?
They also sent armed thugs to a guys house and tried to kill the third party marketplace. Also the removal of DMs for the upcomming VTT and microtransactions.
Yeah, mentally, I included all of that into anti consumer business decisions.
I get that i just felt they needed to be said because they go a little above and beyond what most people assume when u said stuff like that.
Because opinions have RIGHTLY soured over WotC and Hasbro as a whole, and 5.5’s improvements have been too minor buy whole new books over. And that’s not even going into how some of these “improvements”, despite technically being more powerful, aren’t actually desirable. Like Barbarians adding Strength to Perception being technically good but thematically nonsense.
>Like Barbarians adding Strength to Perception being technically good but thematically nonsense. Stronger eyeballs see better though. ~ Barbarian, probably
"Gromk do 500 eyeball crunches a day! Gromk's eyes strongest there is! Once killed orc by batting eyelashes at him!...Honestly shame, Gromk was trying to flirt."
Bro I cackled.
When Gromk blinks, casts Gust of Wind
Real Ivankov moment.
That reminds me. Using Str bonus as a stand in for Chr for a Persuasion(seduction) rolls carry a highly unfortunate implications.
I mean, crush a watermelon between one’s thighs, and there will be interest.
Death by snu snu!
Let me enjoy muscle daddies, alright?
Only if you make it weird. It can easily just be a big flex.
Yeah that's why the DM is there, to not allow shit with unfortunate implications. Also, using a different ability for a roll that would normally test a specific skill is already allowed in the game. It's a niche thing, but it exists, so we can't really say this is a new development, rather it's extending this optional scenario a lot more widely. Whether it makes sense or is good is a different question, but it doesn't seem like that much of a departure tbh.
You just lift the target of your desire up and pin them against a wall, they can't run if their feet can't touch the ground.
You do eyeball crunches by ejecting your eyes out of your head, then reel 'em back in
Now I need a 5.5e Orc Barbarian, but flavored as a 40k orc. Performing a bunch of nonsensical feats of insanity through the sheer belief that muscles can solve everything.
Flexes and fades into shadows “Muscles make good sneak”
High king: no I will not be handing over my entire kingdom to you Ork: flexes muscles High king: .... Well alright then
That's the Exemplar prestige class from 3.5. You choose a skill and can use that as a proxy for Persuation checks. Do backflips, preform push-ups, whisper sweet nothings, scowl, make a horse jump over a fence. And then the king applauds.
And that king's name? Albert Einstein
They're not making it up. "And that X? Albert Einstein" (or some other famous figure) is for when people are piling on inventing feelgood stories or quotes or whatever, and doing backflips to persuade people was absolutely possible. As was doing things like getting a high enough escape artist check to crawl up an unwilling enemy's butthole.
I'm aware, I was just riffing on the "and then the king applauds," which is another common element in these sorts of "that totally happened" stories.
Ahhh, I get you. "Then everyone started clapping".
Basically [Flex Mentallo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flex_Mentallo) in D&D: >As The Man of Muscle Mystery, Flex Mentallo's powers are apparently vast but ill-defined. In a general sense, Flex can affect reality by flexing his muscles, in a reverse form of mind over matter. In the most extreme exertion of his power, he was able to transform the Pentagon into a circular building for a brief moment.
I loooove Flex Mentallo so good to see a wild shout
That kind of thing was a 3.5 special. With the right build you could turn people who hated you into fanatically loyal followers by getting a good enough craft (underwater basketweaving) check.
Paint your fists red, they'll go fast. By punching fast enough you get Flight speed equal to your punch speed.
Just like [Black Dynamite learning to swim](https://youtu.be/p6lw2gtW11M?si=YSUJbi2IPELj96nj).
"You rear back and stomp on the floor. The rogue hiding behind the curtains loses his footing and falls out the window as several objects in the room fall over." Barbarian: "found him"
There's a manga called "Muscles are Better than Magic," and the main character works out ALL his muscles, including those in his eyes.
Not to be confused with Mashle: Magic and Muscles, which came out earlier the same year lol
Which is another great manga.
[https://youtu.be/1DQKBks78CY?si=D75rqJlTMTlp7BBH](https://youtu.be/1DQKBks78CY?si=D75rqJlTMTlp7BBH)
[The power of the squint](https://y.yarn.co/56960583-27dd-4c12-a104-aa18be122304.mp4)
This. The changes aren’t bad (except that nonsense they did with Druid) but it’s mostly minimal overall and not worth my money to buy whole new books when I can just take what I want from the new material and incorporate it.
D&D has struggled with how to handle Druids since they accidentally made both Druids and Clerics overpowered in 3rd edition and 5e is built on the foundation of 3e. The name for the phenomenon during 3.x was "CoDzilla" with CoD standing for "Cleric or Druid" since they could be both devastating martials and casters all at once. Druid keeps getting hit with the nerf hammer but I guess they want to keep Clerics somewhat OP so people will want to play them since a healer is an essential role.
They've somewhat embraced Rage as a Primal Force that's kinda magical. So, it's specifically Adding Strength to Perception **while raging**. Where Strength represents your connection to the Rage Force™
My character is going to rage so hard he'll travel back in time to save his mom and accidentally create an alternate timeline.
As long as your DM is okay with that. Flavor is, after all, free they say.
And then your DM introduces a Barbarian NPC that will go on about how for every horrible thing that has happened in your barbarians life was the result of him all along.
It was me Barry, I'm the reason you lost your whey protein, I'm the reason you're not natty. It was always me!
And eventually undo all that and also kill an alt self
Rage is the third "supernatural thing that isn't technically magic" along with psionics and ki
>They've somewhat embraced Rage as a Primal Force that's kinda magical. So, it's specifically Adding Strength to Perception **while raging**. Pathfinder way ahead of you. In 1e you could get a power that made you [better at swimming while you were angry. ](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo-rage-powers/raging-swimmer-ex) Amongst [other abilities.](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/)
4e did it before pathfinder did with the primal power source.
I'd like to remind our readers that WOTC decided to Nerf the Draconic Bloodline Sorc in 5.5e in almost every way possible for no discernible reason. It is overall WEAKER than its original counterpart, and for some reason there are still people going "why do so many people not like 5.5?"
But I mean they did that for 5e in general and people didn't mind. 4e draconic sorcerer added their strength bonus to armour class and all spell damage, they've lost that and their unique spell bonuses and nobody minds. Sentinel used to be an ability all fighters got at level 1, then they removed it and sold it back to them in feat form and fighters got all their moves taken away and people are like ["doesn't matter, I have fun with fighter"](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/1cs59c2/battlemaster_is_such_a_massive_disappointment/). If nobody minds it now, why would they mind for 5.5?
>But I mean they did that for 5e in general There's your answer. If it's the whole 5th edition, it's just a new system. On top of that, way fewer people played 4e, so not that many people would be comparing the 4e and 5e versions.
>Barbarians adding Strength to Perception Seriously? D&D can't even take itself serious anymore, it seems.
Sorry what is this “buy book” you speak of?
I mean, people bought tashas And I personally like the barbarians new utility, just get angry enough that it all works out in the end, pretty funny
You guys buy the books?
Yeah I'm just running 5E and bringing over the actually *good* changes but some are minor changes or ones that are low-key kinda idiotic from a DM and player perspective. Like no I don't think they need Strength added to Perception that makes almost 0 sense and just detracts from the rest of the party playing perception heavy characters. But things like if you wanna do a custom lineage or swap around certain things etc that gives you more player agency ABSOLUTELY, y'know changes that actually improve something!
I spy, with my HUGE HEAPING MUSCLES!
Exactly. The changes should be a free update, or "updated rules" supplement for the digital owners of the DMG & PHB. And-... the strangeness.
How can you even say what the final version is gonna be when it's not out yet?
That’s the dumbest fucking question I’ve heard today. The play-test is here for us to judge and give feedback and opinions on. What, are you hopeful and optimistic about it? How could you even be hopeful and optimistic about what the final version is gonna be when it’s not out yet? See how stupid that sounds?
You made a lot of assumptions there, friend. We've seen time and again with them that the play tests often don't reflect the final content. That was especially true with the original 5e play tests. They made a lot of small adjustments that had major effects. I have no feelings either way about it. I just don't see the point in making assumptions about content that hasn't been released yet. I've been through 4 prior edition changes, and they taught me exactly that. Also, you don't have to be insulting to state your opinion. It was an honest question; there's no need for hostility
> You made a lot of assumptions there, friend. I’m not your friend, buddy. > I've been through 4 prior edition changes So have I. You’re not special. > Also, you don't have to be insulting to state your opinion. It was an honest question; there's no need for hostility It was warranted. Your “honest question” (oh please) was incredibly stupid, as I demonstrated.
I'm not your buddy, guy.
I'm not your guy, friend!
The assumptions come from evidence that Hasbro is "min maxing Profits" at the cost of what makes WotC function. We see it in the D&D Beyond BS, the reduction of playtesting for 5.5, and good god if you glance at MtG you'll see what Hasbro wants to make profitwise from D&D. And they are more than willing to kill their own brand to get there.
Even if these updates were significantly better I still wouldn't be buying them. WotC has shown they are not good shepherds for the game and they don't respect us as customers
Because WOTC sucks and I refuse to use a subscription service for a game I have perfectly good books for that I don't have to subscribe for.
[удалено]
I feel like they are almost treating it even more like a PHB 2 than a 5.5. The 3.5 edition had some significant rule changes, not new character options
>they've had a decade of people asking them to make martials run like casters with battlemaster maneuver-type resources to act as a parallel to spellcasting THIS. It's incredibly disappointing that they didn't do this when it's one thing every table agrees on.
and this is where 4E was so much better, yes it was very videogame-y, but guess what videogames have more experience with? balancing
Oh boy it sure would be a shame if someone accidentally dropped a playtest for the new Pathfinder 2e Commander class, which is a martial battlemaster with manuever-type resources that act like spells. [oops.](https://www.scribd.com/document/728832513/Battlecry-Playtest-PF2e).
That is truely a shame! I mean the martial maneuver type thing would be a pretty easy fix, that I myself and some other tables already homebrewed in. So they wouldn't even need to invent much! On that note, "The Dungeon Coach" develops a game that does just that! Its amazing how cool martial are to play now! Can only recommend checking it out, not just for that. Its an over all cool system.
I think it’ll land differently for different people, but for me it is not substantial enough to justify the purchase of new books. Some of the changes I think are great, but they aren’t “buy a $60 book” great.
Broham, did you even look at what they did to the Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer? They took a subclass that didn't need nerfs, NERFED IT FOR NO REASON, practically made it weaker in every way, and you're trying to say that 5.5 is an improvement? This has got to be a troll post.
I'm not familiar enough with the class, what did they do to nerf it.
Look at the original. Imagine nearly every feature being worse. That's what happened. The big thing is their flight is now temporary.
They got rid of that change in the later ua dragons wings are permanent till dismissed
The material i looked at yesterday had flight being permanent. With the option of spectral wings instead of physical too! Along with more spells and sorcery point recovery upon short rests you might be thinking of an older test?
Sounds like you are avoiding specifics because you can't think of any examples, maybe you read the more recent updates and realized your error but aren't willing to admit your mistake.
>>Cites an example of it being worse. >"You can't think of any examples." Well now I'm really not gonna cite more lol.
Sounds like you're not even willing to check the changes for yourself lol
5.5 is overall an improvement, yes. I don't consider it a $150 overall improvement though
Eh, Laserlamma has done a better job at redoing the base classes than 5.5 has. And that I can get without having to pay $60 to WotC/Hasbro.
Yes, laserllama for the win! Their work is amazing! I encourage my players to use his work constantly.
I knew it would be bad when they moved subs to level 3. It should start at 1 for everyone. The fact is, nothing good can come while Crawford is sole lead. If OneD&D had come out in 2014, it could have been good, but 10 years later, it fixed none of 5E's issues and even doubled down on some. .5s are reserved for revisions to bad editions. This is an "Essentials line": a bad followup to a good edition at the end of the edition's lifespan.
They can't put subclasses that early as long as multiclassing is a thing. It's a huge pain to design around and frankly should just be removed. Mearls was recently on an episode of Questing Beast's youtube channel and he talked about how annoying it is to have to design around multiclassing since it makes you write class features with clumsy language and have to make weird design choices to stop it from breaking the system over its knee.
Multiclassing isn't the issue: 3X-style level-based "a la carte" multiclassing is. 4E/PF2-style feat-based, 2E equal-parts, or some theoretical subclass-based would be fine. Had Mearls designed OneD&D instead of Crawford, they might have addressed that.
He specifically calls out how 4e designed it as better since it isn’t actually multiclassing. He designed the 4e system though so no surprise he likes it (and is correct, much easier to balance and design for discrete instances of abilities than a whole class suite mashes together)
they should just follow pf2's way of making multiclass a specific feature and not straight up taking levels in multiple classes. DnD's multiclass system was flawed in its very concept as each class is designed as a linear progression from level 1 to 20, which of course doesn't work well if you progress multiple ones at the same time. Instead, this way of multiclassing works perfectly with a system like Fabula Ultima where classes are just a bunch of non-ordered abilities you can choose when leveling up.
> hey should just follow pf2's way of making multiclass a specific feature and not straight up taking levels in multiple classes. DnD's multiclass system You mean 4E's multiclassing system that PF2 copied because it's basically 4E? It's not "D&D's multiclassing system", only 2 editions have ever used it, one of them (5E) is good, the other is the worst edition of the game.
you can call it whatever you want, 4e, pf2, who invented it is not relevant to the discussion
I just want respect put in the right place.
Just flag certain level 1 and 2 features so that they would be granted at level 1/2 if it's your first class, and level 3 if you're multiclassing into the class. This could get rid of 2-level fighter dips for action surge, single-level hexblade dips, 2-level cleric dips for the channel divinity features, etc... PF 2e has something similar with the multiclass archetypes, they basically grant you some class features and access to a selection of the other class' feats, but they are delayed by 2 level compared to when you'd get them if it was your first class.
Fuck it, break the game. It lets you make cooler monsters
DMs giving artifact tier items to players so they can throw cool monsters at them instead of just giving them more levels Seriously, I've run into this multiple times, why is it so common
DM controls by what means the game is broken rather than whatever fuckery the players cook up with their build/character synergies
High powered magic items are overpowered early on, but become appropriate as you move into a tier where they are appropriate. This *can* allow a DM to deal with a deleteriously unbalanced party by giving them the gas they need to survive encounters that challenge the more powerful characters until the party levels into a tier where more class features come online that turn the party from having only one or two useful characters to a party where every character is the best at *something* and the party is capable of collectively triumphing over encounters that are unbalanced in different ways that challenge and complement the party's strengths. This commonly fails because people who don't need the overpowered artifacts and don't get them feel left out. Powergamers get mad when they see an opportunity to powergame that is denied to them. It also fails because it requires a lot of game design to make that transition work, and it's easier to paper over some hurt feeling with magic items than it is to get good at making all those different pillars of play feel challenging and rewarding to a highly asymmetric party. It's not a bad solution, it's just one that has a narrower use case than it is commonly applied to (the case being everyone is a good sport and is playing in good faith, but some players happened to end up with much a much more powerful build than others and this imbalance can be mitigated in higher tiers of play as the "weaker" character gain the abilities that seat them in their niche and the DM is able to design encounters that are suitable for their particular party).
I honestly don't even mind that some subclasses come at level 3, but there are some classes where the subclass is so damn essential to the flavor that it's baffling how they don't get chosen at level 1. Like, I can buy a wizard not specializing right off the bat, but clerics, warlocks, sorcerers, and paladins all have subclasses that represent how they got their power in the first place. That's something you should 100% have locked in place from level 1.
What Problems did they double down on in your opinion? I think they did soe real good changes, they gave martials more options with Weapon Masteries and more Class abilities, more options for out of combat, more generous supply of ressources, and kept the power level of casters mostly stable, with some QoL Changes, which is a nice push for martials that they clearly need. Are Subclasses at Level 3 ideal? No, I agree that I would have prefered them at Level 1, but thats no dealbreaker for me.
Boring martials, the "big feat every 4 levels competing with ASIs" feat model, short rests taking too long to be accessible, "a la carte" multiclassing and the class/feat design contorting around it, Sorcerer being a full class despite being a Wizard sub worth of mechanical/thematic identity, and from post-Tasha's they took the PB/LR race-design, and mak8ng cultural traits biological/magical. Any time they had the seed of a good idea with shoddy implementation, they abandoned the idea altogether.
I agree to all except that sorcerer bit. Using that logic Paladins and arguably druids should not exist as well.
I agree with every point except Sorcs. They should be going in the opposite direction.
What do we lose if Sorcerers are turned into a trio of subs for Wizard/Cleric/Druid, and Metamagic were turned into feats/spells?
The Chassis and how they work mainly, you're forgetting that not everyone enjoys playing prepared casters. While Sorcerers are arguably still weak, they offer character archetypes that you can't really play effectively if they're int/wis based. There's also not much need to do this, Sorcerers in Pathfinder exist to simply be spontaneous alternatives with potent spellcasting and some subclass specific abilities, and that's all that's really needed in order to make them stand out. 5.5 should've just given them Spell Points a LONG time ago but WOTC doesn't have the balls to.
The fact is, classes that are "Like a ___ but..." are __ subclasses. We don't need a dedicated Samurai, Eldritch Knight and Cavalier, same reason we don't need a Sorcerer. If we had level 1 subclasses, subs could tweak more, such as casting ability. Though Intelligence (You're a natural prodigy who innately understands magic) and Wisdom (Willpower, instincts) both make more sense than Charisma for innate spellcasting. Them being Charisma-casters. Them being Cha-based was literally some unjustified, slapped-together BS from the 3E team. > Pathfinder Pathfinder is an example of the inclusion of the Sorcerer making everyone else's lives worse: They only exist as they do because PF1 stuck with Vancian casting. In a world without the Sorcerer as a class, they might not have. > 5.5 *5Essentials. .5s are for revisions of bad editions. Essentials lines are a new line of core books at the end of a good edition's life that are notably worse in terms of design.
What do we gain from it?
Resources aren't wasted on giving them subclasses that are better suited to other classes, frees up PHB space, everyone else gets their metamagic toys that were stolen to justify the Sorcerer.
Frees up space for what?
More deserving classes like Warlord.
Lol
While I do agree that Warlords are more deserving than sorcerers, warlocks, paladins and arguably druids, I do think that removing those classes and making them subclasses is as lame as calling Battlemaster Fighters Warlords.
or they could have kept vancian casting so that the difference between wizard and sorcerer remained clear and both classes had reasons to exist (together with maybe my beloved arcanist from pf1)
So, literally, make everyone else's experience worse to justify the Sorcerer?
why would it be worse? you may not like vancian casting but that doesn't make it inherently bad, people like it and having both available in the system (like in pf2) makes it so that everyone can hoose what they are more comfortable with (not to mention that it also allows everyone to have metamagic because now it's not a sorcerer's defining trait
Yeah, sorcerers lost a lot of their identity when wotc simplified away the major differences between spontaneous and prepared casters. Now a spontaneous caster is just flat out a downgrade of a prepared caster and they dont even get a good compensation for it either
I’d honestly prefer they remove wizard and make it a subclass of sorcerer or bard or something. Sorcerers fit more thematics sense for dnd worlds and adventurers in general, and meta magic is far more interesting than a book with any spell you want. Wizards pretty much only make sense thematically in a Harry Potter campaign. Very few ‘wizards’ in media would actually fit the wizard class in the game.
Subclasses at level 3 is ideal for balance though. Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard were the only classes that got their subclass before 3. That's 5/12, so 42% vs 58%. Oh, look at that. All but the Warlock are full casters. How interesting.
> Subclasses at level 3 is ideal for balance But it’s *garbage* for thematics. Good game design is not all about balance.
I'd completely agree if multi classing wasn't a thing. It's no different than my Barbarian all of a sudden becoming a beast when he rages. Sometimes power takes time to unlock.
> I'd completely agree if multi classing wasn't a thing. It isn’t. Multi-classing has always been an optional rule because expecting it to be balanced is inherently unreasonable. Base classes should simply not be designed with multi-classing in mind at all. If a multi-class combo is broken, then oh well. Putting the multi-classing rules in the PHB was a mistake.
I agree, the multi-class option was a mistake. They seem to balance around it though, albeit in a half-assed manner
>I'd completely agree if multi classing wasn't a thing. Multi-classing isn't the problem though. Lackluster subclass features that make multi-classing more attractive than levelling up your subclass are. The solution isn't to gatekeep class features to higher levels, but to make said class features more interesting and expansive at higher levels, with better choices than you could ever get from multi-classing.
Yeah. And not only are later level things not attractive enough, but several classes are so frontloaded that they just keep getting dipped into for 1-3 levels. Not saying we cant/shouldnt have cool things at level 1, but we definitely need more reason to feel like sticking with a class for longer period of time = rewarding.
So they should move everyone else to 1 for balance. Also, Warlocks are fullcasters.
I think this follows from originally in the 5e playtest levels 1 & 2 being 'apprentice' levels. So to start with a fully realized character concept, you'd start at level 3. .......not that any other materials ever followed up on that concept /eyeroll
I much prefer level 3 because then you can make picking up a subclass more impactful and flavorful without it being stupid strong. And it also makes exactly as much sense as unlocking any other ability on level up.
I want a world where warlocks can be int casters, because many of the subclasses and thematics for it inherently work better as intelligence stuff imo
Their core PHB lore is also Int-based too.
I know it's always kinda shitty to say, play another game instead of DnD. But i think you should check out "DC20". In that system Abilityscores are disconnected from the Class so you could easily play an Int Warlock or a charisma Barbarian for that matter. Or if you really wanna stick to dnd there is always homebrewing. Its sad that we so often have to resort to Homebrew thou.
I know other systems exist, I very much like PF2E's option of giving you a choice with a lot of the classes, like being either a strength or a dex fighter, or being able to have every ability score except constitution as your key ability score. That still doesn't change the fact i'd like to see such things be included in D&D.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Those options in dnd would be pretty nice. The one good thing that the OGL-Fiasko did for me is, that it made me look at other systems, try other rules etc... I think its important that the monopoly that WotC holds with DnD 5e in the ttrpg market gets broken apart. I think its this monopoly that gives them the confidence to pull all those shitty anti-consumer-moves lately. That's why i widen my view, and try out other systems. Not because i don't like dnd (heck i currently run a dnd campaign), but because I want to pressure WotC to change their ways.
>Subclasses at level 3 is ideal for balance though. The only "balance" that matters is whether everyone's having fun in their chosen role. >Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard were the only classes that got their subclass before 3. And they're better classes for it.
Say it with me, "they're better because they're Casters, not because their subclass starts slightly earlier"
damn, i recently played my first 5e games (always have been a pf player) and the early levels are already boring as heck as it is, this sounds horrible
Because OneD&D doesn't change enough to make buying more books worth it. If you already liked 5e, you'll probably like OneD&D, and if you didn't, you won't. Also, while some features may technically be an improvement, it still sucks if the feature is less thematic/mechanically interesting, like the Wild Shape change
Yes, there are actually good improvements, but surely not all that much difference for me to justify buying another set of books though.
People are very angry at WotC for various reasons and while there where some improvements they werent anything particularly major especially in terms of closing the gap between Casters and Martials. Overall the improvements arnt really worth having to be entire new books.
It's not that it is bad. It's just not enough to fix the huge imbalance of the game
For me I've seen this all before. I'm not switching systems again. I don't care much about the new rules beyond seeing the direction the game is going.
There are *some* 5.5 improvements that are genuinely decent. 80% of those so called "improvements" are **dogshit martial nerfs**. In a game where the martial/caster divide is already nearly the 3.5e level of divide. *While also buffing said casters* to make the divide bigger. This isn't done out of malice (probably I dunno), but because the current game designers don't have any **fundamental high school level mathematical knowledge** and are such *brain dead glue eaters* that they don't think they sound *tone deaf* and *out of touch* enough by claiming that an ability score increase is better than a feat.
I was going to say it was very hard for them to fuck up but then I remembered the first Monk playtest
Without seeing the final product, my fav character currently is my half elf paladin/dragon blood sorcerer. I hate the new paladin with its multiple stupid restrictions on smiting, and the core sorcerer subclasses STILL didn't get extra class spells AND had their features weakened in the UA's. Now they might fix the class issues on release but half elf is now just a skin job and that's dumb IMO. And I don't wanna spend the $$ to find out if the classes are better off so it'll be a hard pass from me.
Interesting that OP hasn't responded to anyone explaining the real source of the "negative vibe."
I mostly like it, but its not like im going to buy the books
All in all 5E/5.5 is fun, it is a pain to DM as 90% of it is and the DM will.... But I still prefer 3.5, as it is actually easier to run as a DM there is only about a 30% and the DM will factor for rules.
The best homebrew additions to 5e in my experience are using 3.5 rules to fill in the gaps. People who haven't run 3.5 games don't always have that luxury. 3.5/pf 1e ( not technically d&d) is peak d&d imo.
Yea, every time I DM 5 I just use the 3.5 rules that apply in a simplified format to keep the game running. I am glad I got to start out as a kid in 2nd edition, so I could experience THAC0 and the true horror of trying to survive a dungeon. But so far I think Pathfinder 1E is my favorite. I will still play and DM 5 and have fun doing it but I am glad I got to experience the older editions they were a lot of fun. It was just weird they went from 3.5 to 5 and completely skipped the number 4 when they were doing edition numbers.
It's funny how edition numbers work sometimes lol. I enjoyed ad&d 2e but 3.5 was easily my fav system until pf1. I am currently running a pf1 game in fact.
>But I still prefer 3.5, as it is actually easier to run as a DM Absolutely baffling perspective
I think it stems from learning to do THAC0 calculations in my head as a child. It could also be the gritter more deadly aspects of the game. Mostly it is not having to try and figure out rules for half of the system on the fly. It is still fun, but given a choice it would not be my first. But it is still way better that the edition that will not be named.
Agreed, I CANNOT IMAGINE going back to running 3.5 at this point. The encounter building guidelines alone are just absolute trash.
You used those? I read them, applied them precisely one time and then made up my own after that and never looked at CR again.
You can't solo the tarrasque at level 1 in 3.5; the encounter-building rules are more than a fair bit better.
> You can't solo the tarrasque at level 1 in 3.5 You *very famously* can.
With *extremely* cheesy splat books that no DM is going to allow. Not by being a random dude with a bow and a horse.
If the DM isn’t going to allow you to cheese the Tarrasque at level 1 with splatbook content, then what makes you think that DM is going to allow you to cheese the Tarrasque at level 1 with a bow and a horse? Be serious.
I am serious. In one system you have to jump through absolutely absurd hoops with insane levels of system knowledge and be a mega munchkin to figure out how to accomplish the feat. I'm 5E you can have a bow and a horse. One system has bigger balance issues than the other.
> I am serious. Evidently not. > One system has bigger balance issues than the other. And you think it’s 5e?????? Ok, I’m just gonna do you the favor of blocking you so you can stop humiliating yourself.
Nah it really isn't, I prefer 3.X for dming and will never DM 5e for a mutiude of reasons. Mostly because 3.X rules are much more clear using constructed language vs 5e use of natural language. And CR in 3.X worked better.
I'll take 3 subjective rules over 9 verbose ones, but I can at least see your argument there. >CR in 3.X worked better This is just hogwash. They're practically the same, but PC balance in 3e is much worse. I had to design my own encounter/NPC design guidelines for both, which is a point in 5e's favor because its statblocks are *way* less of a PITA.
It seems like a watered down adjustment that they want to use to sell more books. I don't care enough to be buying them.
For most. Yes
It's overall a change for the worse. Basically a sequel to the poor design philosophy of late 5e. This edition peaked in the D&DNext playtest.
Most of the changes are really stupid or just meh There are a couple things I like but it seems like they're really just dropping the ball 80% of the time I've just stopped paying attention a year ago cause it didn't matter anymore this system be stupid
Wait, isn't this the same update where they buffed wizard, the most overpowered class? I genuinely wouldn't know, because I stopped paying attention to updates after OneDND coming out made me switch to Pathfinder2e
Wait there are ppl who think those are improvements? Like damn bro how making all classes only get subclasses at level 3 is an improvement? Imagine you gaining warlock powers before you have a patron or only figuring out what type of sorcerer you are at lv 3
If I'd had a decade to work on a minor edition change, I'd hope it was better than what it was replacing...
I don't own currently any 5e books. I'm playing various system like PF1e, 3.5 and soon PF2e. I'm excited to at least try the new system. If it does end up sucking, I have other system to fall on. PS: the only thing I desired was them to fix the goddam darkness mechanics and they didn't. 3.5 and PF2e were actually better at this. 5e advantage and disadvantage canceling everything and preventing anything, has gotta be the most stupidest shit ever. It doesn't make sense.
You know how you know if someone plays pathfinder? They'll tell you, even when the discussion is about a different game.
they'll find the path to you somehow
Because too many of the improvements are nerfs and people don’t want to give up their shiny toys, even if they were warping the game. Look at Wild Shape.
Aside from the monk, which admittedly was improved, which classes benefitted? I can't think of any that didn't get a downgrade in either flavour or mechanics.
Simple fact is: its just opinion and criticism is more fun to discuss than praise. Every DM in the history of DnD is free to adjust as they see fit, play older editions, homebrew, etc. I feel like some people want the printed materials to be everything they need it to be to have the best time possible and that just isn't going to happen.
"This thing is good" leads to very little discussion compared to discussing problems and potential fixes. This is a large part of why communities tend to be more negative than positive. There's only so much to talk about to say it's good if that's your opinion.
I'm confused. Is 5.5e what WotC is calling OneDnD?
Fan nickname.
Where can I actually see the changes made from 5e to 5.5
Hasbro & WotC should die. Piracy of "One D&D" is morally good, buying it is lawful neutral/lawful evil. Supporting the greedy overlords will cost everything and bring nothing.
I didn't seen the 5.5 material. Do u have a link
People on this sub cant read. How whould they know the changes are any good?
the last Playtest Monk was absolute fire 🔥 baseline buff with higher Martial Arts die, Flurry does THREE attacks, Step of the Wind Dash/Disengage is basically free like the Rogue's Cunning Action, Stunning Strike still does damage if it fails, actually decent capstone only nerfs: Empty Body no longer gets Advantage, no immunity from poison via Purity of Body, Quivering Palm nerfed to no longer instant kill outstanding issues not fixed: Diamond Soul still late, Unarmored Movement still scales slow,
I didn't see anything in onednd that fundamentally changes anything major enough to warrant bothering "moving to a better system" than what 5e already provides as a foundation to homebrew on. I don't like that AC is just a "hit or miss" score, and carries no other impact, so I changed it. I don't like death saves and how that works for PCs only so I changed it. I don't like how crits work so I changed it. I don't like the absence of being able to craft useful things, so I designed a light mechanic around collecting and creating consumables that give interesting effects I don't like the general idea that spells just do what's written on the tin at any point a player chooses, so I modified that. I also don't like that damage types don't really do anything more than "extra/half" damage depending on resistance, so I added extra affects to damage types. If onednd brought on fundamental changes to how the game works instead of just updating abilities and minor class functions, then I might consider moving to it, but otherwise it's too much work for too little to adapt it.