What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Witty Username]

Do you know of an instance where a subclass references a spell that is neither in core nor the book the subclass itself is in?

Thankfully it has only come up once as far as I am aware, and it was a player race not a subclass. Also, the did the required ask of coping the spell in the book.

But Volo's Triton has the Wall of Water spell, which lives in Xanathar's. Politely included the spell as a sidebar in the race entry.

The 5e writting team has been pretty good at this, but it is still a thing to keep in mind of how this stuff works.

[Dalinar]

I genuinely don't see how it's any more difficult for a martial to need the spells chapter to look up a couple of their features, than it is to play a spellcaster and need to go to the spells chapter considerably more frequently. And if spell flashcards are indeed the meatspace solution, just use them for the former too. "I'm an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, could you hand me the Augury and Clairvoyance flashcards from your spells deck to keep in front of me" seems to me to be a reasonable request if looking up those two spells in the book occasionally is truly onerous.


I'd argue that, to the extent this even happens in the live game, that's a feature rather than a bug. Referencing a spell means the devs can have a list of every class or subclass that gets that spell, which is information they'd need to have for the casters that get it anyway, so they can keep in mind "oh right, {martial subclass} gets this too" before making any balance changes. Again though, I'm not actually aware of them doing this.

On the first part: sure, but the problem is that it's harder to avoid doing that with spellcasters because they have a bajillion spells. The amount of text duplication would be very high, you'd be stuffing probably a double-digit number of extra pages into the book that don't need to be there. When it's "you can cast the X spell proficiency times per day and Y is your spellcasting modifier for it," the balance is a lot closer, and it probably depends somewhat on the initial spell. In UA8 the Druid has a feature at level 9 that reads:

You are an expression of nature itself and can commune with the natural world all around you; you always have the Commune with Nature spell prepared.

Commune with Nature (going by the 2014 version, unsure if they changed it) is 143 words. At this point it's still incredibly reasonable to not want to duplicate that text into a bespoke feature for the sake of ease of physical use--partially because players could conceivably take the spell AND the feature if they don't happen to notice how similar they are, and partially because doing so would also be weird in the context of Ranger, which also has access to Commune with Nature. If you've already converted the Druid level 9 feature to a bespoke effect, do you cut Commune with Nature entirely and also give the Ranger a similar effect?

To take it to a very silly extreme, though, consider Healing Word vs Second Wind. Both of those are bonus action abilities that restore hit points, so you could conceivably write Second Wind as "you can cast Healing Word once targeting yourself, and you regain the ability to do so after taking a short or long rest." But to get it 1:1 with actual Second Wind, you'd need to include language covering their several differences:

-It is not considered casting a spell, so doesn't require components/can't be Counterspelled/etc.
-Second Wind is generally going to be a larger heal than Healing Word, so "casting Healing Word in this way gives you d10 + fighter level hit points" or something to that effect
-Can't also be cast using any spell slots you have from another feature (such as Eldritch Knight subclass)

And that'd be a whole lot of text, which is why Second Wind is not written that way.

So at some point between Second Wind and UA8's Druid feature is a point where it no longer becomes worth it to just say "you can cast X spell Y times with Z differences from the spell text." I'm not going to try to hammer out exactly where that point is, because it depends a lot on things I cannot know (from considerations on the books' layouts to how other people use them).

---

The bit about balance changes to a spell affecting multiple classes is not exactly a hill I'm trying to die on. I'm just musing about the problem, not taking a hard position on it. :)

With respect to the earlier proposal about Assassin's level 9 feature being replaced with Nondetection: it'd probably work fine in the sense that it makes it feel like a feature it's worth dropping more than 3 levels into the class for, but the narrative is kinda weird. The assassin character, who has probably not had any previous magical training, suddenly has a third-level spell? Several levels before their Arcane Trickster counterparts could pick it up? It might be worth it to word it as a similar non-spell feature for that reason alone. Never mind the bigger questions about what the role of non-magic in D&D is (the Batman fantasy about keeping up with people with literal superpowers is an alluring one, but it's also really hard to design a game around, because by definition the superpowers enable things that Batman can't do).

[Witty Username]

It could be useful if we wanted to pivot to a more 3.5 sytle assassin.
In 3.5 the assassin had a mix of murder features and 'Dark Arts' by flavor. In practice up to 4th level spellcasting, I think mostly illusions if I remember right.

I think it would heavily overlap with Arcane Trickster in that case though.

Edit:
Looking over the old assassin I found this,
Hide in Plain Sight (Su)
At 8th level, an assassin can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow.

Toss this into base rogue for 5e, maybe with some shifted wording to make it less magical, like you can hide regardless of circumstances during your turn but you have to end your turn in an obstructed area to remain hiden.

[GooeyChewie]

And that's totally fine for whatever homebrew you're interested in inventing, but the question was why the designers reference spells in features as a matter of course; the answer isbecause they want the class to have those specific abilities, with all they entail.

I could believe that sometimes WotC wants to have a feature exactly mimic a spell. But I can't believe that every time they have used or ever will use a spell as a feature that they want the feature to be exactly that spell.

I genuinely don't see how it's any more difficult for a martial to need the spells chapter to look up a couple of their features, than it is to play a spellcaster and need to go to the spells chapter considerably more frequently. And if spell flashcards are indeed the meatspace solution, just use them for the former too. "I'm an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, could you hand me the Augury and Clairvoyance flashcards from your spells deck to keep in front of me" seems to me to be a reasonable request if looking up those two spells in the book occasionally is truly onerous.

I think you have the wrong comparison here. It is more difficult for the martial to need the spells chapter to look up a couple of their features, than it is for the martial player to have those couple of features on the same pages as the rest of their features. The difficulty of a spellcaster needing the spells chapter is irrelevant.

Even if I agreed with the importance of your comparison, the whole point of a spellcaster is to use spells. Adding the need to look up information in the spells chapter is comparatively more difficult for a martial who wouldn't otherwise need that chapter than it is for a class that uses the the chapter regularly. Sure, writing the spells down on flashcards is a solution, but it's a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.

[Psyren]

I could believe that sometimes WotC wants to have a feature exactly mimic a spell. But I can't believe that every time they have used or ever will use a spell as a feature that they want the feature to be exactly that spell.

I genuinely can't see what other logical conclusion/presumption you could draw from them doing that (beyond simply being thoughtless/random I guess?), but okay.

I think you have the wrong comparison here. It is more difficult for the martial to need the spells chapter to look up a couple of their features, than it is for the martial player to have those couple of features on the same pages as the rest of their features. The difficulty of a spellcaster needing the spells chapter is irrelevant.

Even if I agreed with the importance of your comparison, the whole point of a spellcaster is to use spells. Adding the need to look up information in the spells chapter is comparatively more difficult for a martial who wouldn't otherwise need that chapter than it is for a class that uses the the chapter regularly. Sure, writing the spells down on flashcards is a solution, but it's a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.

My whole point is that it isn't a problem, or at least I don't see it as one (and clearly, they don't either.) It's not a herculean ask to say "you get this spell, it's in the spells chapter if you want to know how it works." They're comfortable with even brand new players doing this, as evidenced by the Totem Warrior barbarian getting two rituals right off the bat on a class that wouldn't otherwise be looking at the spells chapter in core.



@Dalinar - I already said I wouldn't expect every single martial feature to invoke a spell, so I'm not sure what purpose pointing at Second Wind as an example of where they didn't use a spell reference is meant to serve. I also already said there's a big difference between "this works like {spell} except no slot/components" and "this works like Healing Word except {litany of differences like self-only, automatic scaling, not-magic etc etc.}"

[JNAProductions]

A spell is close enough to work for a feature, but not exactly right.

[GooeyChewie]

I genuinely can't see what other logical conclusion/presumption you could draw from them doing that (beyond simply being thoughtless/random I guess?), but okay.

The other logical conclusion/presumption you could draw from them doing that is that it is easier for them to do that when the spell is close enough to what they want the feature to do, even if the spell doesn't do exactly what they want the feature to do. You are assuming that the designers wanted Consult the Spirits to mimic Augury or Clairvoyance exactly, but the fact that the designers went that route only tells us that Augury or Clairvoyance are close enough to what they wanted the feature to do that using them was acceptable. The fact that Kane0's version does not work precisely the same way does not mean it could not have also fulfilled the designers' original goals for the feature.

My whole point is that it isn't a problem, or at least I don't see it as one (and clearly, they don't either.) It's not a herculean ask to say "you get this spell, it's in the spells chapter if you want to know how it works." They're comfortable with even brand new players doing this, as evidenced by the Totem Warrior barbarian getting two rituals right off the bat on a class that wouldn't otherwise be looking at the spells chapter in core.

Is it easier to need to look in two places to understand your features, or to only need to look in one place to understand your features? I'm not saying looking in two places is a herculean ask; I'm saying it's more of an ask than looking in one place. That's not to say that using spells as features is never the best course of design*, but WotC should keep in mind that just because it is easier for them to use "cast X spell" than to write out the feature's effects doesn't mean it's easier for the player.


*I would argue that using spells as features is the best course of design when the spell does exactly what the designers want it to do and also is complex enough that they cannot succinctly write it out as a standard feature. As such, I prefer Kane0's change to Consult the Spirits (at least from a design viewpoint) because changing the spherical sensor to an ancestral spirit means the feature does not do exactly what the spell does.

[Psyren]

The fact that Kane0's version does not work precisely the same way does not mean it could not have also fulfilled the designers' original goals for the feature.

It doesn't mean it does, either. Barring a direct statement of intent, all we can go off is what they chose to do. If they didn't want it to work at all like the spell they could have easily done so.

Is it easier to need to look in two places to understand your features, or to only need to look in one place to understand your features? I'm not saying looking in two places is a herculean ask; I'm saying it's more of an ask than looking in one place. That's not to say that using spells as features is never the best course of design*, but WotC should keep in mind that just because it is easier for them to use "cast X spell" than to write out the feature's effects doesn't mean it's easier for the player.

And it would be easiest of all to have no features and thus not need to look anywhere. At some point there is a reasonable tradeoff between ease and functionality when you're dealing with a printed medium.

*I would argue that using spells as features is the best course of design when the spell does exactly what the designers want it to do and also is complex enough that they cannot succinctly write it out as a standard feature. As such, I prefer Kane0's change to Consult the Spirits (at least from a design viewpoint) because changing the spherical sensor to an ancestral spirit means the feature does not do exactly what the spell does.

But if they do want it to work exactly like the spell except for changing the sensor from a ball of light to a ghost, then what they did is the way to go. "This works like the spell, except instead of the sensor being a ball of light, you get a ghost."

And for the reasons I listed previously, I don't prefer Kane0's version. But it's not like it matters; I'm hardly going to come to your house and stop you from using whoever's online homebrew you find more fun/easy/etc than the printed version.

[Kane0]

I'm glad at least some people liked it, considering there is a non-zero chance it took less time and effort for me to write up than Playtest 5's Create Spell.

[Schwann145]

I've got only two thoughts on this one:

1) Flipping through the spell section to look up your relevant info is extra bookkeeping, sure, technically, but if taking 15 seconds to flip through an alphabetized list is too much, then all of D&D is too much. Worst-case scenario? Slip of paper to bookmark (physically for in-person, or to write a page number if playing digitally) where the spell descriptions are to make it that much quicker to get there.
If looking through the book to get the info you need is taking uncomfortable amounts of time, even when you know exactly what it is you're looking for, then the problem is you, not the book.

2) Powers being developed/written as spells for efficiency-sake is how they did 4th Edition, and we all remember what a wild success that edition was... wait...

[KorvinStarmast]

but if taking 15 seconds to flip through an alphabetized list is too much, then all of D&D is too much.

Yep. (And I bought some of the spell cards ...)

Powers being developed/written as spells for efficiency-sake is how they did 4th Edition, and we all remember what a wild success that edition was... wait...

Snort.

As to something mentioned from a few posts back:
As for replacing Second Wind with Healing Word, how about a Big Fat NO to that. Second wind is much better. 1d10 + level is way better than 1d4+spell casting mod.

[Skrum]

I haven't followed every particular of the Using Spells as Class Abilities discussion, but I'm 100% in favor of it. Mainly, I think it would break the trend of "spells do all of this stuff, there for martials can only do these few things that spells don't do." Take Bless for example. There's absolutely no reason the ability to boost the rolls of you and your allies needs to be a spell and spell-only. It could also be the inspiring presence of a fighter, paladin, etc. A very large percentage of spells, especially under 4th-ish level and especially divine ones, have mechanics that would be great options to add to certain classes' toolkits - especially as those classes start heading into t3 and "attack 2-3 times" is getting a little lackluster.

For stacking purposes, it would be helpful to refer to the spell so the benefits wouldn't stack (or, heck, maybe they should...wild magic barb's bolstering magic and peace cleric's emboldening bond stack with bless). But language like

"At level X, you gain the ability to [short narrative description of spell]. You may cast [spell] Y times/prof bonus times per long rest except you do not require components, it may not be countered or dispelled, and it functions in an anti-magic field."

Or even better - make a Supernatural Ability modifier.
Supernatural Ability: some classes and creatures can create effects that work similarly to spells that aren't actually spells. These abilities will refer to some particular spell and use all of the mechanics of that spell - amount of time to use it, the effects, etc. A supernatural ability does not require components to use, and does not count as casting a spell and isn't magic (thus it may not be countered or dispelled, and it works in an Anti-Magic Field). If the spell being used as a supernatural ability requires concentration, the creature must still concentrate on the effect, same as the spell. All rules about concentration apply. Using a supernatural ability is not casting a spell.

FAQ: a character under the effects of Rage may use supernatural abilities, but they may not concentrate on them

So then the class feature could look like "at level X, you may cast [spell] as a Supernatural Ability whatever amount of times per long rest."

[Psyren]

I've got only two thoughts on this one:

1) Flipping through the spell section to look up your relevant info is extra bookkeeping, sure, technically, but if taking 15 seconds to flip through an alphabetized list is too much, then all of D&D is too much. Worst-case scenario? Slip of paper to bookmark (physically for in-person, or to write a page number if playing digitally) where the spell descriptions are to make it that much quicker to get there.
If looking through the book to get the info you need is taking uncomfortable amounts of time, even when you know exactly what it is you're looking for, then the problem is you, not the book.

Agreed.

2) Powers being developed/written as spells for efficiency-sake is how they did 4th Edition, and we all remember what a wild success that edition was... wait...

Eh, I wouldn't say 4e really had "spells" (outside their weird ritual framework), it was "powers" all the way down. (Also - obligatory "4e did it therefore bad!!")

For stacking purposes, it would be helpful to refer to the spell so the benefits wouldn't stack (or, heck, maybe they should...wild magic barb's bolstering magic and peace cleric's emboldening bond stack with bless).

Actually, you raise a great point here that hasn't come up yet; referencing the spell in the feature also invokes the stacking rules. Thus, if you cast Sanctuary on an Open Hand monk, enemies don't suddenly need to beat two consecutive Wis saves to hit them.

[Schwann145]

Eh, I wouldn't say 4e really had "spells" (outside their weird ritual framework), it was "powers" all the way down.

Well, spells were also "powers" so still; same thing, different word.

(Also - obligatory "4e did it therefore bad!!")

Naaah. 4th Edition did a lot of good things, it's just the culmination of good and bad was not in favor of the good. Just generally speaking, probably not a great idea to emulate a less-successful edition is all.

[GooeyChewie]

It doesn't mean it does, either. Barring a direct statement of intent, all we can go off is what they chose to do. If they didn't want it to work at all like the spell they could have easily done so.

You hit the nail on the head here. Barring a direct statement of intent, we don’t know whether they chose to have any given “spell as feature” reference a spell because there was some design reason it needed to be the spell or because it was simply easier (for them, not the player) to call out a spell than to write out a feature. And since they could have easily written a feature, it comes off as lazy to reference a spell when there is no obvious reason why the feature needs to be spellcasting.

And for the reasons I listed previously, I don't prefer Kane0's version. But it's not like it matters; I'm hardly going to come to your house and stop you from using whoever's online homebrew you find more fun/easy/etc than the printed version.

Sure, for anybody invested enough in the game to discuss it in an online message board, it’s not that big of a deal. But I definitely have players who would read the feature, set it aside because they don’t know what those spells do offhand, and then never use it when it would be useful because they haven’t already looked up the spells to know that now would be the time to use them.

If looking through the book to get the info you need is taking uncomfortable amounts of time, even when you know exactly what it is you're looking for, then the problem is you, not the book.

Hard disagree. Part of making a good product is making the product easy to use. If the book is user-unfriendly enough that players are spending an uncomfortable amount of time cross-referencing different portions just to understand their features, especially if they know exactly what it is they are looking for, then the problem is the book. And to be clear, any given “spell as feature” probably doesn’t hinder play all that much. WotC just needs to be careful not to add too many of them because a small annoyance happening many times becomes a big problem.

[Blatant Beast]

This conversation has taken a strange turn.

I think the Design trend, in general, has turned away from referencing spells directly.
There are 8 Barbarian Subclasses, I believe.

Of those 8 subclasses, all but 7 are clearly magical or preternatural focused, with the Berserker subclass, as the only one that may not be classified as preternatural...but honestly I think it safe to say all eight of the barbarian subclasses create beings that would be defined as preternatural.

Of those 8 barbarian subclasses, only two subclasses reference spells, and both of those subclasses were published early on in 5e's history.

The Path of Wild Magic, published in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, does not reference Detect Magic in the Magic Awareness ability. Conceivably, the dev's could have said Magic Awareness works like Detect Magic, and the barbarian can use the spell even while Raging.

I do wish to note that in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, we do have an example in the Telekinetic Master ability of the Psi Warrior, of a spell being referenced in the ability, with a further modification of how that spells operates contained in the write up itself.

Barbarian subclasses rarely reference spells, period.
In the case where barbarian subclasses have, I suspect if those subclasses were rewritten today, the spells would not be referenced.

Spells and Raging does not work. The Totem and Ancestor abilities should follow the same example of Magic Awareness, and not reference spells.

Design wise, I hate the self imposed straitjacket of only referencing PHB spells only. It makes things boring. WotC should just be willing to reprint things in later books.

[Psyren]

You hit the nail on the head here. Barring a direct statement of intent, we don’t know whether they chose to have any given “spell as feature” reference a spell because there was some design reason it needed to be the spell or because it was simply easier (for them, not the player) to call out a spell than to write out a feature. And since they could have easily written a feature, it comes off as lazy to reference a spell when there is no obvious reason why the feature needs to be spellcasting.

Even if it was purely ease for them as the designers, that's still a good thing. They've had to design and review literally hundreds of subclass features; there will be nearly 200 of them in the new PHB alone, to say nothing of the future and subclasses that won't make the cut to see print, but still need to be designed, reviewed and playtested by their team anyway with no return. And you're free to have the opinion that it's "lazy" just as I'm free to have the opinion that you don't know nearly as much about designing an publishing subclasses in books as they do, and never will.

Sure, for anybody invested enough in the game to discuss it in an online message board, it’s not that big of a deal. But I definitely have players who would read the feature, set it aside because they don’t know what those spells do offhand, and then never use it when it would be useful because they haven’t already looked up the spells to know that now would be the time to use them.

And I've had players who discovered other cool spells and interactions simply because their martial feature made them crack a chapter they otherwise wouldn't have read.

Hard disagree. Part of making a good product is making the product easy to use. If the book is user-unfriendly enough that players are spending an uncomfortable amount of time cross-referencing different portions just to understand their features, especially if they know exactly what it is they are looking for, then the problem is the book. And to be clear, any given “spell as feature” probably doesn’t hinder play all that much. WotC just needs to be careful not to add too many of them because a small annoyance happening many times becomes a big problem.

How do you define "an uncomfortable amount of time?" What studies/playtests have you done to indicate this is a widespread problem, and not your own players simply being lazy themselves?

Spells and Raging does not work. The Totem and Ancestor abilities should follow the same example of Magic Awareness, and not reference spells.

I mean, those are rituals so you wouldn't be combining them with rage anyway, as your rage would run out long before you finished casting even if the two actions were compatible.

Design wise, I hate the self imposed straitjacket of only referencing PHB spells only. It makes things boring. WotC should just be willing to reprint things in later books.

They do reference non-PHB spells; Fey Wanderer Ranger from Tasha's references Summon Fey for instance.

[Pex]

My whole point is that it isn't a problem, or at least I don't see it as one (and clearly, they don't either.) It's not a herculean ask to say "you get this spell, it's in the spells chapter if you want to know how it works." They're comfortable with even brand new players doing this, as evidenced by the Totem Warrior barbarian getting two rituals right off the bat on a class that wouldn't otherwise be looking at the spells chapter in core.

Heh. When I played my totem barbarian I ignored the spellcasting. I only used Speak With Animals twice, and that was just for social interaction to talk to a circus bear and asked it to play wrestle.

[Kane0]

But language like

"At level X, you gain the ability to [short narrative description of spell]. You may cast [spell] Y times/prof bonus times per long rest except you do not require components, it may not be countered or dispelled, and it functions in an anti-magic field."

Haha maybe dont word it this way, sounds very close to 'you can cast this spell, but its not magic and not a spell'.


Im not fundamentally against the spell-as-a-feature thing if its employed well. Looking at say the giant barbarian, I wouldnt mind if their ability read as 'while raging, you gain the benefits of the enlarge option of an enlarge/reduce spell'. You could use the same trick with the Rune Knight fighter with the addition of specifying the action and duration of invoking the rune.
Functional ability, saves wordcount, prevents stacking, doesnt mess around with altering the details of the spell specially for you, etc.

Same of its a ribbon thing. Getting to cast a spell as a ritual is fine if thats not your primary line item. But if it makes more sense to codify new conditions (like confused and slowed) and basic abilities (like spider climbing) then do that and have the spell reference those rather than having content refer back to the spell.

On that note, conjuring/summoning is probably one of those things that really should be straightened out. Put the rules for summoned creatures in one place of the spellcasting rules rather than in each spell (and differently each time).

[Blatant Beast]

They do reference non-PHB spells; Fey Wanderer Ranger from Tasha's references Summon Fey for instance.

TCoE is the first and only book to add bonus spells to a subclass that were not from the PHB.
It is not a regular trend, and it is not something that has been subsequently repeated in books published after Tasha's.

It would be nice, if it became a regular trend, however.

[Dr.Samurai]

1. Attack - You are a veteran fighter that has learned the skill of fighting enemies. Starting at level 1, you can cast the Booming Blade cantrip at-will. When you cast the spell using this feature, all extra damage is of the same damage type as the weapon making the attack, rather than Thunder. In addition, you are not considered to be casting a spell, and it requires no components nor can it be counterspelled or suppressed by antimagic effects.

2. Block - You know how to most effectively use a shield. Beginning at level 2, when you have a hand free, you can cast the Shield spell at-will. When you cast the spell using this feature, the bonus to armor class is limited to +2. You are not considered to be casting a spell, and it requires no components, nor can it be counterspelled or suppressed by antimagic effects.

3. Action Surge - At level 2, you can gain a boost of speed when you need it the most. On your turn, you gain the benefits of the Haste spell, though you do not gain the benefits to Speed, Armor Class, or Dexterity saving throws, and the benefit only lasts for 1 round. You do not suffer lethargy after this effect ends. You may gain this benefit again after a short or long rest. You are not considered to be casting a spell, and it requires no components, nor can it be counterspelled or suppressed by antimagic effects.

4. Second Wind - Years of fighting have made you tougher than most. Once per rest, you can cast the Healing Word spell, but can only target yourself. You gain a number of hit points equal to 1d10 plus your fighter level instead of the usual amount for the spell. You are not considered to be casting a spell when using this feature, and it requires no components, nor can it be counterspell or suppressed by antimagic effects.

I feel icky just typing this joke post up.

[Skrum]

1. Attack - You are a veteran fighter that has learned the skill of fighting enemies. Starting at level 1, you can cast the Booming Blade cantrip at-will. When you cast the spell using this feature, all extra damage is of the same damage type as the weapon making the attack, rather than Thunder. In addition, you are not considered to be casting a spell, and it requires no components nor can it be counterspelled or suppressed by antimagic effects.

2. Block - You know how to most effectively use a shield. Beginning at level 2, when you have a hand free, you can cast the Shield spell at-will. When you cast the spell using this feature, the bonus to armor class is limited to +2. You are not considered to be casting a spell, and it requires no components, nor can it be counterspelled or suppressed by antimagic effects.

3. Action Surge - At level 2, you can gain a boost of speed when you need it the most. On your turn, you gain the benefits of the Haste spell, though you do not gain the benefits to Speed, Armor Class, or Dexterity saving throws, and the benefit only lasts for 1 round. You do not suffer lethargy after this effect ends. You may gain this benefit again after a short or long rest. You are not considered to be casting a spell, and it requires no components, nor can it be counterspelled or suppressed by antimagic effects.

4. Second Wind - Years of fighting have made you tougher than most. Once per rest, you can cast the Healing Word spell, but can only target yourself. You gain a number of hit points equal to 1d10 plus your fighter level instead of the usual amount for the spell. You are not considered to be casting a spell when using this feature, and it requires no components, nor can it be counterspell or suppressed by antimagic effects.

I feel icky just typing this joke post up.

Ha!

I was thinking more taking spells and making them available to martials? Not converting existing martial powers to spells. But as long as rangers get to cast Steel Wind Strike or use a feature that mechanically does the same thing as Steel Wind Strike and they get this feature at level 9, I don't care which direction it's going.

[GooeyChewie]

How do you define "an uncomfortable amount of time?" What studies/playtests have you done to indicate this is a widespread problem, and not your own players simply being lazy themselves?

There have been a wide variety of studies published regarding the effects of framing decisions as opt-in versus opt-out. For example, the National Library of Medicine has a study that compares the rates of organ donations in countries with opt-in deceased organ donation versus opt-out deceased organ donation. The study found that despite having the same effective options (yes or no) and only the smallest of hurdles (check a box), the donation rates were consistently and considerably higher when the default was donation (I.e. opt-out) than when users had to check the box to give permission.

How does that study relate here? It relates because needing to look up the spell is a minor hurdle, akin to checking a box on a form. But it turns out that even a minor hurdle can have a major impact on human behavior. If WotC (or any game publisher) isn’t taking that factor into consideration when making their game, then the fault lies with them, not with the individuals who find those hurdles cumbersome.

[Psyren]

TCoE is the first and only book to add bonus spells to a subclass that were not from the PHB.
It is not a regular trend, and it is not something that has been subsequently repeated in books published after Tasha's.

It would be nice, if it became a regular trend, however.

Sure, I wouldn't mind if they kept doing it, but it's not like they've made a lot of books with both subclasses and new spells in them since Tasha's either. Fizban's had two and all the rest have been singular. The next big book they're working on is of course the PHB itself, which definitely won't do this, so we won't have anything to judge off until the next big subclass splat, presumably the one that will revamp the remaining Wizard and Cleric subclasses that didn't make the cut this time.

How does that study relate here? It relates because needing to look up the spell is a minor hurdle, akin to checking a box on a form. But it turns out that even a minor hurdle can have a major impact on human behavior.

Any "impact on human behavior" needs to be compared to its alternative to determine worth, not evaluated in a vacuum. In this analogy, your alternative would be to not have a form at all, which goes beyond impracticality to sheer uselessness.

[Slipjig]

IE lets you play Silk from the Belgariad/Mallorean series by Eddings. Though arguably, Silk had a LOT of personas he used, not just one.

Nothing stops a PC from having multiple false identities. Your old one doesn't disappear when you create a new one.

Though once you get past a few, most of them will need a plausible reason why they haven't been seen for a while, especially if the identies come with organizational memberships.

Also, if you have identities in social circles that potentially overlap, your DM can throw a curveball at you by having two NPCs who know different false identities show up at the same party. That's especially true if your disguise is just a change of clothes and mannerisms (as opposed to wigs and prosthetics).

[FaerieSylveon]

My personal opinion on why I as both a player and a DM dislike rogue is as follows:

It's just so boring and repetitive. You do the same thing every turn in combat, hiding, sneak attacking and then hiding again. from a DM's point of view, again, it's sad just watching a player never different in what they do.

[JellyPooga]

My personal opinion on why I as both a player and a DM dislike rogue is as follows:

It's just so boring and repetitive. You do the same thing every turn in combat, hiding, sneak attacking and then hiding again. from a DM's point of view, again, it's sad just watching a player never different in what they do.

How does the Rogue differ from about three quarters of any other class? Yes, most spellcasters are going to have some kind of variety to choose from...in theory. In practice, most characters/players are just going to rinse and repeat their favoured or optimal attack pattern of the month, whether that be "Barkskin, Wild Shape and Multiattack", "Eldritch Blast!", "Spirit Guardians and Guiding Bolt" or whatever.

This also strikes me as a failure of the player to do anything creative or engaging. The Rogue has far more to offer than Sneak Attack (see my previous posts for suggestions).

[LudicSavant]

How does the Rogue differ from about three quarters of any other class? Yes, most spellcasters are going to have some kind of variety to choose from...in theory. In practice, most characters/players are just going to rinse and repeat their favoured or optimal attack pattern of the month, whether that be "Barkskin, Wild Shape and Multiattack", "Eldritch Blast!", "Spirit Guardians and Guiding Bolt" or whatever.

Well for one, those 'optimal attack patterns of the month' are not, in fact, anywhere close to optimal. The classes you mentioned get immense value from adapting to their moment to moment situation.

[KorvinStarmast]

This also strikes me as a failure of the player to do anything creative or engaging.

The elephant in the room.

[JellyPooga]

Well for one, those 'optimal attack patterns of the month' are not, in fact, anywhere close to optimal. The classes you mentioned get immense value from adapting to their moment to moment situation.

Hence why I said "favoured or optimal". Players stick to what they know and/or like, not necessarily what's best. Moon Druids are going to Bear, regardless of whether or not they "should" cast Entangle because that's why they chose to be a Moon Druid. Every Class gets immense value from adapting to their moment to moment situation and Rogue is no different or deficient in that regard.