# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  OneD&D UA - THE CLERIC AND REVISED SPECIES

## Oramac

And, it's up. 

Basic link with the video: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/on...evised-species

Direct to PDF: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendi...aign=playtest3

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> And, it's up. 
> 
> Basic link with the video: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/on...evised-species
> 
> Direct to PDF: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendi...aign=playtest3


 I can only say that I really hate that they do this through DDB and not at the WoTC dnd/wizards site.

----------


## LudicSavant

Giving a quick look at the Cleric... the main concern I have is that it seems like it takes too long for them to take on an identity (and even when they do, they have less of one than before).

There's no longer any distinguishing features at level 1 (since the subclass got pushed back to 3, and level 1 domain spells are gone entirely).  A low rank Cleric of every god will simply look the same, which is not a fun worldbuilding prospect.  Every Cleric has the same Channel Divinity until all the way at level 6.  And you get your second non-CD feature at level 10.  

You basically wait until level 6 to have almost as much of a sense of individuality and unique playstyle as Clerics used to have by level 2.  You wait until level _10_ to get Blessed Healer, basically eliminating an important part of the Life Cleric's old tier 2 playstyle.

Even heavy armor and martial weapons got pushed back to level 2.  I can see people justifying this delay of a Cleric getting their identity as "but it was too easy for Wizards to armor dip with them!"  But the armor dip was for _medium armor and shields_, which they still get at level 1.  You now just have this awkward case where basic Strength Clerics are worse at level 1 because they're not statted for medium armor.

One of the strengths of the Cleric design in 5e was that their playstyles all seemed meaningfully distinct from each other.  A Light Cleric felt like a blaster right from the get-go, and so forth.  Doesn't look like that'll be the case any more.

----------


## Marcloure

Dazed is back as a condition. Nice!

----------


## Unoriginal

> And, it's up. 
> 
> Basic link with the video: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/on...evised-species
> 
> Direct to PDF: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendi...aign=playtest3


Thanks!

Well, I must say I'm pretty puzzled on many points, especially on how Jump is still an action. Before the big stuff, though, I got a question: was the way to get out of the Grappled condition already a Saving Throw in the last playtest? 




> Giving a quick look at the Cleric... the main concern I have is that it seems like it takes too long for them to take on an identity (and even when they do, they have less of one than before).
> 
> There's no longer any distinguishing features at level 1 (since the subclass got pushed back to 3, and level 1 domain spells are gone entirely). Every Cleric has the same Channel Divinity until all the way at level 6.  And you get your second non-CD feature at level 10.  
> 
> You basically wait until level 6 to have almost as much of a sense of individuality and unique playstyle as Clerics used to have by level 2.
> 
> Even heavy armor and martial weapons got pushed back to level 2.  I can see people justifying this delay of a Cleric getting their identity as "but it was too easy for Wizards to armor dip with them!"  But the armor dip was for _medium armor and shields_, which they still get at level 1.  You now just have this awkward case where basic Strength Clerics are worse at level 1 because they're not statted for medium armor.
> 
> One of the strengths of the Cleric design in 5e was that their playstyles all seemed meaningfully distinct from each other.  A Light Cleric felt like a blaster right from the get-go, and so forth.  Doesn't look like that'll be the case any more.


On top of that it seems all the spells, including lvl 0 ones, are entirely "you choose what you want each day".

So yeah, less identity overall.

EDIT:

The wording of the Holy Order: Scholar feature is really odd. You select two new Skills in which you get Proficiency, and you can add your WIS mod to those specific Skills. But all those Skills are what the Cleric can get at lvl 1, so... you can't be a Scholar at a Skill you already have? Or alternatively, you can be a Scholar at the Skill you already have, but if you do you don't get an additional skill and just the WIS mod to the skill?

----------


## Xervous

Ardlings looking fine mechanically but they 100% dont belong in core. Theres still zero lore or tradition grounding them. Exactly the sort of thing to serve up in a splatbook. 

Attack replacing breath returns! But seriously WotC, we dont want the flight you have at home. 

Goliaths now teleport, cut the rest of the text. Proficiency bonus x 5.5 damage per long rest? Prof x 3.5 with a 10ft slow? Prof x 4.5 that eats your reaction? All garbage. The auto prone is potent for lower tier play against fliers. The endurance is more HP. Teleport and auto prone are miles beyond the rest.

----------


## nickl_2000

The resistance spell is absolute amazing now.

Reaction after a save failure.  You or others. 10 foot range. Add 1d4 to a save with no limit of uses.

This is effectively a must have cantrip.

----------


## tokek

So the thing that stands out to me is that the dip multiclass is far less appealing with this new version. You can dip for armor and weapon prof but you don't get the subclass features until level 3 which is a serious investment.

That will fix a lot of the rather gamey builds all by itself. Whether you want that or not will entirely depend on whether you like those builds I think.

This delayed subclass will feel odd to some players but I quite like the way it fits with many of the gods having different domains or aspects and you do not really gain a magical benefit from that aspect until you are more developed in your devotion to the god. It works for me even if I can see that other players will rather struggle with the concept.

----------


## Catullus64

*Stuff I Like:*

A compact and clearer listing of examples of difficult terrain. 

I'm uncertain, but I think that on balance I like the changes to the Grappled condition. Hard to say until I see if the Grapple action itself has received changes, which I believe this document does not cover.

Help Action being separated into two types, and having Skill Assistance be restricted to your own skill proficiencies. While there are circumstances where I don't think such a limitation should apply, I think it's a useful rule of thumb and appreciate it being enshrined here.

Having Inspiration be auto-generated from dice rolls is still not to my taste, but I like it better from Natural 1s than from Natural 20s.

Making Hidden a condition, along with the specific benefits you get from it, is a good change.

On the whole, the new Social mechanics are actually nice; for the most part, they're just a clarification and bringing to the front of stuff that was already buried in the core rules as best practices. I like that it's now an action, because mid-combat negotiation without an action cost always feels silly to me. See the section below for my big gripe, however.

I don't know if this was already present in a previous iteration, but getting a Short rest from a 1+ Hours interrupted Long Rest is neat.

Some good clarifications on running Movement.

Spiritual Weapon is Concentration. Maybe now its use will require a little thought, instead of Clerics casting it in basically every combat they can.

Ooh, the Study action is a pretty cool thing to get codified into rules. I hope Inquisitive Rogues get it as a bonus action on top of Search.

Prayer of Healing is less terrible now! Well, sorta. Getting an accelerated Short Rest may not mean a lot if virtually no abilities are actually tied to a Short Rest now.

*Stuff I Don't Like:*

My absolute least favorite change is shifting the Cleric's subclass to 3rd level. The deity or other divine entity should absolutely be central to the character from level 1. This is a persistent beef I have with these changes, is flattening out interesting differences and asymmetry between classes and options for the sake of uniformity. It's the same reason I dislike everything being put on the Proficiency-bonus-per-long-rest timer.

They took the wording of Turn Undead, which was very clear and useable, and changed it to something that I'm pretty sure is going to cause more confusion and arguments at the table, not fewer.

Incorporation of multiverse fluff into Species writeups is annoying to me as ever, but equally easy to ignore.

Because there weren't quite enough races with Darkvision yet, Dragonborn get it now too.

You know what this game needed? To make _Guidance_ spam even easier and more prevalent! And to make _Resistance_ spam even more viable! 

I don't get the rationale for the changes to Aid and Barkskin. Here's two very different spells with very different theming, and now they're just slightly different distributions of temporary HP. 

I assume that the change in wording to Disciple of Life is intended to close off the infamously strong Goodberry combo (although you can still extract some benefit if everybody around you Readies actions to scarf a berry as soon as you cast it). But this also closes off synergy with some other healing spells, ones native to the Cleric spell list, and I don't know how intentional that was. Off the top of my head, Aura of Vitality and Regenerate are both affected. Shifting how a spell works so dramatically based on one memetically popular combo seems silly to me, but there could be different reasoning at work here. 

Redefinition of the Hide action is confusing to me; I don't think you even needed anything more than "The DM decides when it is appropriate to hide." Why is there now such a steep floor for success? Especially since ultimate success is still dependent on the opponent's roll. Ditto for the DC 15 floor for the otherwise-cool Influence action. Did we learn nothing from 3rd Edition and its abusable fixed DCs?

----------


## Jervis

Thoughts in order
I like the cleric holy order stuff, they decoupled proficiency from subclass which is good. They are not balanced against each other but oh well. Blessed strikes come online earlier and has both options which is good but why did they remove scaling? 

Ardlings are straight up descendant from a celestial animal now? HOW DID THEY MAKE ARDLINGS WORSE!?

WHY ARE GOLIATHS A CORE RACE AND NOT AASIMAR!? Also this is entirely personal and petty but I hate Goliaths due to a bad experience with a player that used them exclusively and made the most obnoxious 4 Int Barbarian in history so I cant be fair to them.

----------


## stoutstien

Basically killed aid and SW as  spells. 

Thaumaturgy is so much better than the other options it's silly once subclass CD come online.

2...maybe 3 good ideas and the rest is crap. Might be the motivation I need to actually finish my homebrew system.

----------


## Pooky the Imp

Clerics seem a little... odd.

Not choosing your deity at Lv1 seems weird. One would think this would be a pretty core element but apparently not. Come to that, who is giving your Cleric spells when he's Level 1-2 if he hasn't devoted himself to a deity yet? Is it like a lottery where any interested deities can just buy-in and hope he chooses them?

Moving on, on the one hand, I can kinda see the logic in letting you choose whether you want to be a heavily-armoured front-liner or a more backline caster. At the same time, that seems to undermine the actual subclasses. 

What sticks out to me even more is that the Heavy Armour clerics get to have their cake and eat it as they also get extra damage on their Cantrips (arguably a minor bonus but nevertheless one that used to be reserved for the more lightly-armoured priests).  

Incidentally, I can't help but notice that the extra damage for weapons and Cantrips is now just always Radiant damage, regardless of Cleric subclass or Cantrip damage.  :Small Confused: 

"Hah, feel your flesh wither with the necrotic energies of Toll the Bell! Oh, and also feel the radiant energies, I guess."

As for subclasses, it's hard to judge when we only have one to compare. It would have been nice to see what, say, Light or Trickery Clerics get, now that every Cleric can be skilled and gets extra damage as standard. 

The last thing I wanted to bring up is that, unless you pick a specific Order, Channel Divinity can now be used a number of times per day equal to your Proficiency Bonus, and you regain all uses when you finish a Long rest. Is anyone else thoroughly sick of this mechanic? Also, one might have thought that it would be wise to try and balance the rest dependency of the various classes, instead most Clerics gain absolutely nothing back on a short rest.  


Moving on, I like that Ardlings aren't just Furry-Assimar now. Though some of their animal-based traits feel a little wonky. 

e.g. Climber - "once per turn when you deal damage with your Unarmed Strike to a target, you can increase the damage to that target by an amount equal to your Proficiency Bonus"

Am I missing something here?  :Small Confused:  

Why not just give them a natural claw attack that does 1d4+Str/Dex slashing?

The other thing I'd add is that I think the races feel a good deal more empty after the removal of stuff like Ability Score Modifiers. The Ardling seems like a good candidate for giving a different bonus depending on subtype (similar to how Shifters currently work). Alas.


I don't have much comment on the other races. Sorry, "_species_".  :Small Sigh:  


It's nice that Dazed is back.


Lastly, Epic Boons are hilariously unbalanced. 'Cast one extra spell of Lv5 or lower each day' vs. '_Permanent 60ft True Sight._'

----------


## Telwar

Splitting the domain and subclass features feels weird, but on the other hand, it had so much front-loaded that it was just too good.  And it makes a thematic sense; you can worship your god at 1st level, but you don't get your subclass until later, which, if it's fine for fighters, it's fine for clerics.

I really don't like the need to have spells prepared equal to the spell slots.  Most of that, though, is because for the most part 2nd level spells suck.

Goliaths look better with more options.

I still don't see the need for ardlings, especially since we already had shifters for the people who wanted to play animal people.  But these look better, especially since they don't have a spell as their defining difference.

----------


## Pooky the Imp

> I still don't see the need for ardlings, especially since we already had shifters for the people who wanted to play animal people.  But these look better, especially since they don't have a spell as their defining difference.


Yeah, WotC really seem to be struggling to carve out any sort of meaningful niche for Ardlings without treading on the toes of either Assimar or Shifters.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Am I missing something here?  
> 
> Why not just give them a natural claw attack that does 1d4+Str/Dex slashing?


I think they're actively removing that kind of attacks from player options. 




> Sorry, "_species_".


Eh, it took them long enough, but species is definitively a better term for what it represents.





> Lastly, Epic Boons are hilariously unbalanced. 'Cast one extra spell of Lv5 or lower each day' vs. '_Permanent 60ft True Sight._'


Indeed.

Plus as the ultimate capstone for a character who didn't multiclass they appear to be... very unfitting to me.

----------


## skaddix

Ardling has some weird division. I get the idea but still weird.
Maybe instead just subdivide with something like Beast, Reptilian, Avian or Aerial, and Aquatic. 

I still think Clerics need something impressive above Level 14...at like 18. Some sort of Avatar Mode would make sense. 

As for Dragonborn better though the bar was low...though I think Flight at Level 5 might be a bit too strong. Maybe scale that flight time to character level.

There is something very weird about Healing Spells being under Necromancy. I suggest a new name for Healing and Death Magic that encompasses both.

----------


## Pooky the Imp

> I think they're actively removing that kind of attacks from player options.


Ugh.

In that case, perhaps they should maybe think again about including a furry race in core?





> Eh, it took them long enough, but species is definitively a better term for what it represents.


Sure. So why are they still eschewing putting ability scores on species for reasons entirely related to the word 'race'?  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Rafaelfras

For the cleric, the core class seems more interesting now, but I agree that your divine domain should come earlier. The orders are in my opinion ver unbalanced with each other, there isn't a world where some skills or a cantrip + a chanel use can compete with proficiency on martial weapons and heavy armor. I can't see any of those 2 been taken over that last one at the beginning and at least for thaumaturgy one, it doesn't matter anymore if is taken as a second choice.
Also WoTC need to understand that an epic boon MUST be epic, it needs to be better than greater divine intervention or this is not going to work

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

This UA extends what's become quite a pattern--so far there is nothing in OneD&D that I've found _really exciting_. No compelling "yeah, that's a change that makes me want to buy all new core books". There are some ok rewordings, but critically they can be effortlessly ported into 5e's framework. All of the "new" stuff is either utterly meh or actively bad.

And this is the worst case--it doesn't even irritate me enough to stay interested for hating reasons. I'm just _bored_ with it. It feels like "publish a new edition as a cash grab" rather than something worth actually getting people to rebuy all their stuff for.

----------


## GooeyChewie

It's really weird to me that Life Domain clerics have two ways to use Channel Divinity to heal, but Disciple of Life, Blessed Healer and Supreme Healing fail to work with them. They only apply to Spells.

----------


## Oramac

I agree with most of what people are saying here, so I'm going to bring up one thing that, honestly, makes me legitimately _angry_. 

Wording. In most cases, they've managed to word everything like they're talking to a ****ing toddler. Take the Life Cleric fluff, for instance (my emphasis added). 




> The Clerics who tap into this domain are masters of healing, using that force of life to *cure many hurts*.


Seriously? "Cure many hurts"? What the actual ****. I'm not 5 years old, nor are any players I've ever met. Then, in the Goliath description, they use the word "internecine". Make up your damn mind. Are we toddlers or scholars? 

/rant

----------


## stoutstien

> This UA extends what's become quite a pattern--so far there is nothing in OneD&D that I've found _really exciting_. No compelling "yeah, that's a change that makes me want to buy all new core books". There are some ok rewordings, but critically they can be effortlessly ported into 5e's framework. All of the "new" stuff is either utterly meh or actively bad.
> 
> And this is the worst case--it doesn't even irritate me enough to stay interested for hating reasons. I'm just _bored_ with it. It feels like "publish a new edition as a cash grab" rather than something worth actually getting people to rebuy all their stuff for.


That sums it up nicely. Bland and uninspired  carbon copy that might be a tad easier to use with online play.

----------


## Pildion

Between not getting Heavy Armor \ Martial Weapons until level 3 and the absolute NERF that is Blessed Strikes over Divine Strike I can really only believe that WotC wants ONLY caster clerics..... 

Also the new Resistance spell is probably to good to be used every turn, going to be spammed like Guidance.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

- Like Divine Spark, do not like what they did with Turn Undead on its face.  But not a huge objection. 
- Like Holy Order idea, not sure if three choices is all but it's an interesting start.  Like using Wis as bonus to the Scholar bits. 
- Thaumaturge: hmmm, might be a bit strong compared to the two others (extra cantrip and extra CD per SR? they seem to be contradicting their basic framework of PB pe LR).  This leans into a particular kind of cleric play style.  On first blush, I'd remove the bonus CD.  (On second blush, since you can take another later, go ahead and leave it alone).  

So where are the interesting / differing uses of CD for each sub class?  Gone.  Color me sad, my knowledge Cleric skill monkey will stage a protest somewhere on the west coast.  :Small Tongue: 

I seem to be missing the "destroy Undead" table for higher level clerics: clear out the mooks!   :Small Tongue: 
-  Like the smite undead. 
- Like blessed strike. 
- at 9: another Holy Order feature. OK.  Everyone becomes a Protector at 1 and a Thaumaturge at 9, right?.   
- Divine intervention delayed to 11. Fine.  Any Divine Spell.  Pretty much like it is now.  
(at 18, Greater DI before level 20, I like it, more or less (any divine spell) once per 2d4 days.  
====================
Prepared Spell suggestion: OK, not a bad load out. 
=====================
Life Domain
- Dislike loss of level 1 domain spells, but can live with it as spell slots are few and Divine Spark takes care of some healing.  
- Disciple of life no-workee with Divine Spark. That's fine.
- Preserve Life: delayed such that it can't save a low level party.  Not sure I like that, but so it goes.  
- Blessed Healer: same but later. 
- Supreme Healing: OK. 
=================================
Life Cleric seems to be intact more or less.   Domain Spells are fine.  Heal Bot role fulfilled. 
===================================
Ardlings; get rid of it. Make Aasimar core, this is (IMO) garbage. (I don't like Harengons either, and can do without tabaxi...). 
 :Small Furious:  :Small Furious: They are still screwing up Jump by making it an action.  :Small Furious:  :Small Furious:  rather than movement.  _See the Flyer Entry:  when you take the Jump Action, you can flap your wings to gain Advantage	on that Actions Ability Check._ We hates it forever! 
===================================
Racer Dog Monks, here we come. 
========================
Free Divine cantrips: but you have to be a furry to get them. How about just make Aasmiar core to complement Tiefling? Is that so hard? 
++++++++++
OK, I'll take a breath
++++++++++
Dragonborn: OK, so far. (I kind of like the "wings appear to be of the energy used by your breath weapon"
=============
Goliaths
---------------
Strom's Thunder: lousy feature. You have to be hit for this to work?  The other ones are volitional, and Stone's Endurance DR is much better.  Need to re figure this one.  
Large Form/Powerful Build: like, a lot.  
--------------------
Epic Boon of Fate: Bardic inspiration, ish?  At level 20?  Can this be used to reduce an enemy's saving throw roll?  I think so.  Hmmm. 
----------------------
Not sure how this one stacks up; one Free spell, level 5 or lower per LR. Epic Boon of Spell Recall.  
Hmmm, I guess that's OK as a level 20 feature. 
-----------------
Epic Boon of Truesight: I like it. 
----------------
Still don't grok why Shatter is now transmutation, except for the restriction on bard spell schools. 
----------------
Aid: OK, new version, more creatures, fine. 
--------------------------
Banishment nerf: hate it. They get to roll a save 10 times to come back?  Why the nerf?  They'll just do the "Ahnold" and say "I'll be back" ...
-----------------------------------------
Barkskin: not a big fan, but whatever.  Lose the concentration, eh? Mage Armor does not require concentration, nor does Aid.  
------------------------------------------
Need more ways to remove exhaustion. (Lesser and Greater restoration?)  They remove conditions, eh? 
---------------------------------------------
Guidance is better than the last time, but at least it does not use concentration. Livable.  
------------------------------------------
Jump still an action not movement. Bad WoTC.  :Small Furious:  :Small Furious:  
Idea: if they refuse to keep it in movement, why not make it a _bonus action_ so that martials are not penalized for being martials who like to jump around and attack things?  WoTC: Come on, man!   :Small Furious:  :Small Furious: 
--------------------------
Rest interruption, OK, that seems more playable.  
-----------------------
Musical Instrument: does a kazoo still cost 20 GP?  :Small Big Grin: 
-----------------
Prayer of Healing: too fiddly,  have to keep track of LR blah blah.  Interesting Upgrade, though, but needs another scrub. 
-------------------------------
Resistance: OK, like guidance, livable. 
-------------------------------
Paladins can now cast Det Magic as a ritual? Good. 
--------------------------
Spiritual Weapon nerf: requires concentration. Why fix what it not broken? 
We hates it forever, precious! 
-------------------------------------

So that's a first take. Meh.

----------


## skaddix

> For the cleric, the core class seems more interesting now, but I agree that your divine domain should come earlier. The orders are in my opinion ver unbalanced with each other, there isn't a world where some skills or a cantrip + a chanel use can compete with proficiency on martial weapons and heavy armor. I can't see any of those 2 been taken over that last one at the beginning and at least for thaumaturgy one, it doesn't matter anymore if is taken as a second choice.
> Also WoTC need to understand that an epic boon MUST be epic, it needs to be better than greater divine intervention or this is not going to work


I really think the second tier should give you something more impressive for Holy Order instead of Pick 2. 

Extra Attack for the Protector. 
Bonus Spell Casts 1-3 Level Spells for Thaumaturge.
Widsom Mod to Saves Against Magic for Scholar?

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I really think the second tier should give you something more impressive for Holy Order instead of Pick 2.  Extra Attack for the Protector.


Not at second level, extra attack is a 5th level ability. 



> Bonus Spell Casts 1-3 Level Spells for Thaumaturge.


  What do you mean by that? Domain spells come on line at level 3. 



> Widsom Mod to Saves Against Magic for Scholar?


 What does "save against magic" mean?

----------


## Oramac

> Not at second level, extra attack is a 5th level ability. 
>   What do you mean by that? Domain spells come on line at level 3.


If I'm not mistaken, he's talking about the 9th level feature that lets you pick a second Holy Order. 




> What does "save against magic" mean?


Save against the new (stupid) Magic Action, maybe? IDK.

----------


## Damon_Tor

In general I don't find myself caring too much about the cleric changes. I never liked clerics much, and nothing about the changes made me like them more. So I'll abstain from having any opinion on this one so those of you who care can have your voices heard.

They're using "species" instead of "race" now. Probably a good idea, though it feels weird to read it. It's less of a fantasy term: I don't feel like any characters from Tolkien would ever use it. But I'll adjust and am OK with it.

I'm pleased the Ardlings are just generic beastfolk now. I still don't like them. But I dislike them less.

I don't like the new Aid spell. You took a spell that did a cool thing other spells didn't do any made it do a boring thing lots of other spells do.

I feel like "equip" and "unequip" need to be defined. From/To were can you equip/unequip weapons? If you grab someone's weapon after disarming them can you "unequip" it into your backback where they can't get it back?

Guidance has no usage limit, it's just a great reaction ability and a must-have? I didn't like the way they made it a pseudocantrip before, but I don't like this either. It's just way too strong now. Unless I'm missing something. Resistance is like this too now.

Spiritual Weapon is nerfed to require concentration. Eh. Probably had it coming. But I'm not sure it's worth using now that it has to compete with things like _bless_.

----------


## Psyren

> Giving a quick look at the Cleric... the main concern I have is that it seems like it takes too long for them to take on an identity (and even when they do, they have less of one than before).
> 
> There's no longer any distinguishing features at level 1 (since the subclass got pushed back to 3, and level 1 domain spells are gone entirely).  A low rank Cleric of every god will simply look the same, which is not a fun worldbuilding prospect.  Every Cleric has the same Channel Divinity until all the way at level 6.  And you get your second non-CD feature at level 10.  
> 
> You basically wait until level 6 to have almost as much of a sense of individuality and unique playstyle as Clerics used to have by level 2.  You wait until level _10_ to get Blessed Healer, basically eliminating an important part of the Life Cleric's old tier 2 playstyle.
> 
> Even heavy armor and martial weapons got pushed back to level 2.  I can see people justifying this delay of a Cleric getting their identity as "but it was too easy for Wizards to armor dip with them!"  But the armor dip was for _medium armor and shields_, which they still get at level 1.  You now just have this awkward case where basic Strength Clerics are worse at level 1 because they're not statted for medium armor.
> 
> One of the strengths of the Cleric design in 5e was that their playstyles all seemed meaningfully distinct from each other.  A Light Cleric felt like a blaster right from the get-go, and so forth.  Doesn't look like that'll be the case any more.


I completely agree with you on the identity point, but having now watched the devblog video I can understand where they're coming from too. Crawford rightly stated that picking your subclass at 1st level can easily be an "analysis paralysis" barrier moment for newer players, and even some experienced players who are trying that particular class for the first time, as you need to make this critically build-defining choice for your character the moment you sit down whereas other players don't. He also pointed out the weirdness that currently takes place whereby you get a subclass/domain at 1st level, then you get channel divinity afterward which comes packaged with subclass feature needing you to kind of double back in your progression to the subclass section/book to see what you got, rather than your abilities being made available more organically.

Regarding all subclasses being granted at 3rd level, I readily admit I was wrong about not predicting they would do that. With that said though, Cleric was the one I was least concerned about this move with. Yes it's a little odd to have this divine power without properly explaining where it came from, but in cleric's case it's at least trainable, so I can understand starting out as a more generalized neophyte/acolyte before diving into the full mystery of your deity's domain. I'm less convinced that this will feel as natural for a sorcerer or warlock, who generally don't get their powers from any kind of formal training, but I'm open to being pleasantly surprised by WotC. 

Lastly, concerning cleric blasting at level 1 - the new channel divinity does allow for that at least (and 2d8 radiant 2x per day 30ft at level 1 is pretty good), not to mention you can enhance that further by picking Thaumaturge at 2 and under current guidelines get that level of blasting up to 4x per day. That's 8d8 total damage output in a day at level 2, before spell slots and cantrips!

----------


## Jervis

Ok I now that I have a minute I went back to read Ardling. You are descended from a celestial animal. I got the whole thing about some of their descendants being bipedal but this just sounds like one of your ancestors was a bard that had a thing going on with a talking horse.

----------


## Psyren

> Well, I must say I'm pretty puzzled on many points, especially on how Jump is still an action.





> Jump still an action not movement. Bad WoTC.


*I want to clarify something about recent feedback:*

The "we analyzed the results and everything scored high so far" video was ONLY referring to the Character Origins UA. _They have not yet analyzed the feedback on the Expert Classes UA_, which is where the Jump action debuted. So Jump still being around does not mean everyone loved the Jump action and it's here to stay with some tweaks. If you hate it, as I do, continue downvoting it in this next survey as well!

----------


## Dienekes

Well, still not a fan of consolidating subclass levels, though it definitely seems like they're going that route with them. But then I definitely prefer fulfilling the class fantasy in a consistent way than what I consider generally minor mechanical benefits. If the class fantasy works around something tied to their subclass then they should get it when their class abilities come on. The Sorcerer is literally only special because of their origin, they should get their origin at level 1. Same goes for the Cleric and their beliefs be they tied to a god or philosophy, a Warlock and their patron, a Paladin and their Oath. 

Other than that? I kinda like Holy Order. Am a bit confused why they get a second one. Are they jumping orders? They each seem to be promoting different styles of play/character focuses. I'd think they'd be more interesting doubled down on their initial choice rather than mitigate its impact. 


Goliath was a surprise. Seems interesting. I'm getting the feeling Fire will be very powerful early game and then dramatically fall off. 

Ardling. Right. It's more interesting. That I will give them. They lost their not-really-flight ability for one based around what animal they are. Cool. The animal part was the most interesting thing about the race. Only now looking at them, nothing is jumping out at me as vastly more powerful than the previously mentioned mad hops. And they lost their damage resistance, a spell at 3 and 5, and instead gained a skill and a bit more cantrip versatility. Honestly, I think they kinda need to let the divine magic part go a bit. They'd be more interesting if they really doubled down on the animal side of things. Give them Primal magic if they need any and actually allow a build-a-bear for how your animal parts work. I get that initially WotC wanted to create the counterpart to the Tieflings. But... the Tieflings already had a counterpart. A pretty good one. Now, admittedly that counterpart wasn't a mechanical mirror of the Tiefling. Personally I thought that made them more interesting. But, ok, you want to make the mechanical mirror you make a new race to do it. Only, now the race has been developed and it's no longer a mechanical mirror. So, why try and fill the same role as a different race? Double down on what makes this one unique and go all out on it. Sure, that will probably make this the most complicated race in the game to create. But I don't really see that as a problem. 

I like Daze.

----------


## Telesphoros

> I can only say that I really hate that they do this through DDB and not at the WoTC dnd/wizards site.


I've come to like it as I was informed in these very forums One D&D should be funneled thru DnDBeyond and have no input from other sources that refuse to get a DnDBeyond account and Google or Apple account to sign up to it. I can't be bothered with all that, and well it saves a lot of time not having to fill out surveys. One D&D's fate is in the hands of the 39k Beyonders that filled out the survey, huzzah! Only 50 million people have played D&D, and 10 million+ have played 5th Edition, so 39k seems like a nice number of Chosen few...





> Giving a quick look at the Cleric... the main concern I have is that it seems like it takes too long for them to take on an identity (and even when they do, they have less of one than before).
> 
> There's no longer any distinguishing features at level 1 (since the subclass got pushed back to 3, and level 1 domain spells are gone entirely).  A low rank Cleric of every god will simply look the same, which is not a fun worldbuilding prospect.  Every Cleric has the same Channel Divinity until all the way at level 6.  And you get your second non-CD feature at level 10.


Yeah, apparently every subclass is going to follow the 3-6-10-14 level format like the expert group. I had wondered about that with the Expert Class UA, but was quickly shot down. They are apparently working really hard on curbing multiclassing, eh? 






> Dazed is back as a condition. Nice!


Very nice indeed. I might try changing out my "Groggy" condition for Dazed and see how it works out for the yo-yo healing dealie.





> Ardlings looking fine mechanically but they 100% dont belong in core. Theres still zero lore or tradition grounding them. Exactly the sort of thing to serve up in a splatbook. 
> 
> Attack replacing breath returns! But seriously WotC, we dont want the flight you have at home. 
> 
> Goliaths now teleport, cut the rest of the text. Proficiency bonus x 5.5 damage per long rest? Prof x 3.5 with a 10ft slow? Prof x 4.5 that eats your reaction? All garbage. The auto prone is potent for lower tier play against fliers. The endurance is more HP. Teleport and auto prone are miles beyond the rest.





> Ardlings are straight up descendant from a celestial animal now? HOW DID THEY MAKE ARDLINGS WORSE!?
> 
> WHY ARE GOLIATHS A CORE RACE AND NOT AASIMAR!? Also this is entirely personal and petty but I hate Goliaths due to a bad experience with a player that used them exclusively and made the most obnoxious 4 Int Barbarian in history so I cant be fair to them.


Agreed on the Ardling. I'd much rather ditch the Ardling and add in Aasimar in its place. I have no affinity or bond when it comes to the Ardling. None whatsoever. I do on the other hand think they could include more core races and Goliath would be one of those (along with the Aasimar replacement of course). Genasi, Changelings, Shifters, Kobolds and Goblinfolk would also be perfect additions in my opinion ;)

----------


## paladinn

Obviously going to need time to digest.

I don't think I care for not getting a domain till L3.  I'm sure this is a way to "standardize" when characters get subclasses across all classes.  But clerics, more than any other class, are/should be defined by their relationship with their deity/s.

The Holy Order feature is interesting, as it removes some features from association with domain.  So if you go thaumaturge, you can still be a life cleric.  If you go protector, you can still be a light cleric.  I think this might be a good thing; but it wasn't Bad when it was yoked to domain.  I wouldn't expect to find a light cleric wearing plate armor, but that's how it is.

It seems like Smite Undead has taken the place of Destroy Undead, and it's not bad I think.  It does need clarification.  If an undead makes a saving throw, it's not damaged, but is it still turned?  Once the damage starts, there's no mere "turning"?  Or does nothing happen at all?  So by L5, either you're damaging the undead or nothing happens?

I think they have set up the cleric to fill the role of a paladin, especially if the protector order is taken.  It'll be interesting to see what the paladin looks like, since they've been placed in the priest "group."  I'm afraid it's going to lose even more of its unique identity.

I kind of like the goliath "species."  If we have dragonborn, why not goliaths?  

Ardlings.. still not a fan.. and since when is a triceratops a divine racer animal?

----------


## skaddix

> If I'm not mistaken, he's talking about the 9th level feature that lets you pick a second Holy Order. 
> 
> 
> 
> Save against the new (stupid) Magic Action, maybe? IDK.


Indeed. You would be correct.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> .  It'll be interesting to see what the paladin looks like, since they've been placed in the priest "group."  I'm afraid it's going to lose even more of its unique identity.


Name checks out =)

But really, I think that last quoted sentence is the theme of OneD&D. *Everything* is losing even more of its unique identity. Just about everything is getting strapped to the Bed of Procrustes and forcibly homogenized. Settings? Yup, all forced into the multiverse model with the same cosmology, gods, species origin and everything. Races (sorry, species)? Yup, same overall shape with a limited palette of abilities (even if they have different names). Classes? Yup, with the changes to spell lists, class groupings, and subclasses it feels like they're becoming more and more similar.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Only 50 million people have played D&D, and 10 million+ have played 5th Edition, so 39k seems like a nice number of Chosen few.


 I confess, I giggled. 



> Yeah, apparently every subclass is going to follow the 3-6-10-14 level format like the expert group. I had wondered about that with the Expert Class UA, but was quickly shot down. They are apparently working really hard on curbing multiclassing, eh?


 Yes. IMO that's a good thing. Make MC a cost. 



> Agreed on the Ardling. I'd much rather ditch the Ardling and add in Aasimar in its place.


 Yeah, I'll probably get thirsty and hungry up on my soap box about that, but Aasimar being core is far simpler and thematically consistent.  
[QUOTE=paladinn;25647172] I don't think I care for not getting a domain till L3.  
And paladins have to wait for level 3 for their oaths.  I think some of this is 'trial by fire' or something like that. 



> The Holy Order feature is interesting, as it removes some features from association with domain.  So if you go thaumaturge, you can still be a life cleric.  If you go protector, you can still be a light cleric.  I think this might be a good thing; but it wasn't Bad when it was yoked to domain.  I wouldn't expect to find a light cleric wearing plate armor, but that's how it is.


 It's a customizability feature, it seems to me. 



> I kind of like the goliath "species."  If we have dragonborn, why not goliaths?


 Yes, Goliath as core is fine to me if aasimar comes with.  


> Ardlings.. still not a fan.. and since when is a triceratops a divine racer animal?


 Since J Crawford's last binge on vodka and Red Bull, I guess.  :Small Big Grin: 
"Yes, mayonnaise in the Alchemy Jug. That's the ticket!"

----------


## Tanarii

Heavy Armor waiting until 2nd level helps mitigate cleric dips for HA.
But it really hurts regular clerics that want to use HA.  If they Dex dump, which is one of the entire points of HA, they're looking at AC 12 at level 1 the the standard Chain Short.




> I can only say that I really hate that they do this through DDB and not at the WoTC dnd/wizards site.


This alone is sufficient to indicate to me they're not really interested in feedback.

----------


## Segev

With subclasses being unified to the same levels, I wonDer how long until we get rules not just for multiclass in, but cross-classing your subclasses.

----------


## Telesphoros

> Name checks out =)
> 
> But really, I think that last quoted sentence is the theme of OneD&D. *Everything* is losing even more of its unique identity. Just about everything is getting strapped to the Bed of Procrustes and forcibly homogenized. Settings? Yup, all forced into the multiverse model with the same cosmology, gods, species origin and everything. Races (sorry, species)? Yup, same overall shape with a limited palette of abilities (even if they have different names). Classes? Yup, with the changes to spell lists, class groupings, and subclasses it feels like they're becoming more and more similar.


A lot of it does feel like they're giving us a skeleton and we have to figure out what meat to slap on it to flesh it out. It's really sad that this comes up in the most recent setting books. Like, what are the people paying for again? As a DM I'm glad I make my own settings, but as a player (especially with some newer DMs) it had gotten pretty frustrating. Luckily I'm currently making my last setting for 5e and my groups are playing a lot of other games not named D&D. The Dragonbane Beta pdf recently came out, so there's that too. 

I'm really not liking the spell lists thing since they're including most of the unique class spells on them for any class with that spell list to cast. Poor Warlocks going to lose a lot of flavor. But hey, I bet they get Eldritch Blast cantrip for themselves. 

Come to think of it, OneD&D is really just one big game of Fill in the Blanks now!

EDIT: Also, does this UA feel light to anyone else? Mainly just a Class and 3 Races?

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> ... I wonder how long until we get rules not just for multiclass in, but cross-classing your subclasses.


 How about never?  That's my vote.

----------


## LudicSavant

> Heavy Armor waiting until 2nd level helps mitigate cleric dips for HA.
> But it really hurts regular clerics that want to use HA.  If they Dex dump, which is one of the entire points of HA, they're looking at AC 12 at level 1 the the standard Chain Short.


Not only does it hurt regular Clerics in a really silly way, its also not really doing much to the armor dips (since the bulk of the benefit is medium+shield, not the heavy part).

----------


## Sorinth

In principle I like the idea of pushing the subclass to 3rd level so that it's inline with other classes. However I'm not sure I like how it turned out, perhaps a better solution would be to do the opposite and bring the other classes' subclasses online earlier.

I like the Holy Order feature, but just getting your secondary choice at level 9 feels like a let down, I would prefer if there was simply a new benefit that came online at level 9 based on your original choice. It wouldn't have to be powerful but something to reinforce your selections instead of bringing more sameness between all clerics. I agree with others that waiting till 2nd level to get heavy armor and martial weapons when you want to build that frontline cleric type is kind of disappointing but it's probably not so bad in actual play so long as you are in a place where you can easily buy new armour once you reach level 2 (Which isn't every campaign). I love the Scholar feature of getting to add your Wisdom mod to a skill check, being able to be the Face as the cleric is a great (All classes should get a similar feature). I do wonder if it's a bit too much since it steps on the toes of Expertise, perhaps simply having Wisdom be a replacement instead of being a bonus would be better. I also would be tempted to give even more flexibility to the skill choice based on domain. A Trickery cleric that could use Wis for Stealth as an example would be cool, or a strength/wrestling focused deity allowing Athletics to be chosen, etc...

For the rest I mostly just skimmed,
I like the direction they are taking with Goliath though I think the abilities could still use a bit of work.
I prefer the old Aid since it was always useful, this one isn't bad, especially if you have a 6 people in the party but it will be in competition with many other Temp HP options which will likely overshadow it.
Happy with the Dazed and Slowed condition, though really it's just bookkeeping and not a real change.
Still hate how you can't jump as part of your regular movement.
The Verbal component being what breaks being hidden when casting spells is interesting, though the Hide rules are still a bit messy.
Prayer of Healing now seem really good if you have SR classes, and kind of makes me want to try some sort of Warlock/Cleric multiclass. Glad they made sure that it can only happen once per LR to prevent abuse.
I like what they've done with Resistance/Guidance, I'm not sure they need to be nerfed but if they do then removing yourself as a valid target could be good option.
I'm fine with Spiritual Weapon now requiring concentration, it's still a good spell, though perhaps increasing how much it can move would be a good idea now.
I don't really like the classification of creatures in the Study Action. I've always felt each of Arcana/History/Nature/Religion should be able to provide insights just that sometimes the info you get is going to be different. Now Wizards whose theme is summoning Fiends or creating Undead should take Religion over Arcana, want to learn how a wizard becomes a lich no need to learn the mysteries of magic just consult some religious texts. It's just bad.

----------


## Psyren

> This alone is sufficient to indicate to me they're not really interested in feedback.


Yeah, they went through 39,000 responses because they're not interested in feedback  :Small Sigh: 




> EDIT: Also, does this UA feel light to anyone else? Mainly just a Class and 2 Races?


They said this one would be lighter in the last video.




> Poor Warlocks going to lose a lot of flavor. But hey, I bet they get Eldritch Blast cantrip for themselves.


Also in the last video  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Oramac

> This alone is sufficient to indicate to me they're not really interested in feedback.





> Yeah, they went through 39,000 responses because they're not interested in feedback


I don't think they're disinterested in feedback, but I would agree that they're extremely picky about WHO'S feedback they allow. 39k responses is a lot, but as was pointed out earlier, when compared to the global playerbase it's a hilariously low percentage of the total. And, on top of that, it's naturally biased towards DDB, with no regard for people who do not use DDB.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Not only does it hurt regular Clerics in a really silly way, .


For 1 level. In a game with bounded accuracy.  Not seeing the harm.

----------


## Catullus64

> Seriously? "Cure many hurts"? What the actual ****. I'm not 5 years old, nor are any players I've ever met. Then, in the Goliath description, they use the word "internecine". Make up your damn mind. Are we toddlers or scholars? 
> 
> /rant


'Cure many hurts' doesn't sound like toddler-speak to me, it sounds like an attempt to invoke a more antiquated style. 'Hurt' as a substantive form of a verb, a la 'wound' is reasonably common in older prose.

Were there other instances of what sounded to you like infantile prose? I can't say I picked up on it.

----------


## Bobthewizard

With giving banishment a save every round to escape, I wonder if they'll do that for the other save-or-suck spells like hypnotic pattern, fear, and polymorph, and maybe plane shift and reverse gravity. And a way for targets to escape Otilukes sphere, wall of force, and forcecage. I feel like that would be a good change to bring those spells in line with others of their level.

----------


## LudicSavant

> For 1 level.


That's one level too long.

----------


## Psyren

I like decoupling cleric martial proficiencies from their domain choice. As I went over previously I'm a little less enthused about having to wait until 3rd for said domain, but Crawford's reasons for the change ultimately make sense to me.




> I don't think they're disinterested in feedback, but I would agree that they're extremely picky about WHO'S feedback they allow. 39k responses is a lot, but as was pointed out earlier, when compared to the global playerbase it's a hilariously low percentage of the total. And, on top of that, it's naturally biased towards DDB, with no regard for people who do not use DDB.


Being a low percentage of the worldwide player population is not actually relevant, 39k is statistically significant. So long as we have no reason to suspect selection bias anyway, and DDB is as free and open to players from anywhere as any other web-based feedback method would be.

----------


## Segev

> I don't think they're disinterested in feedback, but I would agree that they're extremely picky about WHO'S feedback they allow. 39k responses is a lot, but as was pointed out earlier, when compared to the global playerbase it's a hilariously low percentage of the total. And, on top of that, it's naturally biased towards DDB, with no regard for people who do not use DDB.


I mean, I don't use DDB for much at all. I have an account, though, and it's easy enough to make one if you want to add your feedback, even if you don't use it for anything else.

----------


## Kurt Kurageous

OneD&D just makes me sad. I've said this before, I'll say it again.

Why do we need a new version? Is it for nothing but a naked money grab?

If there were specific problems found with 5e, how does any of this OneD&D UA fix it?

We will never know. And this makes me sad.

I'd rather they go fix DDB first.

----------


## Xervous

> I mean, I don't use DDB for much at all. I have an account, though, and it's easy enough to make one if you want to add your feedback, even if you don't use it for anything else.


I tried making one and the path led me into requests for my phone number. Dead end.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> For 1 level. In a game with bounded accuracy.  Not seeing the harm.


To me, the bigger issue is that you cannot start with chain mail from your class equipment. Even buying one at character creation won't work, because you start with 57g (50g from background, 7g from class) and chain mail costs 75g. Clerics who want to wear heavy armor will need to work with their DMs to ensure that they actually _get_ that heavy armor. Obviously that's not an insurmountable problem; players should generally be working with their DMs anyway. But it does make the progression clunky.

----------


## Oramac

> Being a low percentage of the worldwide player population is not actually relevant, 39k is statistically significant.


True enough. 




> So long as we have no reason to suspect selection bias anyway, and DDB is as free and open to players from anywhere as any other web-based feedback method would be.


DDB _IS_ selection bias. It requires a dedicated DDB account and a google/twitch/apple account. This automatically disqualifies anyone who doesn't have BOTH of those. There are plenty of other survey sites they require absolutely nothing in order to use them, or WOTC could just create their own not bound by DDB. On top of that, one could make the case that the surveys are not truly anonymous since they require an account.

----------


## No brains

I have to think a little longer as to whether I think these changes are good or bad, but some recurring phrasing gets me.

What does being a 'default' cleric mean to people? Are we talking about the cleric playstyle or the cleric flavor? Because those can be drastically different things. 

If we're talking about the assumption of playstyle (something that shine through as levels and adventuring days wear on) of 'dude who can take a bonk or two and then balm a bonk', then maybe learning what the 'default cleric' is early on might be good for people.

If we're talking about the flavor of being a devotee of a deity, then this could be bad. Someone who stans a god might not always want to be a front liner and healer. A devotee of a trickery cleric, even if their goal was to defend and prop up their faith, might do so through stealth and deceit, not (immediately) through taking a stand and curing the injured. Being stuck as a clanking, obvious devotee of lies and chaos for a few levels could work against you.

All of this collides against the kind of antiquated class name in 'cleric'. A cleric is a clerk. Etymology doesn't lie. That's why both of them do clerical work. A cleric isn't somebody who barges into battle and performs miracles. It's time to rename them to something closer to how they act. Maybe 'Prophet'? Or maybe some other charged religious term that I quake to mention here despite its immediate, yet IRL nonspecific relevancy.

----------


## Telesphoros

> That's one level too long.


1st level goes by pretty fast. Some groups don't even start at 1st level these days. If it's good enough for Dragonborn (using other versions), just stick with the 5e Cleric if it means that much to you.







> I mean, I don't use DDB for much at all. I have an account, though, and it's easy enough to make one if you want to add your feedback, even if you don't use it for anything else.


For me, it's not so much the DDB account, it's the needing to get a Google or Apple account to make a DDB account. They in turn want you to include your phone number and other info, and really, I'm just over the oversharing of my information everywhere. So here I happily sit without a DDB account ;)

----------


## Sorinth

> With subclasses being unified to the same levels, I wonDer how long until we get rules not just for multiclass in, but cross-classing your subclasses.


Well they did it in Strixhaven and it will obviously work better now when classes are getting features at the same level so I've no doubt it's a matter of when not if.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

Who is asking for this ardling thing? And why would it be core? A triceratops head? Huh???  :Small Confused:

----------


## Pooky the Imp

> OneD&D just makes me sad. I've said this before, I'll say it again.
> 
> Why do we need a new version? Is it for nothing but a naked money grab?
> 
> If there were specific problems found with 5e, how does any of this OneD&D UA fix it?


Thus far, I certainly can't say that any of my issues with 5th have been fixed in the preview material.

If anything, the issues have been significantly expanded.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> That's one level too long.


 No it isn't.  
OK, where do we go from here?  



> Why do we need a new version? Is it for nothing but a naked money grab?


 Yes. 



> If there were specific problems found with 5e, how does any of this OneD&D UA fix it?


 No idea, as it's still a work in progress. 



> I'd rather they go fix DDB first.


 That costs money and they want yours.  :Small Wink: 



> To me, the bigger issue is that you cannot start with chain mail from your class equipment. Even buying one at character creation won't work, because you start with 57g (50g from background, 7g from class) and chain mail costs 75g. Clerics who want to wear heavy armor will need to work with their DMs to ensure that they actually _get_ that heavy armor. Obviously that's not an insurmountable problem; players should generally be working with their DMs anyway. But it does make the progression clunky.


 Remember to loot corpses and get loot!   :Small Big Grin:  (But your point on starting equipment is a decent one).  



> DDB _IS_ selection bias. It requires a dedicated DDB account and a google/twitch/apple account. This automatically disqualifies anyone who doesn't have BOTH of those. There are plenty of other survey sites they require absolutely nothing in order to use them, or WOTC could just create their own not bound by DDB. On top of that, one could make the case that the surveys are not truly anonymous since they require an account.


 Yep. 



> Who is asking for this ardling thing?


 Nobody.  . The animal PCs like tortle, tabaxi, harengon, et al (see Witchlight for more?) seem to have been reviewed as popular among those who played them.  



> And why would it be core? A triceratops head? Huh???


See my previous comment about J Crawford, vodka, and red bull perhaps in a different thread.

----------


## Psyren

> DDB _IS_ selection bias. It requires a dedicated DDB account and a google/twitch/apple account. This automatically disqualifies anyone who doesn't have BOTH of those. There are plenty of other survey sites they require absolutely nothing in order to use them, or WOTC could just create their own not bound by DDB. On top of that, one could make the case that the surveys are not truly anonymous since they require an account.


*Spoiler: Survey tangent*
Show

That's not selection bias though; the accounts you mention are _also_ freely accessible by everyone, and there's no significant group of people (beyond the unreasonably paranoid I suppose, or those living in countries with heavily restricted internet) that is unlikely to have at least one of the three. 

More importantly, those methods of authentication help to prevent botnets from influencing the survey en masse. A completely open poll, or one using WotC-developed authentication measures which wouldn't be their strong suit, would not have such protection. By contrast, Twitch, Google and Apple have both the resources, expertise and a vested interest in keeping their platforms relatively free of such. Not saying it's perfect, but it's the best option available.





> OneD&D just makes me sad. I've said this before, I'll say it again.
> 
> Why do we need a new version? Is it for nothing but a naked money grab?
> 
> If there were specific problems found with 5e, how does any of this OneD&D UA fix it?
> 
> We will never know. And this makes me sad.


Money is certainly part of it. At the end of the day they're a for-profit public company and they're spending a lot of capital and time on developing this new edition, so somebody somewhere calculated a positive ROI.

But it also makes sense from a design perspective. There are certain genetic building blocks in 5e that would be at best annoying and at worst impossible to fix via simple errata - things like Two-Weapon Fighting, baseline action economy and feat progression, or changing the very nature of what a Species represents in the game. Those are the sorts of things that you wait for a new edition to alter, even a x.5 edition.

But perhaps the most important reason is that by the time 2024 rolls around, 5e will be a decade old.

----------


## LudicSavant

> No it isn't.


"It's only a silly problem for one level" doesn't somehow stop it from being a silly problem.  There's room to improve the design.

And there are other silly problems at other levels, also discussed above.  The level 1 problem is really just another manifestation of the larger issue that the elements that define your character's individual identity, role, and playstyle are significantly delayed.  You wait until tier 2 to get about as much identity as old Clerics had at tier 1, and tier 3 to get as much as old Clerics had at tier 2.

----------


## Dienekes

> Very nice indeed. I might try changing out my "Groggy" condition for Dazed and see how it works out for the yo-yo healing dealie.


Ooh, went up from Unconscious your first round you are Dazed. I like that.

----------


## Nidgit

Wow, Barkskin is even more terrible than it used to be. When a character unlocks it at 3rd level it offers 5 Temp HP to one creature for an hour, requiring concentration. Aid, meanwhile, does the same to multiple creatures with no concentration. Yes, Barkskin is a bonus action and it arguably scales better, but it's still hot garbage.

Splitting up movement speeds is still dumb, as is the Jump action.

As for the Cleric, the idea of Holy Order is decent. It needs a little balancing and configuring so, for instance, a PC isn't immediately looking for heavy armor but otherwise I like the modularity. And I really appreciate that you don't get all three options through level progression since that type of thing kills uniqueness (see: Tasha's Ranger).

Still, the conformity of subclass progression across all classes is a noticeable problem here. The only Expert class to lose a 4th-tier subclass feature was the Rogue and that was relatively inoffensive. Here we see Clerics getting a very diluted "capstone," and I fear we'll see the same for Paladins. The Domain choice at 3rd level is an issue too- Clerics of different domains receive way fewer unique features at low levels.

Clerics are down five prepared spells with this version, which I think will be particularly noticeable at low levels. Just add +Wis modifier to the number prepared and it should be fine.

I'm on board with Divine Spark, Turn Undead, and Smite Undead, though the language and naming needs to be cleaned up.

Permanent Truesight as an epic boon is excellent and at the level they all need to be at. The other two are laughable in comparison.

I'm mostly ok with the Racial options, though some (Storm Goliath) seem noticeably weaker than others. Dragonborn needs another pass but it's getting closer.

----------


## mjp1050

> No it isn't.  
> OK, where do we go from here?


We keep telling you you're wrong  :Small Tongue: 

In all seriousness, it puts the cleric in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. 

If a heavy armor cleric starts _without_ heavy armor, then they have lackluster AC at the level when characters are the most fragile. Plus, since heavy armor isn't part of their starting equipment, the cleric will have to buy armor later, which is a tax that doesn't need to exist (and they have to do it with 1st-level quest reward money, too).

If the heavy armor cleric starts _with_ heavy armor at 1st level, they can't cast spells in it.

So either way, the cleric loses.

----------


## Psyren

> In principle I like the idea of pushing the subclass to 3rd level so that it's inline with other classes. However I'm not sure I like how it turned out, perhaps a better solution would be to do the opposite and bring the other classes' subclasses online earlier.


That would exacerbate the problem Crawford has stated they're trying to solve by pushing subclasses for everyone back to 3rd.




> 'Cure many hurts' doesn't sound like toddler-speak to me, it sounds like an attempt to invoke a more antiquated style.


This is how I read "many hurts" too.




> With giving banishment a save every round to escape, I wonder if they'll do that for the other save-or-suck spells like hypnotic pattern, fear, and polymorph, and maybe plane shift and reverse gravity. And a way for targets to escape Otilukes sphere, wall of force, and forcecage. I feel like that would be a good change to bring those spells in line with others of their level.


I'd say Banishment will still be good, because for most monsters (especially the most dangerous melee ones), Charisma saves will still suck. Even with a chance to escape every round, chances are that a lot of them will still be gone for the 3-4 rounds it will take for your party to gain the upper hand, patch themselves up, escape etc. Keeping them gone for the full 10 to trigger eviction will be much harder, but that was always a more niche usage of the power anyway.

What I find interesting is the subtle buff the spell received, i.e. you can voluntarily fail the save now. This means you can use Banishment defensively to save an ally that is about to die or that ate a nasty debuff, and they can keep themselves gone for the duration of the combat.




> We keep telling you you're wrong 
> 
> In all seriousness, it puts the cleric in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. 
> 
> If a heavy armor cleric starts _without_ heavy armor, then they have lackluster AC at the level when characters are the most fragile. Plus, since heavy armor isn't part of their starting equipment, the cleric will have to buy armor later, which is a tax that doesn't need to exist (and they have to do it with 1st-level quest reward money, too).
> 
> If the heavy armor cleric starts _with_ heavy armor at 1st level, they can't cast spells in it.
> 
> So either way, the cleric loses.


I don't have a dog in this fight, but Scale Mail + Shield even with 8 Dex get you to 15 AC at level 1, no? That's a perfectly fine starting point, especially for a full caster, and double especially since every cleric has a decent ranged offensive option now besides SF/TTD.

----------


## Oramac

> *Spoiler: Survey tangent*
> Show
> 
> That's not selection bias though; the accounts you mention are _also_ freely accessible by everyone, and there's no significant group of people (beyond the unreasonably paranoid I suppose, or those living in countries with heavily restricted internet) that is unlikely to have at least one of the three. 
> 
> More importantly, those methods of authentication help to prevent botnets from influencing the survey en masse. A completely open poll, or one using WotC-developed authentication measures which wouldn't be their strong suit, would not have such protection. By contrast, Twitch, Google and Apple have both the resources, expertise and a vested interest in keeping their platforms relatively free of such. Not saying it's perfect, but it's the best option available.


*Spoiler*
Show


I mean, sure, it sorta prevents spamming the survey. But not really. I personally have 4 different google accounts. There's no reason I couldn't make 4 DDB accounts either. Yes, it removes the automation of a botnet spamming the survey, but it hardly prevents it. 






> Money is certainly part of it. At the end of the day they're a for-profit public company and they're spending a lot of capital and time on developing this new edition, so somebody somewhere calculated a positive ROI.
> 
> But it also makes sense from a design perspective. There are certain genetic building blocks in 5e that would be at best annoying and at worst impossible to fix via simple errata - things like Two-Weapon Fighting, baseline action economy and feat progression, or changing the very nature of what a Species represents in the game. Those are the sorts of things that you wait for a new edition to alter, even a x.5 edition.
> 
> But perhaps the most important reason is that by the time 2024 rolls around, 5e will be a decade old.


This is valid. At the end of the day, Hasbro is a company that needs to make money.

----------


## OvisCaedo

Looking at the specific wordings, is it just me, or does being invisible now not even allow you to hide unless you are ALSO heavily obscured or in cover?

----------


## stoutstien

> Looking at the specific wordings, is it just me, or does being invisible now not even allow you to hide unless you are ALSO heavily obscured or in cover?


I'll have to pull out the first one UA but if I recall correctly being unseen is the same as being heavy obscured

----------


## Catullus64

So... what's up with these DC floors on Influence and Hide actions? I struggle to comprehend the rationale behind them, and 15 seems punishingly high. There's already a kind of pressure for only the people with the highest bonuses to attempt something, and I fear that this will only reinforce that. I'm kind of worried that this heralds similar changes to resolution mechanics as a whole, in which the role of the DM as arbiter and improviser is de-emphasized in favor of standardized interactions & resolutions.

----------


## Psyren

The original Invisible condition includes this helpful line: "for the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured."




> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> 
> I mean, sure, it sorta prevents spamming the survey. But not really. I personally have 4 different google accounts. There's no reason I couldn't make 4 DDB accounts either. Yes, it removes the automation of a botnet spamming the survey, but it hardly prevents it.


*Spoiler*
Show

Having their own username and password as you suggested would not stop this either, and be significantly worse at detecting and stopping an actual botnet/mass spoof/etc. (And the surveys being wide open with no authentication at all would be even worse.)





> So... what's up with these DC floors on Influence and Hide actions? I struggle to comprehend the rationale behind them, and 15 seems punishingly high. There's already a kind of pressure for only the people with the highest bonuses to attempt something, and I fear that this will only reinforce that. I'm kind of worried that this heralds similar changes to resolution mechanics as a whole, in which the role of the DM as arbiter and improviser is de-emphasized in favor of standardized interactions & resolutions.


I strongly dislike the "15 default" too. They have a perfectly serviceable difficulty system that encourages DMs to consider 10, 15, and 20.

Again though, they haven't accounted for Expert Class feedback yet.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> That would exacerbate the problem Crawford has stated they're trying to solve by pushing subclasses for everyone back to 3rd.


Perhaps. But Crawford also stated that Clerics have consistently gotten very high satisfaction ratings throughout 5e, so I'm not convinced that the feared analysis paralysis is actually a problem. Or at least I don't see it as any more of a problem at level 1 than at level 3. Crawford also stated that they want to keep what people love about Clerics, and the fact that they get their subclass immediately.

----------


## Oramac

> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> Having their own username and password as you suggested would not stop this either, and be significantly worse at detecting and stopping an actual botnet/mass spoof/etc. (And the surveys being wide open with no authentication at all would be even worse.)


*Spoiler*
Show


True. I suppose at the end of the day, there is no good way to make it both completely anonymous and spoof-resistant.






> So... what's up with these DC floors on Influence and Hide actions? I struggle to comprehend the rationale behind them, and 15 seems punishingly high. There's already a kind of pressure for only the people with the highest bonuses to attempt something, and I fear that this will only reinforce that. I'm kind of worried that this heralds similar changes to resolution mechanics as a whole, in which the role of the DM as arbiter and improviser is de-emphasized in favor of standardized interactions & resolutions.





> I strongly dislike the "15 default" too. They have a perfectly serviceable difficulty system that encourages DMs to consider 10, 15, and 20.
> 
> Again though, they haven't accounted for Expert Class feedback yet.


I mentioned this in the Expert Class UA as well, which Psyren correctly points out has not gone through [public] iteration as yet. 

In any case, I fully agree.

----------


## Atranen

I haven't kept up with all of the playtest, but I play Clerics most often, and...eesh I'm not happy with these changes. 




> I can only say that I really hate that they do this through DDB and not at the WoTC dnd/wizards site.


Yeah, I don't get that. I don't want or need a DDB account.




> "It's only a silly problem for one level" doesn't somehow stop it from being a silly problem.  There's room to improve the design.
> 
> And there are other silly problems at other levels, also discussed above.  The level 1 problem is really just another manifestation of the larger issue that the elements that define your character's individual identity, role, and playstyle are significantly delayed.  You wait until tier 2 to get about as much identity as old Clerics had at tier 1, and tier 3 to get as much as old Clerics had at tier 2.


This sums up a lot of my thoughts--it seems like they didn't like how often people took cleric dips and decided to backload the whole class in a way that doesn't make narrative sense because of it. Why, for example, does the scholar holy order affect new skills? You were not proficient at all in a skill, and now its your best skill? Coupled with the heavy armor thing, the lack of level 1 domain spells...basically they 'fixed multiclassing' by making level 1 lack anything defining. I play a lot of tier 1 games; I prefer them. _Playing this cleric in tier 1 means not having a consistent character._ You'll be jumping all over the place in terms of flavor, combat role, and abilities. (Also, if it is fully backward compatible, people can just multiclass with the old PHB cleric. Given the rules, that's what I'll play as a single class cleric anyway. So what is this solving?)

And for high levels, if I understand correctly, the new rules for 'prepared spells' basically ruin the choices clerics used to have. The 'spell slots' table now also dictates _how many spells of each level you can prepare._ Rather than my 11th level cleric having a flexible pool of, say, 15 spells to spread across all levels, I _must_ select 4 1st level, 3 2nd level, 3 3rd level, and so on. I don't see any reason for this change and I suspect it will make clerics feel much more generic--because there's no space to take flavorful spells if they aren't the strongest option for that level. This gets especially bad at 6th level, where I'll generally prepare multiple spells for the single slot; now you just get 1. 

Other thoughts: guidance and resistance spam is dumb. The right way to deal with it would be to specify clearly when and where they can be used (no, you can't obviously cast guidance to boost a persuasion check in front of the mayor, people don't like being magically influenced). 

I have no interest or desire for Ardlings. Goliaths growing extra big magically...seems to go against the feel people want as a goliath.

----------


## J-H

I'm not a fan of some of the wording, including calling things a D20 Test... it seems formal and gamified.  IDK.

Goliaths are now OP.

Dragonborn now get innate flight, which was pretty rare before.  It kind of fits but... flight, and a breath weapon, and Darkvision, and stats are decoupled from species.  Making a Fighter Dragonborn hard-solves two big fighter problems (AOEs and mobility) instantly.  So why play a non-dragonborn?  

Holy Order balance:
Protector:  Requires a feat to copy, plus MWP
Scholar:  About equal to the half feat that gives +1 stat, Expertise in 1 skill, and Proficiency in 1 skill
Thaumaturge: 1 cantrip and one CD use.  I rarely see CD used.
Not balanced.

I am definitely not doing OneD&D.  I'm not sure whether I should even follow these or not.

----------


## stoutstien

I missed that Goliath are fast Boi now lol. Not only do they have 34 base speed they can go super size for 10 more on top of that.

----------


## Oramac

> And for high levels, if I understand correctly, the new rules for 'prepared spells' basically ruin the choices clerics used to have. The 'spell slots' table now also dictates _how many spells of each level you can prepare._ Rather than my 11th level cleric having a flexible pool of, say, 15 spells to spread across all levels, I _must_ select 4 1st level, 3 2nd level, 3 3rd level, and so on. I don't see any reason for this change and I suspect it will make clerics feel much more generic--because there's no space to take flavorful spells if they aren't the strongest option for that level. This gets especially bad at 6th level, where I'll generally prepare multiple spells for the single slot; now you just get 1.


Agreed. This was another thing I brought up in my survey about the Expert Classes (still not public), and something I will be touching on for this survey as well. It's one of those things that, even if it does make it into the core books, I personally will _not_ be enforcing it at my tables. 




> I'm not a fan of some of the wording, including calling things a D20 Test... it seems formal and gamified.  IDK.


On the one hand, I agree. It does feel kinda gamey. OTOH, as someone who writes a lot of homebrew, it makes the writing WAY simpler. Now, instead of saying something like "When you make an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you can do XYZ", I can just say "When you roll a d20 test, you do XYZ thing". Personally, I'm ok with that, but I can see how others might not be.

----------


## Psyren

> I missed that Goliath are fast Boi now lol. Not only do they have 34 base speed they can go super size for 10 more on top of that.


I'm curious how their ability to grow at 5th interacts with Powerful Build, do they count as Huge?




> Perhaps. But Crawford also stated that Clerics have consistently gotten very high satisfaction ratings throughout 5e, so I'm not convinced that the feared analysis paralysis is actually a problem. Or at least I don't see it as any more of a problem at level 1 than at level 3. Crawford also stated that they want to keep what people love about Clerics, and the fact that they get their subclass immediately.


The problem he's citing there isn't a Cleric-only problem though, so the Cleric satisfaction scores may not apply to it in the same way. Rather, it's one that all newcomers to a level-1-choose-your-subclass class may experience - and as he mentioned, newcomers to a given class might not even be newcomers to D&D.

The issue that IS cleric-specific meanwhile is the admittedly awkward "hit level 2, read your class to understand the feature you just got, now go back and read your subclass, which may be in another section or even another book" thing. It's essentially a "stealth subclass feature," and you get it before you've even gotten the chance to get comfortable with Channeling Divinity normally.

----------


## Phhase

Do not like these cleric changes, for the most part. Holy Order is ok. The Scholar option could be combined with expertise to add double your proficiency bonus AND two ability scores to the skill, which is cool. But no domain at level 1? So what, who am I a cleric of then? That's bull. Aid now sucks. Banishment is now _utterly useless_. 

I will never forgive WOTC for removing the Life Cleric + Goodberry combo.

Dragonborn: better.

Ardling: Still embarrassingly vestigial.

----------


## Pex

Overall I like the cleric, but there are minor annoyances.

They're doubling down on number of spell slots equals numbers of spells prepared, so it's not restricted to formerly spells known classes. I was fine with this for spells known classes, but I'd prefer spells prepared classes to keep their versatility.

Losing the ability to outright destroy undead is nostalgia sad. Doing damage looks good on paper, but if the idea is just make the undead go away you're not attacking them so it's a waste. If you do attack them why Turn? I suppose if you're ok with Turn Undead when it's Smite Undead to mean a way to do burst damage as a matter of hit point attrition, not really to make them go away, it's fine I guess. It's not terrible, but I miss destroying undead.

I'm not really bothered Spiritual Weapon is Concentration, though it does mean no more Spirit Guardians/Spiritual Weapon. However, it does make heavy armor melee clerics a bit of trouble because they're taking blows and could lose the spell. They're not supposed to be as good at fighting as warriors, but it is a significant difference. It's noticeable, not hysterical seething anger.

I'm not bothered by new Guidance and Resistance, but I can definitely see how others will be.

That Aid is now temporary hit points is neutral to me. I didn't want to cast the spell before. I still don't. I know others praise the spell in its original form, but the spell never appealed to me. I like the idea behind it but not the implementation. The ratio between the amount of hit points and spell slot used is inefficient to me. I find more value using the spell slot for something else, even if it's healing.

Non-cleric stuff.

Crawford is wrong. Fizban Dragonborn are the Dragonborn to use.

All Goliath PCs teleport. All of them.

I still don't want Ardlings in Core.

I'm glad they got rid of autosuccess/autofailure.

I'm mad Jump is still an action.

----------


## Luccan

> WHY ARE GOLIATHS A CORE RACE AND NOT AASIMAR!?


Critical Role. Which is funny because Grog never seemed like a particularly good example of the default 5e Goliath

Edit: also, weird thing, Aasimar _are_ core in 5e, they're just used as an example in the DMG for building your own races. Eladrin are also core as an elf subrace in the same section of the DMG

----------


## Sorinth

> That would exacerbate the problem Crawford has stated they're trying to solve by pushing subclasses for everyone back to 3rd.


Like I said I do like the idea in principle, it's just this feels kind of a meh implementation. Perhaps following the Warlock model where there isn't just one big choice but two important choices, Patron and Pact. So for example they expanded the Holy Order feature set it would perhaps help the class hit the mark a little better. Or even make the Holy Order the subclass and the Domain a smaller feature set that has more thematic/fluff stuff. In this case you choose the deity at level 1 but the domain is a choice between Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, you get some interesting magic features that help form the theme of your character like Channel Divinity and some domain spells but the actual Subclass is the various Holy Orders.

But to be perfectly honest I don't really buy the complaint that new players can't handle all the extra choice, or it's too important a choice for level 1/2. In terms of too much choice and analysis paralysis, the way they do spells is the same problem that's arguably just as big. Perhaps the problem was making so many different subclasses in the PHB to start with, maybe had they kept it to 2-3 subclasses in the PHB like most other classes their wouldn't have been an issue. In terms of making such an important choice so early before you get a feel, that can easily be solved by retraining type rules, why not just make AL rules where you can just freely change things about your character part of the normal rules?

----------


## Tanarii

> Not only does it hurt regular Clerics in a really silly way, its also not really doing much to the armor dips (since the bulk of the benefit is medium+shield, not the heavy part).


Yes MA is usually enough benefit for a caster type, but there's multiple classes to get that with a 1 level dip without starting in the off-class. Cleric currently the only way to get HA with a 1 level dip without starting in another class. With this change it'd take 2.




> For 1 level. In a game with bounded accuracy.  Not seeing the harm.


Level 1 AC 12 instead of AC 16 (before shield) means sitting in the back instead of being the off tank. In a traditional 4 person party it means you're down to one tank when you need it most, and the first session when a TPK is most likely just became even more so.

Also it just feels really bad to start off a level or two with really suck AC while waiting for your better armor so you can then drastically change your play style. It's one of the things I like least about Valor Bards already, so it jumped out at me.

Also it just feels wrong that a Cleric can't be a HA wearer at level 1.  That's a drastic departure from every prior edition of D&D.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

Can't comment much on the cleric, as I don't have a lot of experience with them.

The races... oh man. Well, the Ardling is just strange. A bit too strange for me. I mean... that's not bad, but, I don't think it needs to take up space in these playtests or in core. Animal-headed people?

The dragonborn... change back to Attack Action is good. Saving Throw DC should be a choice between Str/Dex/Con to be in line with other racial traits that will eventually have a maximized DC because they're based on Int/Wis/Cha (anything Con should allow choice for Str/Dex/Con). I don't like draconic flight. I HATE the aesthetics of temporary "spectral" wings. On top of that, I hate how many races can just overcome physical obstacles, which is one of the last bastions of strength based characters. Stop giving everything flight and teleportation. Speaking of which...

Goliaths can now teleport prof/day. I can't say that I'm happy they took a hulking brute race and now made it as magical as every other creature in the game. Sucks. Oh well, I like versatility so it's nice that the race offers so many options. But mostly meh.

Epic Boons continue to be absolutely underwhelming.

Long Rest gives everything back (HP, HD), and this seems like it will lessen the resilience gap between martials and non-martials.

My hope going forward is that warriors are totally badass, but I'm skeptical. My second hope is that my group doesn't adopt everything whole cloth and just picks and chooses the bits that work for us.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> In all seriousness, it puts the cleric in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.


No, it doesn't. 



> If a heavy armor cleric starts _without_ heavy armor


You aren't a heavy armor cleric until level 2, in this version.   
So no, it's not a problem.  With bounded accuracy, medium armor and sheild suffices at level 1.   
If the cleric needs heavy armor (chain mail is heavy armor) it's (1) not that expensive to get and (2) the party will likely recover stuff and money during their first adventure{s}. So spend it on chain mail.  If the party fights hobgoblins, they'll get chain mail from the dead ones.  :Small Yuk:  
Or, ya know, role play a little and make a deal with someone to provide that as pay off for doing {whatever starting question the loon with the exclamation point over his head offers up as a quest}

----------


## Jervis

> Who is asking for this ardling thing? And why would it be core? A triceratops head? Huh???


Furries. Its so furry players can play their fursona in the game without homebrew I suspect. The mix breed rules also let you play a half Ardling for cat girls. Furries are a decent chunk of the TRPG audience so I suspect this race was made with the intention of giving them something to play in core only. I just wish the lore wasnt so distracting, shifter exists and being part Lycan is considerably easier to integrate into the lore than holy cyanophly people.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> The problem he's citing there isn't a Cleric-only problem though, so the Cleric satisfaction scores may not apply to it in the same way. Rather, it's one that all newcomers to a level-1-choose-your-subclass class may experience - and as he mentioned, newcomers to a given class might not even be newcomers to D&D.


It may not be Cleric-_only_, but it is supposedly a problem with Clerics. And if it is actually a problem, then I would think it would have an impact on the satisfaction scores of all such classes, _including_ Clerics. It just seemed really counterintuitive for Crawford to state that Clerics had such a high satisfaction score and that they wanted to keep all the things people love about them, only to also state that they've got this massive analysis paralysis problem that requires a complete reworking of their progression.

Admittedly, my own bias is coming into play here. Clerics are by far my favorite class to play, and the fact that they get their subclass at level 1 is a big part of the reason why I love them so much. That's why when I heard Crawford's contradiction I fell on the side of "love it - don't change" rather than "analysis paralysis - please change."




> The issue that IS cleric-specific meanwhile is the admittedly awkward "hit level 2, read your class to understand the feature you just got, now go back and read your subclass, which may be in another section or even another book" thing. It's essentially a "stealth subclass feature," and you get it before you've even gotten the chance to get comfortable with Channeling Divinity normally.


I'll admit, the way Channel Divinity is presented in 5e is a bit unwieldy. In particular, the table on PHB 57 should probably indicate that you've got something to check in your subclass. I don't really see a problem with having to check in another section or another book, though. That's the case for all subclass features. The PHB just needs to be more upfront about the fact that Channel Divinity involves a subclass component, rather than burying it in the Channel Divinity text.

----------


## Tanarii

> No, it doesn't. 
> You aren't a heavy armor cleric until level 2, in this version.   So no, it's not a problem.  With bounded accuracy, medium armor and sheild suffices at level 1.  If the cleric needs heavy armor (chain mail is heavy armor) it's (1) not that expensive to get and (2) the party will likely recover stuff and money during their first adventure. If they fight hobgoblins, they'll can get chain mail from the dead ones.  
> Or, ya know, role play a little and make a deal with someone to provide that as pay off for doing {whatever starting question the loon with the exclamation point over his had offers up as a quest}


How about I just appeal to your well earned grognard-ness?  Shouldn't Clerics (that want to) be able to start with traditional heavy armor and mace?  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Level 1 AC 12 instead of AC 16 (before shield)


Where are you getting that?  You can have scale mail at level 1.



> STARTING EQUIPMENT
> As a 1st-level character, you start with the following equipment, or you can forgo it and spend 110 GP on equipment of your choice. 
> Chain Shirt Holy Symbol Mace Priests Pack Shield 7 GP


 Chain Shirt is AC 15 with shield. You can buy scale mail, right?  Start with AC 16 with shield (or with a Dex of 12, start with AC 17).  Earn enough dough to arfford chain mail, and the problem is what at level 2?  



> How about I just appeal to your well earned grognard-ness? Shouldn't Clerics (that want to) be able to start with traditional heavy armor and mace?


Yes, TBH, that's a fine appeal.  But the problem starts with basic 5e: basic 5e only gives cleric medium armor, and by exception (Life, Tempest, Nature(???) and War offers heavy, if that's what you want to criticize.

----------


## Psyren

> But no domain at level 1? So what, who am I a cleric of then?


You're still a cleric of {deity} but you don't get access to their iconic powers until later on when you're no longer an acolyte. Just like a low level wizard could be seen as an apprentice etc.




> I will never forgive WOTC for removing the Life Cleric + Goodberry combo.


Should never have existed imo.




> All Goliath PCs teleport. All of them.


I dunno, Fire and Frost could be interesting on a nova build. There's no limit to how many times you can add the damage per turn as written other than your number of attacks/uses.




> Like I said I do like the idea in principle, it's just this feels kind of a meh implementation. Perhaps following the Warlock model where there isn't just one big choice but two important choices, Patron and Pact. So for example they expanded the Holy Order feature set it would perhaps help the class hit the mark a little better. Or even make the Holy Order the subclass and the Domain a smaller feature set that has more thematic/fluff stuff. In this case you choose the deity at level 1 but the domain is a choice between Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, you get some interesting magic features that help form the theme of your character like Channel Divinity and some domain spells but the actual Subclass is the various Holy Orders.
> 
> But to be perfectly honest I don't really buy the complaint that new players can't handle all the extra choice, or it's too important a choice for level 1/2. In terms of too much choice and analysis paralysis, the way they do spells is the same problem that's arguably just as big. Perhaps the problem was making so many different subclasses in the PHB to start with, maybe had they kept it to 2-3 subclasses in the PHB like most other classes their wouldn't have been an issue. In terms of making such an important choice so early before you get a feel, that can easily be solved by retraining type rules, why not just make AL rules where you can just freely change things about your character part of the normal rules?


1) They solved the spell complexity issue though, by giving every caster suggested preparations at every level. Moreover you can swap those out on a long rest, so even if you end up not liking the suggested ones you're never far away from a change. The same is not true of a subclass - even if you add retraining rules, retraining on a long rest would be a headache for everyone.

2) We know for a fact that every class in the PHB will have 4 subclasses to choose from.

3) We also know for a fact that Warlock is getting changed to get their subclass (which may or may not be their patron, though I can't imagine it wouldn't be) at 3rd level too.




> Where are you getting that?  You can have scale mail at level 1.
> Yes, TBH, that's a fine appeal.


My guess is they assumed Chain Shirt is the only starting option for some reason.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> My guess is they assumed Chain Shirt is the only starting option for some reason.


I guess they assume dumping Dex also?  

Granted, in their defense, the Basic Rules at time of release - 4 classes, F, Cl, Wz Rog, had Cleric, Life, as the standard, and they get/got heavy armor but not martial weapons as proficiency.  Tempest got both.  So Tanarii's bit about 'core template from Original game has some standing in terms of them mucking about with what 5e did well: blend all of the editions.

----------


## Jervis

I can understand moving the profs back. This allows them to hand those out to anyone and not just the designated subclasses (which I think is a good thing). Level 1 without a martial weapon is a little annoying but its one dpr. Clerics getting to chose that at L1 along with a subclass would give them a loooooot of stuff at L1

----------


## Jervis

> I guess they assume dumping Dex also?  Granted, in their defense, the Basic Rules stripped down game, at time of release, had Cleric, Life, as the standard, and they get/got heavy armor but not martial weapons as proficiency.  Tempest got both.


I wouldnt exactly hold up Tempest as a paragon of class design.

----------


## Dienekes

> I dunno, Fire and Frost could be interesting on a nova build. There's no limit to how many times you can add the damage per turn as written other than your number of attacks/uses.


Max you're getting is 6 a day though. At low levels fire's +1d10 is pretty huge. But I suspect (and I have not done the math so probably wrong) first hit knock prone with to get advantage on all further attacks might scale better. Of course there are a lot of enemies that are bigger than large. But then there are a lot of enemies that are going to be reducing fire and cold damage as well.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I can understand moving the profs back. This allows them to hand those out to anyone and not just the designated subclasses (which I think is a good thing). Level 1 without a martial weapon is a little annoying but its one dpr. Clerics getting to chose that at L1 along with a subclass would give them a loooooot of stuff at L1


Mace is a simple weapon, right? It is ... unless they change the weapons table also.   :Small Tongue: 



> I wouldnt exactly hold up Tempest as a paragon of class design.


 Since I wasn't doing that, what point are you trying to make? And Tempest is a sub class.

Response to Pex: 



> Crawford is wrong. Fizban Dragonborn are the Dragonborn to use.
> All Goliath PCs teleport. All of them.
> I still don't want Ardlings in Core.
> I'm glad they got rid of autosuccess/autofailure.
> I'm mad Jump is still an action.


Yep.

----------


## Jervis

> Mace is a simple weapon, right? It is ... unless they change the weapons table also.  
>  Since I wasn't doing that, what point are you trying to make? And Tempest is a sub class.
> 
> Response to Pex: 
> 
> Yep.


Mostly just complaining about how tempest as a subclass got done dirty. Has some good features but im practice its a bit awkward.

----------


## Sorinth

> 1) They solved the spell complexity issue though, by giving every caster suggested preparations at every level. Moreover you can swap those out on a long rest, so even if you end up not liking the suggested ones you're never far away from a change. The same is not true of a subclass - even if you add retraining rules, retraining on a long rest would be a headache for everyone.
> 
> 2) We know for a fact that every class in the PHB will have 4 subclasses to choose from.
> 
> 3) We also know for a fact that Warlock is getting changed to get their subclass (which may or may not be their patron, though I can't imagine it wouldn't be) at 3rd level too.


If suggested spells solves the complexity then I could argue just having a suggested subclass solves the complexity of subclass choice so it would be a non-issue right? As for re-training being a headache I would imagine that in 99% of cases it would be happen between sessions, and even if it was done in session I've seen spell prepration on a long rest take ages too. And frankly I've not seen a DM who would really say no to a player that wasn't happy with their subclass choice and wanted to change it not allow for some kind of retconning. I mean this is a game where you can just have your character commit suicide and roll up a new one.

For the other points we'll have to wait and see what they actually come up with, because until the new PHB is printed it's not a fact, it's merely the goal right now and that might change. And regardless of what changes happen with the warlock the point still stands you could give cleric a choice at level 1 that allows for them to differentiate themselves from every other level 1 cleric and still give the subclass at level 3.

----------


## Snowbluff

I'm here, waiting for something to improve. Like, it's barely worth discussing anymore, they're just invested in making a worse game at this point. 

Channel divinity seems like a forced way to use dazed. Dazed is a soft control effect. Eh. It's now a long rest feature but unlike Bard's Inspiration, this washes out instead of sucking. 

Holy order: Get bent. This is the opposite of the reasoning as to why hexblade got cha attacks by the way. This encourages changing your armor stat from dex to str mid leveling. 

Subclass: 2 levels 2 late. 

Smite Undead: Channel divinity really does seems like a watered down and useless version of its 5e self. Upside is it does some damage. This is destroy undead but it doesn't kill them outright. Downside is you have to guess they're gonna die when you use Turn Undead. 

Blessed Strikes: Hey the damage bonus is sooner. Hey is this not scaling now? Ok, thanks for nothing. 

Holy Order: Again!

Divine Intervention: Ok. 

So cleric already has this problem of feeling kinda of empty as you level. I don't think ODD cleric is really fixing that. I think clerics are pretty good and cool as is, but I would like them to become more interesting. Their level 5 feature only working on a single creature type is just kind of lame. Moving back the subclass selection DOES NOT WORK nearly as well as say, Rogue getting one at 6th level. Also there's still no domain spells post 5th spell level, so again late game clerics will be using samey spells. 

Jump is still an action in the glossary. Like I disagree on a fundamental level but it also takes movement and you can't use it if your remaining movement is 0. Remember how elegant and useful 5e's movement rules are? This is the opposite of that.

----------


## Atranen

> You're still a cleric of {deity} but you don't get access to their iconic powers until later on when you're no longer an acolyte. Just like a low level wizard could be seen as an apprentice etc.


So...what mechanically makes you a cleric of that deity? It's nothing, just flavor. You can't really play a 'first level cleric of Loki'. As someone who really enjoys the lower levels, that's a big loss. But in the designers view, 1st & 2nd are just tutorials, so they don't really matter. And we all know no one plays past 10th...

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Mostly just complaining about how tempest as a subclass got done dirty. Has some good features but im practice its a bit awkward.


If the bog standard cleric takes the Acolyte/Magic Initiate, this allows them to select shield if they want to be more tanky.
@Snowbluff



> Remember how elegant and useful 5e's movement rules are? This is the opposite of that.


Yep. Agree.

----------


## Psyren

Apologies for the lengthy reply but this is a fast-moving thread and I don't want to double-post and risk wrath of mod.




> With bounded accuracy, medium armor and sheild suffices at level 1.


Especially a full caster! And unlike Druids they can wear metal.




> I guess they assume dumping Dex also?


To be fair, for a planned heavy armor user I'm probably shooting for 8-10 Dex max too. But overall I'm on your side, 15 AC at level 1 for a full caster is perfectly fine, especially one with d8 HD that can heal themselves.




> Level 1 without a martial weapon is a little annoying but its one dpr.


They're also getting a 2d8 30ft blast at level 1 that doesn't use a spell slot, you're one-shotting wolves and goblins with that. 




> Edit: also, weird thing, Aasimar _are_ core in 5e, they're just used as an example in the DMG for building your own races. Eladrin are also core as an elf subrace in the same section of the DMG


I mean sure, but the DMG Aasimar is beyond bland. At level 1 you get darkvision, a cantrip that's useless to you because of your darkvision, and two damage resistances, one of which will almost never come up.

Moreover, now that Aasimar and Eladrin are in MPMM, I expect those examples will be excised from the new DMG.




> I can't say that I'm happy they took a hulking brute race and now made it as magical as every other creature in the game. Sucks.


I'm not saying I'm fully in favor of teleporting Goliaths - but you may want to read the Cloud Giant entry, this isn't coming out of nowhere. 




> It may not be Cleric-_only_, but it is supposedly a problem with Clerics. And if it is actually a problem, then I would think it would have an impact on the satisfaction scores of all such classes, _including_ Clerics. It just seemed really counterintuitive for Crawford to state that Clerics had such a high satisfaction score and that they wanted to keep all the things people love about them, only to also state that they've got this massive analysis paralysis problem that requires a complete reworking of their progression.
> 
> Admittedly, my own bias is coming into play here. Clerics are by far my favorite class to play, and the fact that they get their subclass at level 1 is a big part of the reason why I love them so much. That's why when I heard Crawford's contradiction I fell on the side of "love it - don't change" rather than "analysis paralysis - please change."


I wouldn't rely too heavily on the scores in this case. For one, they're not the only avenue the design team have for feedback and decisionmaking, and for two, there is selection bias there in that most people with an opinion on a given class played it, or at least have some familiarity with it. For example, the people who wanted to pick up Cleric but ended up bouncing off it because of the level 1 choices being a barrier to them might have simply selected N/A or not answered at all, but that is valid information too.




> I'll admit, the way Channel Divinity is presented in 5e is a bit unwieldy. In particular, the table on PHB 57 should probably indicate that you've got something to check in your subclass. I don't really see a problem with having to check in another section or another book, though. That's the case for all subclass features. The PHB just needs to be more upfront about the fact that Channel Divinity involves a subclass component, rather than burying it in the Channel Divinity text.


Most classes don't give you a major class feature and a major subclass feature at the same time though, especially on top of you having to make one or more spellcasting choices too.




> So...what mechanically makes you a cleric of that deity? It's nothing, just flavor. You can't really play a 'first level cleric of Loki'. As someone who really enjoys the lower levels, that's a big loss. But in the designers view, 1st & 2nd are just tutorials, so they don't really matter. And we all know no one plays past 10th...


Your channel divinity can still be tailored to your deity. If I'm a cleric of Ilmater for example, I'm probably sticking to the healing spark, while if I'm an aspiring Grave cleric I'm probably zapping left and right.

----------


## Tanarii

> Where are you getting that?  You can have scale mail at level 1.


Starting equipment Chain Shirt, Dex 8.  That's AC 12.

Add a Shield from somewhere (first enemies killed?) and you've got AC 14.

Current HA cleric domains start with Chain and Shield, so AC 18.

4 pt difference either way (shield or no). 3 if you find some scalemail that fits and isn't chopped up by your allies weapons.




> Yes, TBH, that's a fine appeal. But the problem starts with basic 5e: basic 5e only gives cleric medium armor, and by exception (Life, Tempest, Nature(???) and War offers heavy, if that's what you want to criticize.


I was hoping it'd win out.  :Small Big Grin: 

  And I don't criticize it currently because it is 4/7 PHB domains, but more importantly they start with it right away.

----------


## Psyren

> Starting equipment Chain Shirt, Dex 8.  That's AC 12.


Starting equipment includes shield, so 14. And you can go gold buy instead for scale mail+shield, i.e. 15.

14/15 AC is fine for a level 1 full caster.

----------


## Nidgit

You know, I think Smite Undead would calculate out to about on par with Destroy Undead if you simply doubled the dice:

A CR 1/2 Skeleton Warhorse has 22 HP and would killed by either base level Destroy Undead or 6d8 Smite Undead damage.

A CR 1 Ghoul also has 22 HP so it would be killed by a Level 8 Destroy Undead or the same 6d8 Smite Undead at level 5.

Smite Undead wouldn't kill a CR 2 Minotaur Skeleton or Ogre Zombie at any level, but dispatches a Will-o-wisp well before Level 11 Destroy Undead.

A CR 3 Wight would be killed by Smite Undead half the time by Level 13-14, and a Mummy would barely survive it.

For CR 4, Smite Undead can potentially kill a Ghost several levels earlier but is likely to leave a Banshee just barely alive at Level 17-18.

On the whole they feel pretty similar. Doubled Smite Undead is better against low HP enemies with lots of resistances and higher CR Undead but worse against big brute types.

----------


## Jervis

> I'm here, waiting for something to improve. Like, it's barely worth discussing anymore, they're just invested in making a worse game at this point. 
> 
> Channel divinity seems like a forced way to use dazed. Dazed is a soft control effect. Eh. It's now a long rest feature but unlike Bard's Inspiration, this washes out instead of sucking. 
> 
> Holy order: Get bent. This is the opposite of the reasoning as to why hexblade got cha attacks by the way. This encourages changing your armor stat from dex to str mid leveling. 
> 
> Subclass: 2 levels 2 late. 
> 
> Smite Undead: Channel divinity really does seems like a watered down and useless version of its 5e self. Upside is it does some damage. This is destroy undead but it doesn't kill them outright. Downside is you have to guess they're gonna die when you use Turn Undead. 
> ...


Holy order 2 electric boogaloo should really give improved features instead of picking another one. That aside the lack of scaling is something they stealthed in via the optional features a while back. I dont like it but the fact its 1/turn is worse. It means arcana cleric cant take BB or GFB to double down on it. That was what made arcana such a good cantrip spammer.

----------


## Atranen

> Your channel divinity can still be tailored to your deity. If I'm a cleric of Ilmater for example, I'm probably sticking to the healing spark, while if I'm an aspiring Grave cleric I'm probably zapping left and right.


The player will always have some choice in how to flavor their abilities and which ones to use. But the system isn't doing anything to support you here. They made level 3 the new level 1 and decided actual levels 1 & 2 are only useful as tutorials.

----------


## Psyren

> The player will always have some choice in how to flavor their abilities and which ones to use. But the system isn't doing anything to support you here. They made level 3 the new level 1 and decided actual levels 1 & 2 are only useful as tutorials.


I don't think it's so odd that a cleric will grasp the basics as an acolyte or supplicant before being opened up to the full direction of their deity though. And you still get interesting choices to make at levels 1 and 2 even though subclass isn't one of them anymore.

Sorcerers and Warlocks are where I'm more skeptical however, those will necessitate a flavor shift I'm not completely on board with yet.

----------


## mjp1050

> Starting equipment includes shield, so 14. And you can go gold buy instead for scale mail+shield, i.e. 15.
> 
> 14/15 AC is fine for a level 1 full caster.


But not good for a cleric, since 5e allows for a STR cleric* to start with chain mail and shield for 18 AC. A DEX cleric** (either edition) can also start with 18 AC, via scale mail and a shield. 

Either way, 18 AC at 1st level for everyone... except a 1st-level 1D&D STR cleric.




> So no, it's not a problem.  With bounded accuracy, medium armor and sheild suffices at level 1.


"Suffice" being the operative word here, I think. It's a workaround for an issue that shouldn't even exist in the first place. Everyone else starts with the proficiencies and equipment they need at level 1, _including the 5e cleric_, so why should the 1D&D cleric have to jump through this hoop?

*15 Strength, 8 Dexterity
**8 Strength, 15 Dexterity

----------


## Atranen

> I don't think it's so odd that a cleric will grasp the basics as an acolyte or supplicant before being opened up to the full direction of their deity though. And you still get interesting choices to make at levels 1 and 2 even though subclass isn't one of them anymore.


This is what I mean by 'level 3 is the new level 1'. The default in the game world is still that most people do not have class levels. Having class levels is important; it means your character is set apart, special in some way. This should be true, in my opinion, even at level 1. But the way it's written, level 1 means 'you're a little special, but really you're just an acolyte or some other low level thing. You haven't been initiated into the mysteries yet'. Ok; but then level 1 characters are not special, are they?

You can make it make sense internally, but it doesn't match my feeling of what a level 1 character should be.

It really bothers me too, that this seems to be entirely a response to multiclassing concerns. If multiclassing is an issue, then address it directly; don't make the base classes worse to paper over it.

----------


## Psyren

> This is what I mean by 'level 3 is the new level 1'. The default in the game world is still that most people do not have class levels. Having class levels is important; it means your character is set apart, special in some way. This should be true, in my opinion, even at level 1. But the way it's written, level 1 means 'you're a little special, but really you're just an acolyte or some other low level thing. You haven't been initiated into the mysteries yet'. Ok; but then level 1 characters are not special, are they?


I mean, the same was true of level 1 druids wasn't it? It's not unheard of.




> But not good for a cleric, since 5e allows for a STR cleric* to start with chain mail and shield for 18 AC. A DEX cleric** (either edition) can also start with 18 AC, via scale mail and a shield. 
> 
> Either way, 18 AC at 1st level for everyone... except a 1st-level 1D&D STR cleric.


Yes yes, I agree that the poor full caster is ever-so-slightly more MAD now. Put a 10 in Dex so you have 16 AC, even if it's no different than an 8 once you get HAT from Holy Order one level later your initiative will thank you.

----------


## Sorinth

> I don't think it's so odd that a cleric will grasp the basics as an acolyte or supplicant before being opened up to the full direction of their deity though. And you still get interesting choices to make at levels 1 and 2 even though subclass isn't one of them anymore.
> 
> Sorcerers and Warlocks are where I'm more skeptical however, those will necessitate a flavor shift I'm not completely on board with yet.


What interesting choice do you make at level 1?

----------


## Atranen

> I mean, the same was true of level 1 druids wasn't it? It's not unheard of.


I don't think the scenarios are equivalent. Even if they were, that doesn't make it a good choice here.

----------


## Kane0

I tried not to gather any bias with other takes before my usual read-through and note-taking, so let's get stuck in.

Random note: Both the Mage and Priest groups get 'Utility' explicitly listed in their capabilities, which is notably lacking in the expert and warrior groups. Feels one step away from saying two particular groups are straight up more flexible/versatile than the other two.

Cleric Channel
Magic action eh? Sounds like an update to the 'cast a spell' action to further encompass magic that isnt spells and bring them under the 'not more than one levelled spell per turn' rule. Which would be nice to clear up and streamline, but I may just be inserting my preferences into the gap here.

Divine Spark: Nice to have the option, but I feel like the damage option wont see much use seeing as you have cantrips and it uses up a resource.

Turn Undead: Dazed is a nice condition to add, seems fine.

Spellcasting: Preparing a number of spells equal to your spell slots still feels wrong and will bite the devs in the ass as they're removing number of spells available as a dial they can adjust for balance, especially between different casters (prepped vs known, full vs partial progression, etc).

Holy Order: Definitely feels like the double-split like the warlocks pact and patron, and I approve. Good stuff. And they all feel useful too! I especially like the 'short rest returns one use of long rest pool' option which has been odiously absent from similar prof-times-per-long-rest class features.

Subclass: Following the same layout as other classes, nice.

Smite Undead: Pretty lame really, it's not optional like the divinity option so it falls into the favored enemy design trap.

Blessed strikes: All well and good, carry on except for the fact that it doesn't scale.

Holy Order II: No thanks, especially if i've chosen the one I really wanted and the other two don't fit my character. This would be the same as a warrior choosing a second fighting style, or warlock choosing a second boon. Give me an improvement instead, then the secondary option of picking a second level 2 option.

Divine Intervention: With how the video commented on the Thief's use an object bonus action I really expected this to have changed. But still, it's a remnant of older style D&D that i'm glad is present even in this vestigial form.

Life Domain:
Bonus spells: All well and good, but exacerbates the above problem of spell selection (for devs, not players).

Disciple of Life: Doesn't work with your Divine Spark, boo!

Preserve Life: Still as good as it's ever been, still a shame any overflow healing is wasted, encouraging you to wait until the sh!t has really hit the fan before you use it (assuming you don't get KO'd yourself).

Blessed Healer: Still good, but still relies on you getting hurt (that's a bad thing if you are the healer). Any second target within a short range (which could be yourself) would be fine.

Supreme Healing: Still great

Overall: Pretty happy on this front, barring some minor missteps. It's kinda hard to mess up seeing how rocksolid the 5e Cleric already is.


Ardling:
- Moving away from tiefling/aasimar counterpart and more towards beast-folk, thankyou for choosing one direction and sticking with it (but even now I can see you trying to smuggle in the celestial aspects). We already had plenty of beastfolk races to choose from, but I guess this is consolidation?
- Why do they live so long?
- Why does gliding use your reaction? You can choose to fall somewhere you know, it's not always forced upon you. But then again, there is that stupid jump action which I will refuse to use in any shape or form.
- Racer speed bonus can lead to some ludicrous movement, which is funny and cool.
- Swimmer gets bonus cold resistance which seems out of place compared to the climber and glider.

Still feels like its floundering for design space just a bit, like we already have plenty of races that do these things and have more flavor for each. Like i said, perhaps consolidation.

Dragonborn:
- Breath weapon replaces one attack now, awesome once again
- You get Darkvision now, awesome once again
- Bonus action flight that doesn't use concentration from level 5, awesome

Very solid all around, nothing fancy but plenty of reason to pick one. This might actually become the gold standard for warrior races.

Goliath:
- Fire and Storm will quickly lose steam because of a lack of scaling. Frost too but at least it has a rider
- Large form is cool, and actually makes you move faster rather than adds bonus damage
- Cloud, Hill and Storm all feel roughly balanced against each other and have reasons to be chosen
- Powerful build now helps with grappling, good

Epic Boons
Fate: feels appropriately strong, stacking with (dis)advantage and other roll manipulation. Poor experts and warriors can't use it though, best they can get is the Lucky feat.

Spell Recall: Kinda vanilla as far as capstones go, but perfectly functional. Only available to 'real' casters, sorry Bard (and Artificer).

Truesight: Again feels appropriately strong, but is Priest group only. Sorry Monks, Rangers, Rogues and blind-fighters but you can't have nice things.

These Epic Boons are starting to look much more Epic, but this class categorization stuff has reared it's ugly head to ruin the fun. Bit of a slap in the face really.

Spells:
Aid: I can see why it was nerfed, but now it isn't worth a 2nd level slot. Make it 10 THP and then we'll talk.
Banishment: Now offers a new save each turn, fine
Guidance: Back to normal, except reaction instead of ahead of time now. I don't really care either way, it still has the V and S components to keep it in check.
Prayer of healing: Gives you a short rest plus a bit of extra healing on top, I like it. You could just make it a flat 3 targets +1 per upcast, that'd be simple enough.
Resistance: Uses a reaction, far more useful now. Approve!
Spiritual Weapon: Now uses concentration, and upscales for +1d8 per spell level instead of per two. Still a good spell, just can't combine with guardians now.

I'll let others handle the intricacies of the spell lists.

Misc changelog:
Attack: Can equip/unequip a weapon for each attack, nice tidbit there
Grapple: Still interesting and useful
Influence: Cannot be used on PCs and the DC is 15 or INT score, whichever is higher. I do appreciate that this is getting refined rather than dumped.
Light weapon: Still rolling TWF into the attack action, very strong in Tier 1 prior to other ways of getting more attacks becoming available.
Magic action: As I suspected, rolls together spellcasting, magical features and magic items. Casting something with a long cast time disrupting concentration still sucks.
Truesight: Codified but doesn't appear noticeably different, carry on.


Overall, mildly pleased with this UA. Cleric is hard to mess up, and it seems the feedback is slowly being registered. Some minor points here and there but nothing really worth screaming into the void over from my end.

----------


## Psyren

> I don't think the scenarios are equivalent. Even if they were, that doesn't make it a good choice here.


Why not, and why not?

Druid and cleric power sources are very similar (even identical in some settings e.g. FR.)




> What interesting choice do you make at level 1?


Species, background, feat, spells, gear, proficiencies, ability scores? Level 1 is incredibly frontloaded  :Small Confused:

----------


## mjp1050

Oh, here's a pleasant change that I just noticed - suggested species height are back! We might actually be done with the lazy "about the same height as humans" modifier that WotC's been putting in recent books.

Ardlings are between 3 and 7 feet tall, Dragonborn are 5-7 ft, and Goliaths are 7-8 ft. It's nice to have that guideline back.

----------


## Atranen

> Why not, and why not?
> 
> Druid and cleric power sources are very similar (even identical in some settings e.g. FR.)


Druids are typically flavored less hierarchically. If you're a 1st level druid unassociated with a circle, you're still a _druid._ If you're a 1st level cleric an have a minor position in a hierarchy, you're a trainee, not a cleric.

----------


## Psyren

> Druids are typically flavored less hierarchically. If you're a 1st level druid unassociated with a circle, you're still a _druid._ If you're a 1st level cleric an have a minor position in a hierarchy, you're a trainee, not a cleric.


You're still a cleric too; my use of "acolyte" and "supplicant" wasn't literal. 

I'm not seeing a world in which a level 1 druid is a full-fledged druid before their subclass but a level 1 cleric somehow can't be. Either they both are or they both aren't.

----------


## Leon

I like the cleric changes, still disappointed its just another domain as subclass but at least its on par with everyone else who has to wait to 3rd for theirs and hopefully signals that its going to be a Unified 3rd level subclass for all. 

Goliaths, you were cool and interesting but no more. Now your just giantkin/Quasi half-giants.

Ardlings: Splatbook material, not core. We already have the Celestial aligned Planetouched and they have been around a long time awaiting fair inclusion.




> Wow, Barkskin is even more terrible than it used to be. When a character unlocks it at 3rd level it offers 5 Temp HP to one creature for an hour, requiring concentration. Aid, meanwhile, does the same to multiple creatures with no concentration. Yes, Barkskin is a bonus action and it arguably scales better, but it's still hot garbage..


Not many sources of refreshing Temp HP ~ Aid is one and done, Barkskin is a slightly scaling renewing source, much better than the weird AC boost it currently offers

----------


## Nidgit

> Not many sources of refreshing Temp HP ~ Aid is one and done, Barkskin is a slightly scaling renewing source, much better than the weird AC boost it currently offers


I missed that it refreshes each turn! That's much much better.

----------


## Telesphoros

> Starting equipment includes shield, so 14. And you can go gold buy instead for scale mail+shield, i.e. 15.
> 
> 14/15 AC is fine for a level 1 full caster.


Yeah, and a Chain Shirt and Scale Mail both cost 50 gp so it's a pretty easy change to make.

----------


## Atranen

> You're still a cleric too; my use of "acolyte" and "supplicant" wasn't literal. 
> 
> I'm not seeing a world in which a level 1 druid is a full-fledged druid before their subclass but a level 1 cleric somehow can't be. Either they both are or they both aren't.


The druid circles are voluntary associations one can choose to be a part of or not. One could not associate with any druid circles and still be a druid. One can't (ok you can, but not following the flavor text typically used and the way clerics are typically thought of) neglect to worship a deity and be a cleric. In every edition of d&d, clerics worship deities, front and center. It's core to the class. You could easily excise the circles and still have a druid. It's not core to the class. 

So delaying any domain based abilities makes it feel like you're playing an incomplete cleric, in a way that delaying circle based abilities doesn't do for druids.

----------


## Brookshw

> Seriously? "Cure many hurts"? What the actual ****. I'm not 5 years old, nor are any players I've ever met. 
> 
> /rant


Well, my 5 yro daughter plays, and one of my player's kids who plays with us started at 6. There are definitely young kids in the game.




> Ardlings.. still not a fan.. and since when is a triceratops a divine racer animal?


Bring back Saurials! C'mon, you already gave us Dragonbait!

----------


## Sorinth

I'm fine with the idea that you are still an "acolyte" the first few levels so you don't choose subclass yet, however in that case the subclass shouldn't be based on the source of your magic powers, ie which Deity/Domain you serve it should be the how you serve them.

And it's not like Cleric is particularly special in this regards, Warlocks and Sorcerers will have the same issue. Now we can wait and see how they do it for those classes but it just seems like it would be much cleaner if they changed the subclass from the source of your power to a more generic how that power is used type of subclass. So as an example for Warlocks rather then have the subclasses be Fiend/Fey/Goo the subclasses should be  Blade/Chain/Tome and the Patron is instead just some level 1 feature not associated to the subclass.

----------


## Kane0

> I'm fine with the idea that you are still an "acolyte" the first few levels so you don't choose subclass yet, however in that case the subclass shouldn't be based on the source of your magic powers, ie which Deity/Domain you serve it should be the how you serve them.
> 
> And it's not like Cleric is particularly special in this regards, Warlocks and Sorcerers will have the same issue. Now we can wait and see how they do it for those classes but it just seems like it would be much cleaner if they changed the subclass from the source of your power to a more generic how that power is used type of subclass. So as an example for Warlocks rather then have the subclasses be Fiend/Fey/Goo the subclasses should be  Blade/Chain/Tome and the Patron is instead just some level 1 feature not associated to the subclass.


Or handle it like the Paladin or Wizard or Artificer. For the first level or two you're absolutely [what you are going to pick], you just haven't figured out your particular specialty or been entrusted with the particular powers just yet.

I'm fine with the frontloading being spread out a bit.

----------


## Hael

My initial thoughts upon reading this document is..  that it is both good and original.
Except to borrow an overused cliche, the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.

Its absolutely aggravating that they are repeating the same mistakes that were made years ago and that were actually acknowledged as such and designed around, only to be repeated in these documents (see the UA1 dragonborn).

Here I mean things like the lvl 9 feature for cleric.  I thought by now it was acknowledged that giving a feature that was available many levels earlier (minus the original optimal choice) was known to be bad design.  

Of course they didnt seize the opportunity to actually put in new interesting things for the cleric at later levels.  Divine intervention was a not great idea of 5e (mostly b/c its DM dependant, and was essentially the entirety of the t3/t4 experience for a cleric sinking in two features of opportunity cost).  Of course that wasn't really changed. 

Of course they still dont understand damage and action/concentration opportunity cost.  So eg the damage side of divine spark is a feature that makes absolutely zero sense at various points (essentially a newbie trap).  Ditto with the new spiritual weapon.

Also, the Life cleric still uses level instead of proficiency, so I guess we retain both mechanics going forward..  That fine I suppose,  I just had assumed they were getting away from that.

Anyway, my confidence that they are going to get this right is steadily deteriorating.  There are just too many basic mistakes and a glaring lack of new interesting content.

----------


## Kane0

> Its absolutely aggravating that they are repeating the same mistakes that were made years ago and that were actually acknowledged as such and designed around, only to be repeated in these documents (see the UA1 dragonborn).
> 
> Here I mean things like the lvl 9 feature for cleric.  I thought by now it was acknowledged that giving a feature that was available many levels earlier (minus the original optimal choice) was known to be bad design.


Sounds like new hires have replaced the old and they haven't learned those lessons or read the handover documentation.

----------


## Sorinth

> Or handle it like the Paladin or Wizard or Artificer. For the first level or two you're absolutely [what you are going to pick], you just haven't figured out your particular specialty or been entrusted with the particular powers just yet.
> 
> I'm fine with the frontloading being spread out a bit.


That pretending is what should be avoided, we do it for Paladins and I very much dislike it. Wizards and Artificer on the other hand don't have that issue since the source of their magic doesn't come from the subclass instead the subclass is what they are specializing in.

----------


## Dienekes

> Or handle it like the Paladin or Wizard or Artificer. For the first level or two you're absolutely [what you are going to pick], you just haven't figured out your particular specialty or been entrusted with the particular powers just yet.
> 
> I'm fine with the frontloading being spread out a bit.


See you can do that. But I've been mildly annoyed for years now on how the Paladin is set up. Not like it's a make or break thing for me. But if I had a grand poobah powers for a day I might make Paladin's oath come in on 1st level. The whole point of the class is their dedication to their Oath is what grants them supernatural powers. Why did they get supernatural powers if the mechanics of the class don't even enforce them taking an oath yet? It'd be something if levels 1 and 2 the Paladin had no magical abilities. But they blatantly do. 

Which is what's probably going to happen with Cleric and Sorcerer and Warlock. Will I condemn the game as utterly unplayable with the change for everyone to subclasses at 3? No. Will it be a minor annoyance I have with the system the entire time I play it? Yes. Probably.

----------


## Zevox

So, personal thoughts after a first pass on this:

Cleric - Seems fine by me. I like the new Holy Order feature. Doesn't honestly feel like a heck of a lot changed.

Aardling - Leaning more into the animal traits is a good call, makes them feel less like they're trying to replace Aasimar. Nonetheless, my feeling that either Aasimar or a proper animal-person race like Tabaxi or Shifter (or both, if they feel both the celestial-person and animal-person niches need filling) would be better as a PHB choice remains unchanged.

Dragonborn - Better, though I still prefer the Fizban's versions. "Spectral wings" doesn't really feel right to me - if you want to give them wings, give them actual physical wings, magical ones seem out of place. But then they can't justify their flight being limited-use, so they won't do that. In which case, maybe wings just isn't a good idea for the race, eh?

Goliath - Very surprised to see these here. I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, mechanics look good, and I'm cool with them being a PHB race. On the other hand, they've never been descendants of the normal Giant types before, but cousins, and I don't know that I like that lore change to justify the mechanics, personally.

Epic Boon of Truesight - See this WotC? This is what an Epic Boon should be. It's actually Epic. By comparison, the other Epic Boons in this document are pretty underwhelming. Maybe take a look at that.

Banishment is now "repeat the save each turn," in addition to requiring concentration? Makes it a hell of a lot weaker. Not a fan.

The "get inspiration on a natural 1" thing is still around. That's a pity.

Resistance is now way better - but that 10 foot range might make it okay, actually. Keeping your party members that close to you at all times is not easy during a lot of fights, just ask any Paladin.

----------


## Psyren

> Yeah, and a Chain Shirt and Scale Mail both cost 50 gp so it's a pretty easy change to make.


Indeed.




> Goliaths, you were cool and interesting but no more. Now your just giantkin/Quasi half-giants.


You can play them exactly like they were originally though, just pick the stone option and ignore the rest. More thematic options are good.




> The druid circles are voluntary associations one can choose to be a part of or not. One could not associate with any druid circles and still be a druid. One can't (ok you can, but not following the flavor text typically used and the way clerics are typically thought of) neglect to worship a deity and be a cleric. In every edition of d&d, clerics worship deities, front and center. It's core to the class. You could easily excise the circles and still have a druid. It's not core to the class. 
> 
> So delaying any domain based abilities makes it feel like you're playing an incomplete cleric, in a way that delaying circle based abilities doesn't do for druids.


I still disagree. For starters, druids can be just as god-dependent as clerics, as stated in their description on PHB 64 (and enforced in settings like FR), and that doesn't stop them from being subclassless at level 1. Second, domains are also a voluntary association: _"Choose one domain related to your deity."_ There is no thematic necessity for that decision to need to take place at 1st level; changing clerics so that you have to get to know your god a little bit before deciding which of their spheres of influence you want to most closely associate with is not just reasonable, I can see it as a thematic improvement over the original.

----------


## sambojin

I don't mind the Cleric. I would give them a lvl1 ribbon, and since this is 1dnd, I'd make it a spell. Or two. That don't really level all that well, but work pretty well on most of the campaign, so it's just a thing you can do. You follow your god, but how are you special in their eyes? About this special:

-------
Divine Service: At lvl1, you choose in which way you intend to serve your god. You have one of the following options, and always have these spells prepared (on top of your usual amount).

Healing: you always have the Healing Word, and Sanctuary spells prepared.

Martial: you always have the Heroism, and Shield of Faith spells prepared.

Knowledge: You always have the Detect Good and Evil, and Detect Magic spells prepared.
--------

This allows a heap of builds, isn't overly powerful (it's not adding slots, just preps), and allows flavouring to your God's service, straight from level 1. Be a knowledge'y protector of Life, or a martial thaumaturge (of Life so far), or whatever. Basically subs in for lvl1 domain spells, but it's not a huge choice, and adds flavour and variation to your domain and holy order.

I reckon it's a pretty good fix. It's not like they're powerful, but they are very cool. You could just prepare them anyway, but they're good enough that they'll still be used in a lvl1-10 campaign when needed (and any extra utility is nice. Knowledge even contains a ritual, for good measure).

Be a witch hunter, or follow the god of magic,  or travel the world. Them not being tied to domain is nice, plenty of them being concentration is not, but they're there. So you can go all-in on being the servant of the war'iest war god that ever warred, or have a smattering of you in there (in how you serve such a god and your place in the religion and society surrounding it). Maybe they like to know stuff or not die too? Makes wars way easier.

Would work ok, and since it's like 2 lvl1 spell preps, that aren't tied to domain, it's pretty light on power but great on flavour. It's more of a "what do you want to do with this character?", rather than a "you'd better know everything you'll be doing, from lvl1!".

It's a bit of a "build a bear" Cleric, but I think it fits pretty well on the current magic system and theming. You are still very slot-limited on actually doing these things well, and they are only lvl1 spells. But they are pretty powerful and character defining on "you", not "your god/ holy order", which is good to have from the get-go.


((You could probably even expand this list a bit.

Dis/~/Order: Compelled Duel and Command.
Hidden: Disguise Self and Fog Cloud.
Temporal: Expeditious Retreat and Longstrider.
Natural: Speak with Animals and Hunter's Mark.
Magical: Guiding Bolt and Faerie Fire.
Illusion: Silent Image and Unseen Servant.

Etc etc...

Basically it's the gift that keeps giving for a lvl1 flavourful, on "totally not domain spells, just how my god noticed me, or how I will serve that god".
So yeah, sambojin: making clerics OP again, from the UA onwards. It just makes 1dnd Clerics "not crap", and even with the three original suggestions, lets there be plenty of flavour to the builds and characters created. Though making it a 1-of-3(or 9 now?) choice would really nail it well. If you've got to wait until lvl3 to be a "not-acolyte", I want some customisation on the way there, to show what sort of acolyte I was. There's nothing forcing you to use your spell slots on those spells, but it's nice that you can, with the 9-odd variations given))

----------


## Psyren

> Dragonborn - Better, though I still prefer the Fizban's versions. "Spectral wings" doesn't really feel right to me - if you want to give them wings, give them actual physical wings, magical ones seem out of place. But then they can't justify their flight being limited-use, so they won't do that. In which case, maybe wings just isn't a good idea for the race, eh?


I too would prefer physical/scaly wings (that are generally furled), and they could justify their presence by letting them grant a slow-fall effect in addition to the very limited flight later on.




> By comparison, the other Epic Boons in this document are pretty underwhelming. Maybe take a look at that.
> ...
> The "get inspiration on a natural 1" thing is still around. That's a pity.


As a reminder - the feedback from Expert Classes is not reflected in this UA, so even if everyone absolutely hated all the previous Epic Boons and the Inspiration-on-a-1 rule, we won't be able to tell that by looking at this one. Only Character Origins feedback is reflected here, hence the new Ardling and Dragonborn.

----------


## Jervis

I just realized that they made spiritual weapon concentration  :Xykon:  . Understandable from a balance perspective I suppose, even if im not a fan, but what does cleric even spend their BA on while concentrating on something else? That was kind of a important part of their DPR calculations and not being able to pair it with bless and SG is a pretty big nerf.

----------


## Hael

> I just realized that they made spiritual weapon concentration  . Understandable from a balance perspective I suppose, even if im not a fan, but what does cleric even spend their BA on while concentrating on something else? That was kind of a important part of their DPR calculations and not being able to pair it with bless and SG is a pretty big nerf.


The optimal way to play nowdays isn't even to cast spiritual weapon (its viewed as a waste of a slot once you go much past lvl 5).  You just get the telekinetic feat and push/pull people into your spirit guardians.  Similar damage for your bonus action, and you save a slot at the cost of a half feat.

So I guess I disagree that it needed to be nerfed in the first place.  

Lets see what they do to spirit guardians...

----------


## Tanarii

"The default DC for a check is 15, and it is rarely worth calling for an Ability Check if the DC is as low as 5, unless the potential failure is narratively interesting."

I see they're doubling down on not understanding their own system math.  If they want to use this, they need to add a suggestion to only call for checks when the character can roll with their highest bonuses (or better yet highest bonus rolls for the entire party), or just acknowledge that adventurers are klutzes who can't succeed on most things requiring checks unless they have high ability scores combined with proficiency until high levels.  It's not even a coin flip for 3 out of 6 ability scores for most characters.

----------


## Kane0

Yeah try 12 or 13 as a default

----------


## Leon

> You can play them exactly like they were originally though, just pick the stone option and ignore the rest. More thematic options are good.


There's more "thematic options" and then there's tacking giantkin onto a race that has never had anything to do with Giants except live in the same mountains and have occasional conflict with giants. This is the time to introduce (as eventual spaltbook race looking at you ardlings) a new race of giant themed people to go with the eventual giant book (there'd not be a Druid subclass and whatever else dropping heavy giant magic hints if there wasnt one coming)

----------


## sambojin

Can't wait until they release Firbolgs again....

(And yep. We're all original Xcom soldiers here in 1dnd. Actually, the reverse. We can shoot/ punch, averagely or better, but are hopeless at everything else otherwise, and we don't get rocket launchers from lvl1. Lol)

----------


## Tanarii

> Yeah try 12 or 13 as a default


I'd like 11 Medium, that gives Ability Score 10 without proficiency a 50/50 chance.  And 6 for Easy, 75% chance.

My assumption here is that checks will be regularly called for things that have interesting/important failure states, but any adventurer should have a base chance of a coin flip for them, so we're not setting a baseline of check = failure.

It doesn't really matter if the default to DC is called Medium or not, but it should be 10 or 11, unless they make clear to DMs they should usually only be calling for interesting/important failure states that adventurers are expected to fail more often than not unless they are specialists.

(Note that this very much isn't the default for attacks, which are expected to come in at ~60%, or failing to save against PC cast spells at ~50%.)

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> There's more "thematic options" and then there's stuffing giantkin onto a race that has never had anything to do with Giants except live in the same mountains and have occasional conflict with giants.


Oddly enough, when I was deciding the origin of a bunch of my races about 6 years ago (so well before this came out), I decided that goliaths (which I call jazuu) and dwarves were actually both intimately related to the giant-kin. Specifically, jazuu are what giants come from. See, true giants in my setting aren't actually a species (or set of them). They're _runic rewritings of jazuu_. A process that rebuilds body and soul; the stronger and more skilled the person, the further they can go (and thus the higher the form of giant). Giants are sterile--in exchange for extreme long life, they give up reproduction. Non-true-giants (ogres, trolls, etc) are what happens if you fail too early in the process (depending on exactly where you fail). And, due to a quirk of ironic fate, _they_ are fertile. So giant-kin outnumber giants tremendously. Most jazuu communities also include multiple giants, who may act as rulers, workers, warriors, or craftsman. And this is why jazuu cultures are so often competitive--they consider the giant transformation to be the highest status you can have, but only the strongest few are allowed to attempt it. All of this is an attempt to mimic their long-ago ancestors the titans, who were shapeshifting runic masters of creation and ordering.

Dwarves are the descendants of titans who were stripped of most of their power (and stature) by their compatriots as part of an ancient attempt to create a weapon against the ancestors of the modern dragons in the last of their wars. As such, they have an affinity for runes and for crafting. What happens if you try to put a dwarf through the giantification process? Dunno. No one's tried it and reported about it. Probably something bad, but possibly not fatal. There was a dwarven attempt at something similar, but more...technological. It failed, and then a goblin bard tried it and became, well...even weirder than he already was.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## kazaryu

so i haven't read all of it. cleric is already my favorite class, with life cleric actually my favorite subclass, so i was excited to see what they may have come up with and im...incredibly disappointed. 

a level 20 life cleric will function...basically identically to what 5e with the exception of the changes to base cleric channel divinity, and the holy orders. but none of the actual subclass features changed, they just got pushed back (except for supreme healing which got pushed up). overall i think its just...a straight nerf to what was already one of the weaker cleric subclasses. 

i DO however like that they're adding the ability to deal damage back into the base clerics channel divinity. that is definitely something i missed from PF.

----------


## Segev

> The player will always have some choice in how to flavor their abilities and which ones to use. But the system isn't doing anything to support you here. They made level 3 the new level 1 and decided actual levels 1 & 2 are only useful as tutorials.


To be fair, a lot of games I've seen treat it that way already. 




> Druids are typically flavored less hierarchically. If you're a 1st level druid unassociated with a circle, you're still a _druid._ If you're a 1st level cleric an have a minor position in a hierarchy, you're a trainee, not a cleric.


Ironically, in 1e, Druids were EXTREMELY hierarchical, being one of the classes (like the monk and assassin) that had to fight other druids to level up to the highest levels. There were limited numbers of druids who could possibly be of certain levels, with the last couple/few levels having only one druid at each of those levels. They had to challenge and defeat in a duel the druid of a level above them to gain the next level, and if they won, the druid they beat was either dead, or reduced by one level. If they lost, they are reset to the bottom of their current levle and have to gain exp to level up again before challenging them again.

----------


## Jervis

> The optimal way to play nowdays isn't even to cast spiritual weapon (its viewed as a waste of a slot once you go much past lvl 5).  You just get the telekinetic feat and push/pull people into your spirit guardians.  Similar damage for your bonus action, and you save a slot at the cost of a half feat.
> 
> So I guess I disagree that it needed to be nerfed in the first place.  
> 
> Lets see what they do to spirit guardians...


Im skeptical as to if Telekinetic will survive, if it does it probably wont be core. It fits the design of level 4 feats well so allowing it wont break anything but if you dont want to use legacy content itll be a problem. Speaking from experience a system jumping to .5 and still using stuff from half a system ago causes many problems. 

Besides that it makes concentration spells that arent spirit guardians (assuming they dont nerf it) even worse.

----------


## sambojin

> =kazaryu;25647654
> Snip
> a level 20 life cleric will function...basically identically to what 5e with the exception of the changes to base cleric channel divinity, and the holy orders. but none of the actual subclass features changed, they just got pushed back (except for supreme healing which got pushed up). overall i think its just...a straight nerf to what was already one of the weaker cleric subclasses
> Snip. 
> .


Yes, it is a straight nerf.
And, No, they won't function anything like a 5e cleric.

You WILL prepare 4xlvl1 spells, you WILL prepare 3xlvl2 spells, you WILL prepare 3xlvl3 spells, etc, by character lvl6. Which honestly, is a lot of spells, but wow would I love to not prepare them in those lower slots, and "slot-up" my preps to higher level "this *could* be useful" stuff, after just having Bless and Healing Word covered in the lower ones.

It's a very different game in that.
Hell, think of the poor Druids, that now can't compete with Wizards. I mean, think of the poor Wizards.... They actually have to prepare lvl1 spells, all-the-time.... No matter how many scrolls they "find/ get-given-by-the-DM". What are they going to do now?

Lol

----------


## MisterD

> Thanks!
> 
> Well, I must say I'm pretty puzzled on many points, especially on how Jump is still an action. Before the big stuff, though, I got a question: was the way to get out of the Grappled condition already a Saving Throw in the last playtest? 
> 
> 
> 
> On top of that it seems all the spells, including lvl 0 ones, are entirely "you choose what you want each day".
> 
> So yeah, less identity overall.
> ...


Hill Giant Goliath archer/spell caster knocking flying creature prone.  nice.

----------


## MisterD

> So, personal thoughts after a first pass on this:
> 
> Cleric - Seems fine by me. I like the new Holy Order feature. Doesn't honestly feel like a heck of a lot changed.
> 
> Aardling - Leaning more into the animal traits is a good call, makes them feel less like they're trying to replace Aasimar. Nonetheless, my feeling that either Aasimar or a proper animal-person race like Tabaxi or Shifter (or both, if they feel both the celestial-person and animal-person niches need filling) would be better as a PHB choice remains unchanged.
> 
> Dragonborn - Better, though I still prefer the Fizban's versions. "Spectral wings" doesn't really feel right to me - if you want to give them wings, give them actual physical wings, magical ones seem out of place. But then they can't justify their flight being limited-use, so they won't do that. In which case, maybe wings just isn't a good idea for the race, eh?
> 
> Goliath - Very surprised to see these here. I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, mechanics look good, and I'm cool with them being a PHB race. On the other hand, they've never been descendants of the normal Giant types before, but cousins, and I don't know that I like that lore change to justify the mechanics, personally.
> ...


Leave Goliaths as is.  There is a giant book coming out next year.  Have a Giant Kin lineage if you want to add the different giant type traits.

----------


## Arkhios

Did they say there were more than 39k feedbacks, and chose not to read more than that, or is it actually the number of feedbacks they've got (so far)?

For example, I'd say I'm a regular consumer of all things "D&D", and I haven't given them any feedback since way back. Not because I'm disinterested in doing so, but rather because I haven't had the time to sit down and focus on doing it.

I really doubt I'm the only one.

----------


## Telesphoros

I know Goliaths were considered Half-Giants since 4e and Dark Sun. 


In a lot of my campaigns I have them related to Giants (and Dwarves for that matter in regards to The World Before campaign). 

I do think the proficiency bonus mechanic is getting overused. I don't really think it should be used for things like racial abilities myself. Limit to stuff tied to class/subclass if they must. 






> Did they say there were more than 39k feedbacks, and chose not to read more than that, or is it actually the number of feedbacks they've got (so far)?
> 
> For example, I'd say I'm a regular consumer of all things "D&D", and I haven't given them any feedback since way back. Not because I'm disinterested in doing so, but rather because I haven't had the time to sit down and focus on doing it.
> 
> I really doubt I'm the only one.




In the Future of OneD&D video Crawford states over 40k interacted with the survey and 39k completed it fully. This is only regarding the first survey for Character Origins.

----------


## Melil12

Does shield of faith and a shield no longer stack? its still a low level spell if you have to run into melee for a brief period.

Level 1 usually goes by very quickly, some groups even skip it all together.

----------


## Pex

> Heavy Armor waiting until 2nd level helps mitigate cleric dips for HA.
> But it really hurts regular clerics that want to use HA.  If they Dex dump, which is one of the entire points of HA, they're looking at AC 12 at level 1 the the standard Chain Short.
> 
> 
> This alone is sufficient to indicate to me they're not really interested in feedback.


Chain shirt is AC 13. Heavy armor wanting clerics at level 1 will instead be in scale mail and shield for AC 16 with 10 DX. It's a nerf but not a devastating one.

----------


## Atranen

> I still disagree. For starters, druids can be just as god-dependent as clerics, as stated in their description on PHB 64 (and enforced in settings like FR), and that doesn't stop them from being subclassless at level 1. Second, domains are also a voluntary association: _"Choose one domain related to your deity."_ There is no thematic necessity for that decision to need to take place at 1st level; changing clerics so that you have to get to know your god a little bit before deciding which of their spheres of influence you want to most closely associate with is not just reasonable, I can see it as a thematic improvement over the original.


The druid relationship with a god is much less pronounced than the cleric one in every game I've played. And even so, 'god' is different than 'circle'. 

I'm more amenable to your second point; it is possible to be a cleric of a God and choose which domain to follow later. But this only applies for deities with multiple domains, and at least in the PHB, most deities only have one. And even pushing the choice back, that still leaves you at level 1 without the system supporting you as a cleric of XYZ. You're just a generic...cleric.




> I don't mind the Cleric. I would give them a lvl1 ribbon, and since this is 1dnd, I'd make it a spell. Or two. That don't really level all that well, but work pretty well on most of the campaign, so it's just a thing you can do. You follow your god, but how are you special in their eyes? About this special:
> 
> -------
> Divine Service: At lvl1, you choose in which way you intend to serve your god. You have one of the following options, and always have these spells prepared (on top of your usual amount).
> 
> Healing: you always have the Healing Word, and Sanctuary spells prepared.
> 
> Martial: you always have the Heroism, and Shield of Faith spells prepared.
> 
> Knowledge: You always have the Detect Good and Evil, and Detect Magic spells prepared.


I think this is a great workaround, that restores the 1st level domain spells, gives you more flexibility, and lets you choose something that actually defines your character as a follower of whichever deity. If they have to keep the subclass at 3, I want them to add this.  




> Ironically, in 1e, Druids were EXTREMELY hierarchical, being one of the classes (like the monk and assassin) that had to fight other druids to level up to the highest levels. There were limited numbers of druids who could possibly be of certain levels, with the last couple/few levels having only one druid at each of those levels. They had to challenge and defeat in a duel the druid of a level above them to gain the next level, and if they won, the druid they beat was either dead, or reduced by one level. If they lost, they are reset to the bottom of their current levle and have to gain exp to level up again before challenging them again.


At high levels definitely. I don't recall how the flavor was dealt with at low levels...it would be an interesting comparison.

----------


## Pex

> Ooh, went up from Unconscious your first round you are Dazed. I like that.


*Spoiler: Off topic*
Show

Tangent for another thread that talks about this, if you must have something to avoid pop-up healing I'm ok with using this Dazed condition than exhaustion rules, current version or D&Done version.

----------


## Tanarii

> Chain shirt is AC 13. Heavy armor wanting clerics at level 1 will instead be in scale mail and shield for AC 16 with 10 DX. It's a nerf but not a devastating one.


The standard equipment for Clerics in the UA is a Chain Shirt and no shield, and Dex 8 is far more the norm IMX for HA wearing characters.

----------


## sambojin

Fix a Cleric/ Build-A-Bear Cleric on 1dnd from the current UA:

-------
Divine Service: At lvl1, you choose in which way you intend to serve your god. You have one of the following options, and always have these spells prepared (on top of your usual amount).

Healing: you always have the Healing Word, and Sanctuary spells prepared.

Martial: you always have the Heroism, and Shield of Faith spells prepared.

Knowledge: You always have the Detect Good and Evil, and Detect Magic spells prepared.
--------

++ (Or chose from any of these)

Dis/~/Order: Compelled Duel and Command.
Hidden: Disguise Self and Fog Cloud.
Temporal: Expeditious Retreat and Longstrider.
Natural: Speak with Animals and Hunter's Mark.
Magical: Guiding Bolt and Faerie Fire.
Illusion: Silent Image and Unseen Servant.
---------

^add to list above, but this is my current "Fix a Cleric" thing. Just lvl1 non-domain spell preps on a choice list. 1-of-9 currently, but pretty cool regardless. Choose your Holy Order at lvl2, and subclass/ domain/ big-god-bonus at lvl3, as normal. Would this fix Cleric properly, in your eyes?

----------


## Aquillion

Agree with everyone who has said that Thaumaturge seems blatantly better than the other two Holy Order options.  Someone who wants to make a fighty Cleric _might_ choose Protector, but Scholar seems completely, unthinkably terrible - the listed skills are basically flavor text in most games I've seen, not something that could remotely be considered as valuable as the other two.

I _guess_ if you're a cleric who completely ignores combat you might take it at level 9, but even then it seems dubious.

Goliaths only being able to be Large for 10 minutes a day feels weird, thematically.

----------


## sambojin

I can't wait for the rules txt on whatever Wildshape ends up as though. Goliath Large teleporting kitty-cat is go!

Or Dragonborn Flying whatevers! The lightning breathing version, sometimes :)
It's totally not a 10min spell. Yayyy!!!! Flying warhorsies at lvl5!!!!!

I kinda like the Resistance just being a reflex action. It takes away some of the power of the lvl6 10' +3/+4 Pally all-resistance BS, and actually takes your reaction to do the +d4. You can stack them, but you can do stuff pretty well on that anyway to fill a non-Pally roll in the party.

They roll really low? Nope, you won't bother using your reaction, if there's better uses for it. But mostly you will anyway, because it's a somewhat narrative game, so helping your party members never goes out of style, as long as you're not being annoying about it.

----------


## Goobahfish

I'm still going keep calling this 5.1. It mostly feels like shifting deckchairs.

I mean... it doesn't feel very much different from the hundreds of 'Fixes' you might see on reddit's Unearthed Arcana. The only thing I think which is 'interesting' is using Channel Divinity to 'burn heretics'.

Subclasses at 3 is fine (and probably good if only for balance reasons). I feel like they need to 'colour' the subclasses very strongly at level 3 though to make them 'feel' like a subclass. Currently having identical CD until level 6 feels a bit lame.

Toolboxing out the proficiencies is also a good change.

Sprinting triceratops might become a meme?

----------


## Kane0

> I'm still going keep calling this 5.1. It mostly feels like shifting deckchairs.
> I mean... it doesn't feel very much different from the hundreds of 'Fixes' you might see on reddit's Unearthed Arcana.
> 
> Sprinting triceratops might become a meme?


Yes, it's musical 5e. Which isnt bad from a backwards compatibility standpoint but likely is from a wallet standpoint. I'm fine with D&D2024 just being a touched up 5e, it validates my homebrew and houserules plus feeds me more to blend in.

Racing dino-men batman!

----------


## werescythe

So we finally have a dog like race (well, sort of, and no shifters don't count) and they are so... Underwhelming. :(

----------


## Waazraath

I said it earlier, and with this new material I say it again: I see nothing that justifies a new edition. The cleric subclass is only marginally different from what it was. Why on earth would anybody spend money on a new edition that resembles the old one this much, while the question on whether it is really 'better' in the details where it does differ is seriously open to debate.

----------


## Zalabim

> I don't think it's so odd that a cleric will grasp the basics as an acolyte or supplicant before being opened up to the full direction of their deity though. And you still get interesting choices to make at levels 1 and 2 even though subclass isn't one of them anymore.
> 
> Sorcerers and Warlocks are where I'm more skeptical however, those will necessitate a flavor shift I'm not completely on board with yet.


Sorcerers lived through an entire edition where they never got any flavor, and warlocks went through an edition where their flavor was to keep adding new pacts for more powers as they leveled. So I think that both of them can live with subclasses providing that at 3rd level. What sorcerer will need is an actual level 1-2 identity outside of their subclass.

----------


## Telesphoros

> The standard equipment for Clerics in the UA is a Chain Shirt and no shield, and Dex 8 is far more the norm IMX for HA wearing characters.


Gotta read the second column mate, lists the shield there:


STARTING EQUIPMENT
As a 1st-level character, you start with the
following equipment, or you can forgo it and spend
110 GP on equipment of your choice.

Chain Shirt
Holy Symbol
Mace

Priests Pack
Shield
7 GP

----------


## Arkhios

I just noticed something, though I'm not sure if this is the first occasion in this playtest:

It seems they have moved away from having spell slots separately and an amount of spells prepared derived from the class level and primary ability score modifier, and rather taking a small step back towards the old Vancian system, with the spells prepared columns of the class table showing the exact number of spells prepared of each given spell slot level.

If I understood correctly, however, you can still cast any spell you have prepared as many times as you have slots for said levels; at least I hope they don't intend to go that far back to the "fire-and-forget" concept of 3rd edition.

For the most part I like this change, because it's more simple as you don't have to try and remember a calculation method (e.g. cleric level + wisdom = base number of spells prepared for the day) for each different class you may have, whether multiclassed or different characters in different games.

However, if the intent is to go back to the 3rd edition "fire-and-forget" spell slots where you prepare each spell with a spell slot and can cast each spell you have prepared only as many times as you have them prepared, then I'm strongly against that extent of complexity.

----------


## animorte

Before I get started, I want to be very clear. Ive been a bit busy and havent had the time to even attempt keeping up with the pace of this thread. I have _skimmed_ through previous responses and gathered a few recurring themes.

Obviously, parts of what Im writing here are from personal experience and preference. I would expect nothing different from everyone else. However, I will make a worthy effort to include as much fact-checking as I can.

I do my best to approach new things with logic and an open mind.


Im attempting to go in order as the things appear. Ill lead with a basic good or bad followed by a descriptor. And if something is not listed, I very likely think its just fine or have no particular preference. I also apparently included both for ambiguity.  :Small Tongue: 
*Spoiler: Cleric*
Show

Flavor text: Bad - I actually like it, *but* if theyre going to standardize all subclasses at 3rd level, the flavor text _needs_ to reflect this decision (especially for the difficult to convince folks).Channel Divinity: Good - Level 1 with two valuable options. Im hoping statuses (such as daze) are better organized in the future so this isnt too complex.Holy Order (L2): Good - Determine your preference, I love it! It _does_ look like Thaumaturge is the clear winner here though.Subclass at level 3: Good - Yes, please standardize these across the board (I personally think level 2 is the sweet spot, but Im happy with this).Blessed Strikes: Good - Its the same, just sooner. Where are people getting the idea that this _ever_ scaled with level? Other things this functions with already scale. Im fine either way.Holy Order (L9): Bad - Why give every Cleric 2/3 of the options? It should instead be an improvement of the first in some fashion.Divine Intervention: Bad - Ive never liked it. I would rather it function more like the GenieLocks limited wish. Theyre talking about removing Mother-May-I and DM buy-in. Prove it. Same with Greater Divine Intervention.Preserve Life: Both - Starting at 6th Level is fine*, but Ive never cared for the limit of half-hit-point-max.

* _I like the new subclass progression. You still have an identity through several other features. It used to be too front-loaded, in fact it is currently still being discussing, getting too many features early and then gaining nothing new for 11 levels, eleven. You cant have it both ways, people._

*Spoiler: Character Species*
Show

Ardling: Good - Overall, I dont care for it, but Im just being objective and honest here. If theyre going to keep it in anyway, at least its a significant improvement over the hot garbage it started as.Animal Ancestry: Good - It looks to me like theyre trying to consolidate the concept of various other pre-existing beast-like races species. These _actually_ make sense.Divine Magic: Bad - This would likely be received better if they removed the concept of divine altogether. Just embrace the obvious bestial theme and use Primal instead, please.Breath Weapon: Good - Replace an attack, nice. Scales with level and proficiency, well done. Choose one of two different AoEs instead of a different one for each element, better.Draconic Flight: Good - I like how theyre balancing flight. As far as thematic purposes, they could use vestigial instead of spectral.Goliath: Good - Again, it looks like theyre trying to consolidate the concept of various other pre-existing species.Giant Ancestry: Both - Imbalanced as expected. Cloud > Hill > Stone > Others. Different ones are still valuable for different play-styles though. Scales with proficiency, nice.

*Spoiler: Feats and Others*
Show

Epic Boons: Both - I believe they have no hope whatsoever of balancing these.Aid: Good - Its _ultimately_ the same end result, different terminology. More targets is better.Attack Action: Good - The use of the word or within Equipping Weapons should not be overlooked.Banishment: Both - Two nerfs in range and more attempts to save; I dont understand the former, but the latter is fine (that resembles most spells actually, get over it). Interesting bit: target can willingly fail the save, neat.Barkskin: I dont know - Its fine, but I dont think anybody knows what they want to do with this. Why not provide some sort of Damage Resist (= proficiency perhaps) instead? Just throw us out about 4 different ideas at the same time and let people vote.Difficult Terrain: Good - Solid pile of examples. For the people that appreciate a guideline, very nice.Exhausted: Good - I actually really like this. It still has an impact while not being too specific, its easy to remember, and doesnt spiral wildly out of control.Guidance: Good - Much better. Still a cantrip and doesnt get in the way of other concentration effects. It would still make more thematic sense if, say, it just lasted until the end of your next turn, giving somebody 6 seconds to use it. Fine by me currently though.Heroic Inspiration: Both - It functions fine, except we finally have official wording confirmation that Halflings have absolutely no use for it*. *That 1 must be on the d20 used for the tests total, not on a d20 that was rerolled or discarded.* I still say just give each PC one upon finishing a long rest.Influence Action: Good - I absolutely love this. It helps to streamline the concept of interacting with NPCs and provides some reliable examples of what that might look like.Jump Action: Bad - We all know by now. Putting excessive force into your already moving just seems natural. Theyll fix it.Long Rest: Good - They cleaned up some more language on this and it keeps getting better. Now leave it alone while youre ahead.Magic Action: Good - It looks like theyre looking to standardize some terminology for future reference. Keep it clean.Move: Both - With special speeds, I understand what theyre trying to do because technical math is silly. Im kind of fine with it, but listen to the people!Prayer of Healing: Both - Im fine with the spell effects as is except the fact that it could easily just leave a couple members of your party out of that sweet short rest benefit.Resistance: Good - Same as Guidance except this one makes a little more thematic sense as a reaction.Ritual Casting: Good - Finally functioning the way it always should have. My glove is out challenging all who oppose me to a duel on this matter. Bring it.Spiritual Weapon: Good - Sure it uses concentration now, but the damage also scales with spells slots *twice* as well.Truesight: Good - Clarification for multiple different scenarios is appreciated.Unarmed Strike: Good - Language is clear and looks reliable. Im sure class features (Monk) will modify this properly.

Other notes:
- I like the incorporation of Surprise in different areas. Its very consistent. Nice.
- Various actions (search, study, etc.) are doing a good job of providing examples relevant to different skills. This bridges the gap better between 3.5e and 5e skill systems. Nice.

* _I struggled with this for some time. I like my Halflings and the gaining Inspiration method makes it kind of useless. However, rolling a 1 always gets a free re-roll, which is strong enough for me. You just arent allowed to use your re-roll when you want (to gain advantage). I dont care, keep your silly Inspiration._

*Spoiler: Good vs Bad maths*
Show


My final count came out to*:
Good - 21
Bad - 5
Both - 5
I dont know - 1

Unmentioned - Plenty, because theyre probably either fine or I have no preference in the matter.

* _Guarantee, I miscounted. Close enough._

If were going to consistently have cross-class (and cross-group) things as features, like extra skill options, fighting styles,etc I look forward to eventually having a completely modular class-less system in which you customize everything per options at certain levels. Sounds fun.

_Im sure this is all going to get lost in the ocean of words and opinions. Oh well. Thanks anyway!_

*Edit:* Heres a part I forgot For those of you that really dislike the idea of subclasses at 3rd level, lets be completely honest. Most people were already starting games at 3rd level+ anyway. _Maybe_ more classes will feel a little closer to the same power level naturally.

----------


## diplomancer

> The standard equipment for Clerics in the UA is a Chain Shirt and no shield, and Dex 8 is far more the norm IMX for HA wearing characters.


Shield is in the starting equipment. And I've played HA characters many times, never dumped Dex, usually dump Intelligence. Might choose not to dump Intelligence if my DM (wrongfully) did not allow me to make smart decisions In combat. And this editions makes it more evident that you have the choice of starting gold, so if a player lazily gets the Chain Shirt instead of the Scale Mail (which costs the same)
 and then complains about his poor AC, he gets very little sympathy from me.

My general impressions:

Agree that giving a choice of a few free non-domain associated prepared 1st level spells is a very good idea.

I think people are overreacting about Heavy Armor users and I also think that of the 3 second level choices the weakest one is Heavy Armor and Martial Weapons. Clerics are Casters, not Martials, they simply get less benefits from Martial Weapons than martials do (and as has been discussed in another thread, Heavy Armor is not inherently superior to Medium Armor)

I dislike pushing the domain choice to 3rd level, but don't think it's terrible.

When they published the Bard and made them prepared casters but with very restricted spell choice by level I thought "well, obviously, to balance it out, the current prepared casters won't have the same restrictions". Looks like I was wrong, and think this is a mistake by the devs. Current prepared spell casters should still keep both more preparations (+wis to Clerics and Druids, +Int to Wizards),and more flexibility in preparations (no silly "slots=preparations" rule).

Ardlings are now fine, but still should not be core. Everything else in the UA is alright, though I dislike the nerfs both to Banishment and to Spiritual Weapon. Banishment is specially appalling... it's now a slightly better Tasha's Hideous Laughter (because it uses Cha instead of Wis... but that's _really_ not worth 3 spell levels).

----------


## Arkhios

> *Edit:* Heres a part I forgot For those of you that really dislike the idea of subclasses at 3rd level, lets be completely honest. Most people were already starting games at 3rd level+ anyway. _Maybe_ more classes will feel a little closer to the same power level naturally.


In all honesty, I like the new direction they seem to have with subclass levels. And yes, in most games I've played or DM'd the game started at 3rd level, for relatively obvious reasons.

The levels 1 and 2 usually serve as introduction to the game for the new players, or when otherwise experienced player is trying a class they've not played before, and given how low the XP limits for first three levels are, you won't be stuck in them for very long, so it hardly matters if subclass gets chosen at 3rd level instead of 1st or 2nd.

----------


## Psyren

> The standard equipment for Clerics in the UA is a Chain Shirt and no shield, and Dex 8 is far more the norm IMX for HA wearing characters.


Imagine that, dumping a physical stat might actually be dangerous at level 1...




> Healing: you always have the Healing Word, and Sanctuary spells prepared.
> 
> Martial: you always have the Heroism, and Shield of Faith spells prepared.
> 
> Knowledge: You always have the Detect Good and Evil, and Detect Magic spells prepared.


If they must do this, they would need an "offensive/evil caster" category for it to work, e.g. "you always have Inflict Wounds and Command prepared," or "Guiding Bolt and Bane" etc. But I still see it as unnecessary.




> The druid relationship with a god is much less pronounced than the cleric one in every game I've played. And even so, 'god' is different than 'circle'.


"Domain" is also different than "god." Again, I think your distinction between "I choose to opt into this aspect of divine power and therefore it's justifiable that I do that after first level" and  "I choose to opt into this other aspect of divine power therefore it's *unjustifiable* that I do that after first level" is both inconsistent and arbitrary.




> I'm more amenable to your second point; it is possible to be a cleric of a God and choose which domain to follow later. But this only applies for deities with multiple domains, and at least in the PHB, most deities only have one. And even pushing the choice back, that still leaves you at level 1 without the system supporting you as a cleric of XYZ. You're just a generic...cleric.


Given that we'll only have 4 domains in the PHB, yes the chances that a given sample deity there (if there even are any) having more than one are slim. But that doesn't mean gods actually only get one domain, domains are retroactively added to gods all the time in D&D (even before 5e.) This does not come with some metaphysical shakeup of the world, rather it's simply assumed these were domains the gods always granted access to, and official rules simply weren't present for them.

----------


## paladinn

> I just noticed something, though I'm not sure if this is the first occasion in this playtest:
> 
> It seems they have moved away from having spell slots separately and an amount of spells prepared derived from the class level and primary ability score modifier, and rather taking a small step back towards the old Vancian system, with the spells prepared columns of the class table showing the exact number of spells prepared of each given spell slot level.
> 
> If I understood correctly, however, you can still cast any spell you have prepared as many times as you have slots for said levels; at least I hope they don't intend to go that far back to the "fire-and-forget" concept of 3rd edition.
> 
> For the most part I like this change, because it's more simple as you don't have to try and remember a calculation method (e.g. cleric level + wisdom = base number of spells prepared for the day) for each different class you may have, whether multiclassed or different characters in different games.
> 
> However, if the intent is to go back to the 3rd edition "fire-and-forget" spell slots where you prepare each spell with a spell slot and can cast each spell you have prepared only as many times as you have them prepared, then I'm strongly against that extent of complexity.


My solution to the whole thing is spell points.  You can have one pool of points.  If you repeat-cast, fine.  If you upcast, fine.  Metamagic?  Fine.  It all comes out of one pool.  You can adjust your number of points/day (I mean "long rest") by your Cha mod or Wis or even Int.  And I saw one variant of SP where if you completely run out of points, you can't even cast a cantrip till you recover some.  But then, some classes get the Arcane Recovery feature.  It's a great exercise in resource management.

----------


## Pooky the Imp

> So we finally have a dog like race (well, sort of, and no shifters don't count) and they are so... Underwhelming. :(


WotC confirmed as catboys.

----------


## Segev

> Imagine that, dumping a physical stat might actually be dangerous at level 1...


While I get where you're coming from, the issue isn't "it shouldn't be dangerous" so much as "your build choices shouldn't be so dramatically different if you start at level 2."

If you are going to build for heavy armor, having to build for medium armor at level 1 (and only level 1) is bad design.

Generally speaking, unless there is a lot more going for the transition in the very concept of the class, having your build change how much it can dump a stat as it goes up levels is generally poor design, at least when that change is an increase in the states irrelevance. Now, maybe the extra -1 to AC is not that big of a deal, so it is a flaw we can live with. I certainly don't see it as the end of the world. But it is not risible to point out that it is a problem.

When a cleric who starts his career at level 2 can safely have an 8 in Dex while one who started at level 1 needed that at least at 10, that's less than desirable.

----------


## Oramac

> Sounds like new hires have replaced the old and they haven't learned those lessons or read the handover documentation.


LMAO!! You honestly think there is any documentation? I'd be shocked if there was; even more shocked if it was actually useful. 




> * _I like the new subclass progression. You still have an identity through several other features. It used to be too front-loaded, in fact it is currently still being discussing, getting too many features early and then gaining nothing new for 11 levels, eleven. You cant have it both ways, people._[/spoiler]


I want to touch on this. I [mostly] like the new subclass progression, with one MASSIVE caveat: Tier 4. Your last subclass feature is at 14th level, and the only class thing you get in T4 is the level 18 'capstone'. I've long believed that a) capstones should be subclass-specific (with a couple exceptions), and b) most capstones are laughably underpowered. 

For this reason, I think the Epic Boon idea is utter garbage, and if they want to stick with the 3/6/10/14 progression, they need to add a subclass feature at either 17th or 18th level and bring back _ACTUAL_ capstones. I know in all the homebrew I write, I will be making subclass-specific epic boons as a workaround for capstones.

----------


## Psyren

> If you are going to build for heavy armor, having to build for medium armor at level 1 (and only level 1) is bad design.


No, it isn't. You chose a class that doesn't start the game with heavy armor proficiency, so it's going to take longer than 1st level to get going with that concept. That's intended. It means that you are free to dump dex at level 1 like other heavy armor users would, but you will face a drawback of being slightly less protected at level 1 than they would be for doing so.




> But it is not risible to point out that it is a problem.


I'm not laughing at anyone, I'm acknowledging that this is a nerf. But it appears to be an intended one. Clerics are not intended to be able to override their base proficiencies at first level anymore.

And hell, this could have been much worse - it could have still been tied to domain like it was before, meaning you'd have had to wait until 3 instead of 2.

----------


## Melil12

Would it be a big difference to move CD to level 2 and Order to level 1?

How much does that wreck their class structure?

----------


## Talij

I think Holy Order should be swapped with Channel Divinity at level 1. Yes, that puts 1 lvl dips for heavy armor back in play, but I fall into the camp that switching which stats matter for your ac at level 2 and having to rebuy a lot of gear at level 2 when most campaigns you can't afford or like have an opportunity to is too awkward. Yes medium armor ac is manageable, but you'll be relying on you DM giving you the means and opportunity to potentially replace all your main gear at level 2. Talk about "mother may I" mechanics.

Plus the scholar order issue isn't getting enough discussion. I get to pick 2 more proficiencies I didn't pick at level 1. Great. But these are the proficiencies I'll be extra good at? So if I want my cleric to be really good at religion checks, I have to NOT take proficiency in that at lvl 1 or be penalized by missing a new proficiency at level 2?

I agree these aren't huge, game breaking problems, but I still think it's poor game design for the optimal choices for your character at level 2 and beyond are to design yourself to specifically be suboptimal at level 1.




> Fix a Cleric/ Build-A-Bear Cleric on 1dnd from the current UA:
> 
> -------
> Divine Service: At lvl1, you choose in which way you intend to serve your god. You have one of the following options, and always have these spells prepared (on top of your usual amount).


Tying first level domain spells to your holy order might be a good way to get them (and I agree they are sorely missing here). If you're going to add 9 different options you're basically just trying to give them their domain back at level 1. Or maybe change Thaumaturge's second ability to you can choose 2 first level spells from any spell list (might have to limit that, but just divine isn't big enough). These are always prepared and cannot be changed.

I also agree with the idea that level 9 should be an improvement in your existing domain. Perhaps move the CD back on short rest here, protector maybe extra attack (I hesitate to give this here but is 4 levels later than martials), and scholars get expertise in 2 skills that use mental stats? You could even keep the option of picking the base order ability from one of the other two, but picking up the second choice from an earlier pick is not ideal.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> Would it be a big difference to move CD to level 2 and Order to level 1?
> 
> How much does that wreck their class structure?


I think WotC's concern there is multiclassing. Players could take a one-level dip into Cleric and get heavy armor proficiency.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I think WotC's concern there is multiclassing. Players could take a one-level dip into Cleric and get heavy armor proficiency.
> 
> EDIT: Ninja'd!


One of the biggest issues I have with multiclassing as it stands is that it severely warps the rest of the system to prevent (or mitigate) the broken things it causes.

Maybe, just maybe, instead of making everything else work way worse to mildly reduce (because you can still _two_ level dip for heavy armor) issues caused by multiclassing...you can just fix multiclassing.

Fix the things that are causing the pain, don't warp everything else to avoid it. That's just bad design and hurts all the people who _don't_ use that variant system. Which is a majority based on all the data I've ever seen. If 10% are causing issues...fix them. Don't hurt the 90% to mildly make the 10% less annoying.

It's the same issue with PvE in MMOs getting whacked to balance PvP.

----------


## Psyren

Gentle reminder that when the devs listed the reasons for pushing subclasses back to 3rd, multiclassing/dipping was not one of the reasons they gave.

----------


## Melil12

Hmmm  I dont think players getting training in heavy armor was such a big deal. 

You want to fix armor dips add the rule that you can only cast spells in armor if that class/subclass gave you that armor proficient or you took the Heavy Armor/Warcaster feat. 

Some one can word it better but wizard who dips cleric (with armor prof) can only cast cleric spells while in armor.

Or  just talk to your DM and he probably will just allow you to wear the armor. Without issue.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Gentle reminder that when the devs listed the reasons for pushing subclasses back to 3rd, multiclassing/dipping was not one of the reasons they gave.


But...here's the thing. If you have to think _at level 1_ "well, I'm going to take the heavy armor <thing> at level <X>, so I should build my character like <this>" or else end up with significant issues (yes, stat allocation at levels > 1 is a major issue and this is as bad or worse than the whole "species" ASI issue), that goes exactly contrary to everything they _did_ say about why they were doing it. You still have to do the analysis and make those future decisions, but now you don't even see the benefits for a few levels. And are actually _harmed_ by it.

So yeah, it doesn't pass a smell test. It'd be much simpler _and_ more in keeping with what they've said are their goals to just say "ok, all clerics wear medium armor. Certain types get bonuses that improve their durability later on" (things like getting Medium Armor Master-equivalent features for free or getting a source of temporary hit points or _whatever_ that isn't heavy armor proficiency with all the curliques that entails).

----------


## animorte

> I want to touch on this. I [mostly] like the new subclass progression, with one MASSIVE caveat: Tier 4. Your last subclass feature is at 14th level, and the only class thing you get in T4 is the level 18 'capstone'. I've long believed that a) capstones should be subclass-specific (with a couple exceptions), and b) most capstones are laughably underpowered. 
> 
> For this reason, I think the Epic Boon idea is utter garbage, and if they want to stick with the 3/6/10/14 progression, they need to add a subclass feature at either 17th or 18th level and bring back _ACTUAL_ capstones. I know in all the homebrew I write, I will be making subclass-specific epic boons as a workaround for capstones.


Do you have any idea how beautiful and organized the spread looks? Ive done this exactly and have strongly considered any homebrew I ever do to follow the subclass progression: 2/6/10/14/18

*Spoiler: Beautiful, see?*
Show


Level
Feature

1


2
Subclass

3


4
ASI

5


6
Subclass

7


8
ASI

9


10
Subclass

11


12
ASI

13


14
Subclass

15


16
ASI

17


18
Subclass

19
ASI

20



All even levels are subclass features and ASIs. All odd levels are cleared up for base class features.
You know, except that weird level 19 ASI.


However, I do think the standards at 10 and 14, whatever may follow, at least probably helps to get more people playing long to get through Tier 3 and into Tier 4.

It would also help if more modules/adventures/campaigns were designed in the image of wider-range levels of play.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> Gentle reminder that when the devs listed the reasons for pushing subclasses back to 3rd, multiclassing/dipping was not one of the reasons they gave.


Timestamp 3:08 (thru 3:29) of the "Cleric, Life Domain and Subclasses | Unearthed Arcana: Cleric and Revised Species | One D&D" video, Crawford does list multiclassing as one of the factors driving the Cleric changes.

EDIT: And then go on to have a longer discussion about multiclassing from timestamp 6:37 thru 8:03. They did say that their main concern was having such an impactful decision so early in the progression, but multiclassing was very specifically mentioned as a reason for pushing certain features out of the first level or two.

----------


## Psyren

> Timestamp 3:08 (thru 3:29) of the "Cleric, Life Domain and Subclasses | Unearthed Arcana: Cleric and Revised Species | One D&D" video, Crawford does list multiclassing as one of the factors driving the Cleric changes.
> 
> EDIT: And then go on to have a longer discussion about multiclassing from timestamp 6:37 thru 8:03. They did say that their main concern was having such an impactful decision so early in the progression, but multiclassing was very specifically mentioned as a reason for pushing certain features out of the first level or two.


Fair enough - though he did indeed list the frontloading of multiple momentous build-defining decisions as the primary concern, he does indeed at your second timestamp discuss making minmaxy dips less attractive being a factor.




> But...here's the thing. If you have to think _at level 1_ "well, I'm going to take the heavy armor <thing> at level <X>, so I should build my character like <this>" or else end up with significant issues (yes, stat allocation at levels > 1 is a major issue and this is as bad or worse than the whole "species" ASI issue), that goes exactly contrary to everything they _did_ say about why they were doing it. You still have to do the analysis and make those future decisions, but now you don't even see the benefits for a few levels. And are actually _harmed_ by it.


People who think about their builds ahead of time will always eke more power out of them than people who don't. The only way to remove that is to remove multiclassing itself (or at least to excise most if not all of the benefits of it), which I know you'd be in favor of, but would be a nonstarter for the vast majority I'm fairly confident in saeying.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> People who think about their builds ahead of time will always eke more power out of them than people who don't. The only way to remove that is to remove multiclassing itself (or at least to excise most if not all of the benefits of it), which I know you'd be in favor of, but would be a nonstarter for the vast majority I'm fairly confident in saeying.


It's not a matter of "well, if you think ahead you'll be better", it's _if you don't think ahead, you'll actively be worse_. Well, if you don't think ahead you'll be _even_ worse than if you do.

Basically, this change screws over all clerics, multiclassed or not for the sole (reasonable) purpose of making multiclassing for heavy armor _slightly_ less efficient (now you need 2 levels, not 1). I reject the "it's too big a deal to make people decide stuff at level 1" objection because, frankly, they're already making the vast majority of their choices at level 1. And heavy armor isn't linked to subclass anymore at all--they could just have said that you get your Divine Order at 1 and Channel Divinity at 2. Then you have no issue whatsoever...except in regards to multiclassing.

And as I said, fixing multiclassing by patching all the places it breaks instead of, you know, _fixing multiclassing so it doesn't break things_ is utterly 100% pants-on-head stupid. And guarantees an endless chase of making those who don't use that variant option's lives worse chasing an impossibility (making multiclassing as it stands now work without breaking things).

----------


## Melil12

Change Multiclass so spells outside of the class that gave you armor proficiency cant be cast in armor. 

Problem solved. 

Add a tab to Warcaster or Heavy Armor training to allow you to cast in said armor.

----------


## Veldrenor

> Would it be a big difference to move CD to level 2 and Order to level 1?
> 
> How much does that wreck their class structure?


It probably doesn't wreck the class structure but it does create one oddity: the Thaumaturge gives you a quick-recharge on Channel Divinity when you wouldn't yet have the Channel Divinity feature.

----------


## Melil12

> It probably doesn't wreck the class structure but it does create one oddity: the Thaumaturge gives you a quick-recharge on Channel Divinity when you wouldn't yet have the Channel Divinity feature.


Would be true  I wonder how that works with Paladin MC or Druid (If channeling is the priest thing.) Would it work On theirs? All of a sudden we have a new master MC Dip.

----------


## paladinn

> Change Multiclass so spells outside of the class that gave you armor proficiency cant be cast in armor. 
> 
> Problem solved. 
> 
> Add a tab to Warcaster or Heavy Armor training to allow you to cast in said armor.


As off-the-wall as this sounds, it's not bad..

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Change Multiclass so spells outside of the class that gave you armor proficiency cant be cast in armor. 
> 
> Problem solved. 
> 
> Add a tab to Warcaster or Heavy Armor training to allow you to cast in said armor.


Yeah. This is a proper response to the "multiclassing for armor is too easy and too good" issue--_fix multiclassing!_. I wouldn't add the feature to Warcaster, personally. It's already too potent of a feat.

----------


## Melil12

> Yeah. This is a proper response to the "multiclassing for armor is too easy and too good" issue--_fix multiclassing!_. I wouldn't add the feature to Warcaster, personally. It's already too potent of a feat.


Saddly warcaster would be more thematically appropriate. But that is why I hesitated to just list it. Other than making another feat entirely.

----------


## ZRN

> But...here's the thing. If you have to think _at level 1_ "well, I'm going to take the heavy armor <thing> at level <X>, so I should build my character like <this>" or else end up with significant issues (yes, stat allocation at levels > 1 is a major issue and this is as bad or worse than the whole "species" ASI issue), that goes exactly contrary to everything they _did_ say about why they were doing it. You still have to do the analysis and make those future decisions, but now you don't even see the benefits for a few levels. And are actually _harmed_ by it.
> 
> So yeah, it doesn't pass a smell test. It'd be much simpler _and_ more in keeping with what they've said are their goals to just say "ok, all clerics wear medium armor. Certain types get bonuses that improve their durability later on" (things like getting Medium Armor Master-equivalent features for free or getting a source of temporary hit points or _whatever_ that isn't heavy armor proficiency with all the curliques that entails).


I think you're mixing different categories of player here.

The type of player who is intimidated by too many choices at level 1 probably isn't going to be min-maxing his Strength and Dex to optimize his AC. And the type of player who does care about min-maxing can probably suffer through a single session at level 1 before getting his plate armor at level 2. (And if we're actually playing by the rules, nobody can afford plate armor at level 1 anyway.)

I think your second paragraph here misunderstands the point of the heavy armor feature: the point is to feel like a tough guy with a big heavy weapon and huge chunky armor, not just to get a moderate increase to durability.

----------


## Segev

> But...here's the thing. If you have to think _at level 1_ "well, I'm going to take the heavy armor <thing> at level <X>, so I should build my character like <this>" or else end up with significant issues (yes, stat allocation at levels > 1 is a major issue and this is as bad or worse than the whole "species" ASI issue), that goes exactly contrary to everything they _did_ say about why they were doing it. You still have to do the analysis and make those future decisions, but now you don't even see the benefits for a few levels. And are actually _harmed_ by it.
> 
> So yeah, it doesn't pass a smell test. It'd be much simpler _and_ more in keeping with what they've said are their goals to just say "ok, all clerics wear medium armor. Certain types get bonuses that improve their durability later on" (things like getting Medium Armor Master-equivalent features for free or getting a source of temporary hit points or _whatever_ that isn't heavy armor proficiency with all the curliques that entails).


I am liking swapping "order" and "CD" more and more. I appreciate giving the cleric the divine power thing at level 1 for true iconic-ness, and also to make level 1 very cut-and-dried with minimal choices, but I think the avoidance of analysis paralysis is too great, here. Let them have a choice beyond their skills to differentiate this cleric from that at level 1. Level 2 is when they start getting the holy powers of their god; no choices there, but that's fine because they already made a choice and they get another choice at level 3.




> It probably doesn't wreck the class structure but it does create one oddity: the Thaumaturge gives you a quick-recharge on Channel Divinity when you wouldn't yet have the Channel Divinity feature.


Good point. Though I would personally give that featurette to every cleric, and apply it to every PB/long rest ability in the game while I'm at it. 

Shadow Sorcerer did solve this problem, itself, too: just word it as, "When you gain Channel Divinity at level 2, you may recover one use of it with a short rest," if you don't want to go all in with my prior suggestion of making CD recharge that way no matter your order.




> Yeah. This is a proper response to the "multiclassing for armor is too easy and too good" issue--_fix multiclassing!_. I wouldn't add the feature to Warcaster, personally. It's already too potent of a feat.


I... actually just don't see 1 level dips as a problem. They are their own cost. You are slowing progression in your other class. If level 1 dips are a problem because they're so badly front-loaded that later levels in other classes aren't worth getting ASAP, then the problem isn't with level 1 dips or multiclassing; it's with higher-level features not being cool enough.

Playing a wizard with a level 1 dip in cleric for flavor and skill reasons, I am not behind on spell slots, but believe me, I feel the pinch every odd level when I am a level behind in actual spell access. And that's just a single level dip. (I didn't take a heavy armor cleric domain, and I don't even wear armor, though I do use a shield. I have a spell similar to _mage armor_ from Valda's Spire of Secrets I use, instead.) If a wizard dips fighter or even cleric (twilight) for heavy armor, he's paying a price for it, and I don't see that price as being too low. Heavy armor is nice, and all, but ultimately it is the hp count that makes higher-level PCs durable. As the game moves to higher and higher levels, you will get hit.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I think you're mixing different categories of player here.
> 
> The type of player who is intimidated by too many choices at level 1 probably isn't going to be min-maxing his Strength and Dex to optimize his AC. And the type of player who does care about min-maxing can probably suffer through a single session at level 1 before getting his plate armor at level 2. (And if we're actually playing by the rules, nobody can afford plate armor at level 1 anyway.)
> 
> I think your second paragraph here misunderstands the point of the heavy armor feature: the point is to feel like a tough guy with a big heavy weapon and huge chunky armor, not just to get a moderate increase to durability.


Except...it's not a minimal thing. Now _everyone_ who wants heavy armor has to pay for it, in coin at least. Because you can't start with it unless you give up your medium armor...and if you do, you can't wear it yet.

Choosing the heavy armor one now creates trap options. All for the sake of making multiclassing not quite so bad for the health of the game. But multiclassing is a variant rule--changing the base rules to accommodate it _is a bad idea in its own right._ You're penalizing (and yes, it's a penalty) _everyone_ for the sake of the small percentage who abuse this feature.

And yes, @Segev, it is an abuse. Flat out. 100%. The cost (being one level delayed on wizard spells) is tiny and mostly counteracted by an increase in versatility. And you get more HP out of it (ok, a tiny amount, but every bit counts). You have a _massive_ increase in durability[1], which drastically reduces the primary weakness of the base wizard, for a tiny reduction in something they're already leaps bounds and lightyears ahead of everyone else in.

[1] if all you ever throw at the party is boss-caliber CR = level + X monsters in big solo fights, you don't see it as much. But against the (system-expected) norm of CR ~ level / 2 monsters? The difference is tremendous. It turns a wizard from one of the squishiest, having to actively use resources just not to die, into one of the tankiest, who _still has resources to boost that even further_.

----------


## animorte

> I... actually just don't see 1 level dips as a problem. They are their own cost. You are slowing progression in your other class. If level 1 dips are a problem because they're so badly front-loaded that later levels in other classes aren't worth getting ASAP, then the problem isn't with level 1 dips or multiclassing; it's with higher-level features not being cool enough.


I kind of agree, but I honestly think its both. If people arent spending very much time at level 1 or 2, why does the class need to be that front-loaded? I honestly dont see any reasoning for extreme front-loaded nonsense.

Higher level features _do_ need to be more enticing. One of the comments I made on the Epic Boons was in the way they should design them (because theyre erratic and wildly unbalanced). If taking a 1-level dip in a different class is more valuable than reaching level 20, then taking level 20 is not strong enough*.

* _This likely includes the Epic Boon and any class features that benefit from scaling with an additional level._

----------


## ZRN

> I am liking swapping "order" and "CD" more and more. I appreciate giving the cleric the divine power thing at level 1 for true iconic-ness, and also to make level 1 very cut-and-dried with minimal choices, but I think the avoidance of analysis paralysis is too great, here. Let them have a choice beyond their skills to differentiate this cleric from that at level 1. Level 2 is when they start getting the holy powers of their god; no choices there, but that's fine because they already made a choice and they get another choice at level 3.


I think this is a bad change. It's weird enough that now a level 1 cleric of Baal is mechanically identical to a level 1 cleric of Pelor; changing it so that clerics DO get a choice at level 1, but that choice has nothing to do with their god and instead is about what kind of armor they wear? Like, "I definitely know I want to wear some badass platemail; I'll figure out that whole Good vs. Evil thing later"?

Overall I think the move from level 1 to level 3 subclass makes mechanical sense for reasons they discussed in the video - my biggest concern is that saying level 1 is when you figure out how to Be A Cleric and you decide what kind later means that your identity as A Cleric is supposed to be more important than what god you worship.

I really don't like how this would play out for sorcerers down the line, either. Like, level 1 I start casting Mage Armor and Magic Missile and stuff because that's what a Sorcerer does, and then after I kill a few dozen goblins I finally figure out whether I can cast Magic Missile because my grandpa was a dragon, or because Zeus thinks I'm hot, or because my soul has been twisted by eldritch horrors? Hm.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> I think you're mixing different categories of player here.
> 
> The type of player who is intimidated by too many choices at level 1 probably isn't going to be min-maxing his Strength and Dex to optimize his AC. And the type of player who does care about min-maxing can probably suffer through a single session at level 1 before getting his plate armor at level 2. (And if we're actually playing by the rules, nobody can afford plate armor at level 1 anyway.)
> 
> I think your second paragraph here misunderstands the point of the heavy armor feature: the point is to feel like a tough guy with a big heavy weapon and huge chunky armor, not just to get a moderate increase to durability.


The type of player who is intimidated by too many choices at level 1 is probably going to take the chain shirt in the standard equipment, without considering that they could transition into heavy armor at level 2. And then when that player hits level 2, they'll see that they could get heavy armor proficiency, but decide not to take it because they don't have heavy armor. It's clunky progression, which gets in the way of the overall design of the class.

----------


## OvisCaedo

I'd also point out that just "acquiring heavy armor at level 2" isn't always going to be an actual option. Not every campaign is going to have you fighting people in heavy armor to loot from immediately, or have free access to towns+shops.

----------


## Aquillion

> Change Multiclass so spells outside of the class that gave you armor proficiency cant be cast in armor. 
> 
> Problem solved. 
> 
> Add a tab to Warcaster or Heavy Armor training to allow you to cast in said armor.


Another, broader possibility:

Add an "If this is your primary class..." rider to certain class abilities (or "primary only" for certain options), which you only get if you take the class at level 1.  Mostly this would be attached to level 1 abilities that are intended to give you immediate competence but which wouldn't be appropriate to get with a one-level dip later on.

----------


## Tanarii

Really they just need to give Clerics HA as a proficiency and be done with it.

Fix Multiclassing dip for armor problems by fixing Multiclassing, not by screwing with the classes.

----------


## ZRN

> Except...it's not a minimal thing. Now _everyone_ who wants heavy armor has to pay for it, in coin at least. Because you can't start with it unless you give up your medium armor...and if you do, you can't wear it yet.
> 
> Choosing the heavy armor one now creates trap options. All for the sake of making multiclassing not quite so bad for the health of the game. But multiclassing is a variant rule--changing the base rules to accommodate it _is a bad idea in its own right._ You're penalizing (and yes, it's a penalty) _everyone_ for the sake of the small percentage who abuse this feature.


We're talking, what, 25 gold wasted on a chain shirt you resell for half price? And you think that the entire multiclassing system has to be junked to avoid that 25g "trap"?

I mean, if you don't want a gp cost attached to your important class abilities, you probably shouldn't be playing a spellcaster to begin with, given expended and unexpended material component costs.

And again, as others have said, multiclassing dips are only a small part of why they want subclasses at 3.

There are reasons to not like moving subclasses to 3 but I really don't think the minimal cost of nonmagical armor and weapon at level 2 is a determinative one.

----------


## Bobthewizard

I'm not sure the cleric changes were made solely for multi classing. Clerics were maybe the most powerful class at levels 1 and 2, so pushing some abilities back makes sense from a balance standpoint. It also allows more uniformity in class progression to give everyone's subclass features at the same levels. 

For those of us used to clerics getting their subclass at level 1, having to play a generic cleric feels weird, but it's no weirder than a generic fighter that goes on to be an eldritch knight or rune knight. You are a priest of whatever god or goddess, but you don't get your full subclass powers until you get more powerful. D&D has always been about progression of power. This just changes the cleric's progression. 

I was happy to see the changes for rogue subclasses. Now that I see it on clerics, though, I'd rather they give subclasses at level 1, but I understand why they are waiting. Most people don't make as many characters as some of us do, so this lets them ease into a new class.

----------


## Segev

> I think this is a bad change. It's weird enough that now a level 1 cleric of Baal is mechanically identical to a level 1 cleric of Pelor; changing it so that clerics DO get a choice at level 1, but that choice has nothing to do with their god and instead is about what kind of armor they wear? Like, "I definitely know I want to wear some badass platemail; I'll figure out that whole Good vs. Evil thing later"?


It doesn't bother me as much because I assume that there are RP elements in play. "I'm studying to be a cleric of Baal" and "I'm studying to be a cleric of Pelor" may not have a huge difference, mechanically, but that's fine. "I'm training to be a warrior serving the King" and "I'm training to be a warrior who sells his sword to the highest bidder" is also very different, RP-wise, but will NEVER have mechanical backing, at least not unless 5.1 makes subclasses for Fighter depend on who you serve.

I see what you're saying, but "I'm in training right now, but I know I'll get (un)holy powers when I've learned enough to serve Baal/Pelor," is fine with me. The kind of cleric you'll be in terms of warrior/scholar/mage is more something you can start training from the get-go, though.

----------


## Bobthewizard

> Really they just need to give Clerics HA as a proficiency and be done with it.
> 
> Fix Multiclassing dip for armor problems by fixing Multiclassing, not by screwing with the classes.


I think that's the right answer. You don't even need to change multiclassing. Clerics already just give medium armor for multiclassing, just like fighters and paladins. 

Just give clerics heavy armor, then the martial option just gives martial weapons... and maybe extra attack?

----------


## Psyren

> It's not a matter of "well, if you think ahead you'll be better", it's _if you don't think ahead, you'll actively be worse_. Well, if you don't think ahead you'll be _even_ worse than if you do.
> 
> Basically, this change screws over all clerics, multiclassed or not for the sole (reasonable) purpose of making multiclassing for heavy armor _slightly_ less efficient (now you need 2 levels, not 1). I reject the "it's too big a deal to make people decide stuff at level 1" objection because, frankly, they're already making the vast majority of their choices at level 1. And heavy armor isn't linked to subclass anymore at all--they could just have said that you get your Divine Order at 1 and Channel Divinity at 2. Then you have no issue whatsoever...except in regards to multiclassing.
> 
> And as I said, fixing multiclassing by patching all the places it breaks instead of, you know, _fixing multiclassing so it doesn't break things_ is utterly 100% pants-on-head stupid. And guarantees an endless chase of making those who don't use that variant option's lives worse chasing an impossibility (making multiclassing as it stands now work without breaking things).


I think "screws over" is a massively overblown viewpoint. Even if you go the "suboptimal" route of having 14 Dex on your heavy armor cleric, that stat is still very useful despite not factoring into your AC past 2nd level. And if you instead "dump" Dex to 8-10, you'll still be starting the game with 15/16 AC as long as you grab Scale Mail + Shield. In short, it's fine.




> I think that's the right answer. You don't even need to change multiclassing. Clerics already just give medium armor for multiclassing, just like fighters and paladins. 
> 
> Just give clerics heavy armor, then the martial option just gives martial weapons... and maybe extra attack?


Extra Attack should be specific to War Domain imo.

----------


## paladinn

> I think that's the right answer. You don't even need to change multiclassing. Clerics already just give medium armor for multiclassing, just like fighters and paladins. 
> 
> Just give clerics heavy armor, then the martial option just gives martial weapons... and maybe extra attack?


Looking back, traditionally All clerics were proficient with All armor.  Maybe not all shields, but all armor.

----------


## animorte

> Really they just need to give Clerics HA as a proficiency and be done with it.
> 
> Fix Multiclassing dip for armor problems by fixing Multiclassing, not by screwing with the classes.


Actually I would go the opposite way. Instead of just making the Cleric a full-caster-better-Paladin, actually embrace the caster trope with a few subclass options that would bring it back to what the Cleric is now. I know this ideal doesnt resonate with the majority, which Im fine with.

Completely agree on multi-classing.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> We're talking, what, 25 gold wasted on a chain shirt you resell for half price? And you think that the entire multiclassing system has to be junked to avoid that 25g "trap"?
> 
> I mean, if you don't want a gp cost attached to your important class abilities, you probably shouldn't be playing a spellcaster to begin with, given expended and unexpended material component costs.


I don't think the multiclassing system needs to be junked; I think it needs to be fixed such that WotC doesn't need to junk early class progression to avoid multiclass combos. The 25g tax isn't the biggest trap. The biggest trap is that a player who takes WotC's advice and plays a just a cleric at level 1 without thinking about their level 2 and level 3 choices at character creation will be ill-equipped to actually make the Holy Order choice when they hit level 2. The second biggest trap is assuming that all clerics will have ready access to selling their level 1 weapon and armor and upgrading upon hitting level 2.




> And again, as others have said, multiclassing dips are only a small part of why they want subclasses at 3.
> 
> There are reasons to not like moving subclasses to 3 but I really don't think the minimal cost of nonmagical armor and weapon at level 2 is a determinative one.


Multiclassing is a _smaller_ part of why they want subclasses at level 3, compared to the intimidation factor. But they talked a fair bit about multiclassing in the video, so I wouldn't call it a _small_ part.




> It doesn't bother me as much because I assume that there are RP elements in play. "I'm studying to be a cleric of Baal" and "I'm studying to be a cleric of Pelor" may not have a huge difference, mechanically, but that's fine. "I'm training to be a warrior serving the King" and "I'm training to be a warrior who sells his sword to the highest bidder" is also very different, RP-wise, but will NEVER have mechanical backing, at least not unless 5.1 makes subclasses for Fighter depend on who you serve.
> 
> I see what you're saying, but "I'm in training right now, but I know I'll get (un)holy powers when I've learned enough to serve Baal/Pelor," is fine with me. The kind of cleric you'll be in terms of warrior/scholar/mage is more something you can start training from the get-go, though.


I would like to see Divine Spark offer a choice between Radiant and Necrotic damage to help with the RP element. Other than that, I agree with you that who a cleric serves doesn't have much (if any) mechanical impact.

----------


## Kane0

> I just noticed something, though I'm not sure if this is the first occasion in this playtest:
> 
> It seems they have moved away from having spell slots separately and an amount of spells prepared derived from the class level and primary ability score modifier, and rather taking a small step back towards the old Vancian system, with the spells prepared columns of the class table showing the exact number of spells prepared of each given spell slot level.


It was in the bard as well.
As a player its meh, instead of freely choosing X number of spells spread across your available spell levels you now have set numbers for each spell level to prepare.
As a dev, you're chopping off a valuable variable you can use for class balance, especially when you add in features that grant extra spells known (like domains).




> Holy Order (L9): Bad - Why give every Cleric 2/3 of the options? It should instead be an improvement of the first in some fashion.
> 
> _Im sure this is all going to get lost in the ocean of words and opinions. Oh well. Thanks anyway!_


I'm glad pretty much everyone agrees on this

I read it! And i'm in agreement pretty much across the board. 




> LMAO!! You honestly think there is any documentation? I'd be shocked if there was; even more shocked if it was actually useful.


Well yeah, theres never the correct handover docs and if there are its too uncoordinated or much to actually go through.

Ironically we have things like these here forums and the DM Guild for the devs to check in on in real-time to get a feel for things, plus any archived results of their own surveys and playtests from the last 8 years.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I don't think the multiclassing system needs to be junked; I think it needs to be fixed such that WotC doesn't need to junk early class progression to avoid multiclass combos. The 25g tax isn't the biggest trap. The biggest trap is that a player who takes WotC's advice and plays a just a cleric at level 1 without thinking about their level 2 and level 3 choices at character creation will be ill-equipped to actually make the Holy Order choice when they hit level 2. The second biggest trap is assuming that all clerics will have ready access to selling their level 1 weapon and armor and upgrading upon hitting level 2.


I agree (contrary to my own personal preferences) that the "right" way (for the product as a whole) is to fix, rather than junk multiclassing.

----

Personally, I think that front-loading is a strong feature, not a flaw. I'd _love_ if most classes followed a roughly logarithmic or (x)^(1/2) curve--they start out really strong, the first few levels are big, impactful stuff, all your important (thematically) elements are online and kicking by level 3, level 5 at the very latest, even if not at full power. And then from then on the power curve starts slowing down and (more importantly) _broadening_.

Say your strong areas are labeled A1 and A2. As a (not-fleshed-out) example, think "A1 = party support and A2 = melee combat". Rating these on a hypothetical 0-10 scale, with 0 being "cannot do this at all" and 10 being "I can succeed at this in any circumstance without party support, I'm the best there ever can be". Numbers chosen to show relative scaling, not actual power levels. 

At level 1, you're like
2/10 in area A1 and 1/10 in area A2.
0/10 in all other areas A3 ... AN.

By the end of T1 you might be, say, 
5/10 in area A1 and A2
2/10 in area A3
0/10 in area A4, ... AN

By the end of T2, you're at
7/10 in Area A1, 6/10 in area A2
4/10 in areas A3, A4, and A5,
0/10 in areas A6, ... AN

By the end of T3, you're at
8/10 in area A1, 7/10 in area A2,
5/10 in Area A3 and A4
4/10 in area A5 and A6
1/10 in areas A7, ... AN

And by level 20 you're at
8/10 in areas A1 and A2
5/10 in areas A3 and A4
4/10 in areas A5 and A6
3/10 in areas A6, ... AN

A level 20 (in this model) is better at all areas than a level 1 is at their specialty. On the other hand, the growth in power in any one area slows down tremendously and plateaus. And then different classes, even if they follow the same scaling model, can have different mixtures of strengths.

----------


## Psyren

> I would like to see Divine Spark offer a choice between Radiant and Necrotic damage to help with the RP element.


I can get behind that.




> I don't think the multiclassing system needs to be junked; I think it needs to be fixed such that WotC doesn't need to junk early class progression to avoid multiclass combos. The 25g tax isn't the biggest trap. The biggest trap is that a player who takes WotC's advice and plays a just a cleric at level 1 without thinking about their level 2 and level 3 choices at character creation will be ill-equipped to actually make the Holy Order choice when they hit level 2. The second biggest trap is assuming that all clerics will have ready access to selling their level 1 weapon and armor and upgrading upon hitting level 2.


For the first "trap": Is that really going to be a common occurrence? I would argue even new players think about things like "do I want to be a healer who wears heavy armor or not." Most video games or other media either put that question front and center, or steer the player toward one choice or the other.

For the second one - even in the unlikely event the character can't get their hands on basic equipment during 2nd level to grab chainmail, being stuck with Scale Mail + Shield slightly longer isn't the end of the world.




> Hot Take for the Armor Debate:
> 
> Dexterity should not negatively affect a person wearing armor if they're proficient in said armor. Added + bonuses are fine.


For heavy armor, it doesn't. For the other two categories it does, as they cover less "area." I think that's fine.

----------


## Jakinbandw

Interesting that a level 2 cleric can be better at persuasion than a Bard. +8 at level 2 is really solid, especially as the new social rules have all checks be made against a dc15. 

Honestly this is the biggest win for me. I love the high Charisma preacher cleric archtype, and now dnd allows for it without mticlassing.

----------


## Segev

> I think "screws over" is a massively overblown viewpoint. Even if you go the "suboptimal" route of having 14 Dex on your heavy armor cleric, that stat is still very useful despite not factoring into your AC past 2nd level. And if you instead "dump" Dex to 8-10, you'll still be starting the game with 15/16 AC as long as you grab Scale Mail + Shield. In short, it's fine.


I find this rich when you've in the past argued that having a +2 baked into a non-optimal stat adjustment based on race inhibits you from playing the character you wanted to play. But somehow having to put a 14 into a stat you wanted to dump is totally fine, because it's useful even if you later do make it less so with the build choices you actually wanted.

If we were discussing halflings having to have +2 to dexterity rather than floating stats, you'd be (if you haven't changed your position) siding with those angered that we would dare quash their character options by making them play a halfling wizard who can't have that +2 to Intelligence or a halfling barbarian who can't have that +2 to strength.

But when it's a clear class-intended design to play a heavy-armor cleric, it's fine to expect you to either suffer the actively sub-optimal choice early or be actively sub-optimal later within the class itself. No problem forcing that +2 to Dex over what you want, or even a +4 to Dex. After all, that doesn't change a concept at all, by requiring you to put a lower stat somewhere else. All clerics are known for being moderately dexterous, after all. It's not quashing your creativity for punishing a low dexterity at level 1, or punishing a high dexterity by making you waste resources by overriding part of it at higher level.

But heaven forbid a tiefling fighter have to have +2 charisma when he really wants +2 strength.

----------


## Psyren

> Interesting that a level 2 cleric can be better at persuasion than a Bard. +8 at level 2 is really solid, especially as the new social rules have all checks be made against a dc15. 
> 
> Honestly this is the biggest win for me. I love the high Charisma preacher cleric archtype, and now dnd allows for it without mticlassing.


I agree that clerics who are great at Persuasion (and Religion!) is overdue. I think it's awkward though that to get the full benefit of the feature, they have to not take those skills at level 1, so I'll be arguing for changes in the survey.

As far as being better than Bards though - that requires the cleric to have max Wis and Cha, in which case they probably should be. If they don't max out both stats, the Bard wins by having Expertise and only needing to max out one.




> I find this rich when you've in the past argued that having a +2 baked into a non-optimal stat adjustment based on race


Nope, not going here _yet again._ If you don't get it by now you never will.

----------


## Segev

> Nope, not going here _yet again._ If you don't get it by now you never will.


I do get it. It's just that your reasoning for it equally applies AGAINST your justification of punishing clerics who want to be heavy armor wearers by requiring them to have dexterity be moderate rather than low at level 1.

----------


## Tanarii

> Actually I would go the opposite way. Instead of just making the Cleric a full-caster-better-Paladin, actually embrace the caster trope with a few subclass options that would bring it back to what the Cleric is now. I know this ideal doesnt resonate with the majority, which Im fine with.


Nonstarter.  Clerics can wear all armor is a defining feature of the D&D class, a sacred cow.  Even having some domains limited was a bad idea in the first place.

----------


## Segev

> Nonstarter.  Clerics can wear all armor is a defining feature of the D&D class, a sacred cow.  Even having some domains limited was a bad idea in the first place.


Eh, medium armor only never bothered me on most of the cleric domains thus limited. And I tend to be one of those defending sacred cows as crucial to keeping D&D being D&D.

----------


## Psyren

> I do get it. It's just that your reasoning for it equally applies AGAINST your justification of punishing clerics who want to be heavy armor wearers by requiring them to have dexterity be moderate rather than low at level 1.


It doesn't equally apply, and strength/HA clerics are not "required" to have moderate dexterity at level 1. 15-16 starting AC for a full caster is plenty.




> Nonstarter.  Clerics can wear all armor is a defining feature of the D&D class, a sacred cow.  Even having some domains limited was a bad idea in the first place.


Pathfinder demoted them to medium armor and the sky didn't fall. It wouldn't be the first idea 5e lifted from that game. (See ki points for example.)

----------


## Segev

> It doesn't equally apply, and strength/HA clerics are not "required" to have moderate dexterity at level 1. 15-16 starting AC for a full caster is plenty.


And a 14-15 starting primary stat is plenty, as well.

----------


## Unoriginal

> A negative Dex modifier already doesn't affect someone wearing Heavy Armor. So why should I get dinged if I'm wearing a Medium Armor Chain Shirt and not Heavy Armor Chain mail?


Because one is Medium Armor and the other Heavy Armor. 

The mechanical difference between those categories is specifically "how much can DEX affect me when I'm wearing it?".

The reason behind that is that the game want to mechanically represent the thematic archetypes of "lightly armored but good at dodging character" and "heavily armored but bad at dodging character", with "somewhat armored, somewhat decent at dodging" in-between. 

If Light and Medium Armors are not affected by negative mods to DEX it's buffing those two armor categories for no reason AND removing the niche for Heavy Armor.

----------


## Psyren

> And a 14-15 starting primary stat is plenty, as well.


I never said it wasn't. I said that ability scores and armor class are different things with different implications. Take your false equivalency elsewhere, I won't be entertaining it further.

----------


## Jervis

> Actually I would go the opposite way. Instead of just making the Cleric a full-caster-better-Paladin, actually embrace the caster trope with a few subclass options that would bring it back to what the Cleric is now. I know this ideal doesnt resonate with the majority, which Im fine with.
> 
> Completely agree on multi-classing.


Doesnt work. Cleric is a control/tanking class, they dont set in the back line, theyre suppose to be front or midline

----------


## animorte

> I read it! And i'm in agreement pretty much across the board.


Yay, thats now one of two strong things that made my day! Thanks a ton.




> Nonstarter.  Clerics can wear all armor is a defining feature of the D&D class, a sacred cow.  Even having some domains limited was a bad idea in the first place.





> Doesnt work. Cleric is a control/tanking class, they dont set in the back line, theyre suppose to be front or midline


Yes, absolutely. I understand. Its been well established as such and will continue in this direction, and Im fine with that and have always liked Clerics since I started playing. 

Just throwing out that it would have made a little more sense to me if they didnt start out years ago with armor proficiency to begin with.

*Edit:* I came across too agreeable (also throwing in another quote). Paladins and Clerics have always had that unnecessary overlap (same goes for Druid/Ranger). Why should any full caster automatically have armor proficiency? Doesnt make sense to me. They have other ways of achieving survivability and other ways of controlling the battlefield. I would have preferred they be designed for filling the same role from the back-line. You know that trope, theres the healer, get him! Subclasses exist to create a more gish build. Either way, like I said, Im fine with where it currently is, just a nit-pick.

----------


## Oramac

> Change Multiclass so spells outside of the class that gave you armor proficiency cant be cast in armor. 
> 
> Problem solved. 
> 
> Add a tab to Warcaster or Heavy Armor training to allow you to cast in said armor.


Yes. All of this. Hell, make a new feat for it if necessary. 




> If level 1 dips are a problem because they're so badly front-loaded that later levels in other classes aren't worth getting ASAP, then the problem isn't with level 1 dips or multiclassing; it's with higher-level features not being cool enough.


100% this. I've been yelling that capstones aren't strong enough for years (and even in this thread). If a 1st-level feature is more exciting than a 20th level feature, there's a big problem.

----------


## Atranen

> "Domain" is also different than "god." Again, I think your distinction between "I choose to opt into this aspect of divine power and therefore it's justifiable that I do that after first level" and  "I choose to opt into this other aspect of divine power therefore it's *unjustifiable* that I do that after first level" is both inconsistent and arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that we'll only have 4 domains in the PHB, yes the chances that a given sample deity there (if there even are any) having more than one are slim. But that doesn't mean gods actually only get one domain, domains are retroactively added to gods all the time in D&D (even before 5e.) This does not come with some metaphysical shakeup of the world, rather it's simply assumed these were domains the gods always granted access to, and official rules simply weren't present for them.


A circle isn't really an aspect of divine power, is it? It's an organization, which perhaps passes down knowledge in the form of spells and such, but you're not *drawing on* the druid circle, you're *learning from* it. A voluntary organization is different than a source of divine power. 

I wouldn't mind them retroactively adding domains; the coverage for the existing Gods is not always great (you can't be a Tempest Cleric in FR without worshiping an evil God, at least picking from the standard list of deities). If they properly align the flavor text it can make internal sense. But that still doesn't solve the issue that you don't feel like a cleric of XYZ at first or second level. 




> I... actually just don't see 1 level dips as a problem. They are their own cost. You are slowing progression in your other class. If level 1 dips are a problem because they're so badly front-loaded that later levels in other classes aren't worth getting ASAP, then the problem isn't with level 1 dips or multiclassing; it's with higher-level features not being cool enough.


I'm confused by why they feel the need to deal with multiclassing at all. Outside of a few combos (mostly of CHA casters), the dips are not *that* much stronger than normal characters. And frankly, shouldn't players with system knowledge who want to make stronger characters be able to? As long as there's interesting choices to be made, which I think there are. 

Just want to add, this is something that bothered me about the video. Jeremy talks about 'changing options that people don't choose as often'. But why? If they're underpowered and people want to play them, that's one thing. But a lot of Cleric domains (for example) are fine, just not what people think of first when they pick Cleric. Trickery, for example; despite a lackluster CD, its spell list makes it very fun and relevant at the right table. There should be some less common options for players who want something different. 




> I kind of agree, but I honestly think its both. If people arent spending very much time at level 1 or 2, why does the class need to be that front-loaded? I honestly dont see any reasoning for extreme front-loaded nonsense.





> In all honesty, I like the new direction they seem to have with subclass levels. And yes, in most games I've played or DM'd the game started at 3rd level, for relatively obvious reasons.
> 
> The levels 1 and 2 usually serve as introduction to the game for the new players, or when otherwise experienced player is trying a class they've not played before, and given how low the XP limits for first three levels are, you won't be stuck in them for very long, so it hardly matters if subclass gets chosen at 3rd level instead of 1st or 2nd.


Others in the same vein I missed...I just disagree with this design philosophy; I don't think 1st and 2nd level should be fake tutorial levels, they should be part of a real game. If you're playing Tier 1, that perpetually locks half the content into 'tutorial'. And there's no need to. 




> Change Multiclass so spells outside of the class that gave you armor proficiency cant be cast in armor. 
> 
> Problem solved. 
> 
> Add a tab to Warcaster or Heavy Armor training to allow you to cast in said armor.


A simple, elegant way to deal with the problem via the multiclass system, rather than messing around with the base classes. I'm a fan.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Yes. All of this. Hell, make a new feat for it if necessary.


Proposal:

*Armored Caster*
Choose one of your classes that grants either the Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature.
* + 1 to the casting stat of that class
* You can cast <class> spells in any armor with which you are proficient, regardless of source.

----------


## animorte

> Others in the same vein I missed...I just disagree with this design philosophy; I don't think 1st and 2nd level should be fake tutorial levels, they should be part of a real game. If you're playing Tier 1, that perpetually locks half the content into 'tutorial'. And there's no need to.


I agree with this. Subclasses coming in at different levels locked some PCs out of participating at those levels, thus everybody just started when everybody could have a similar contribution to their class identity.

However, pretending a character doesnt have identity without its subclass comes across as incredibly short-sighted. Many other features are easily accounted for.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> For the first "trap": Is that really going to be a common occurrence? I would argue even new players think about things like "do I want to be a healer who wears heavy armor or not." Most video games or other media either put that question front and center, or steer the player toward one choice or the other.


In practice? I think it will be a rare occurrence. But thats because I think the vast majority of players will consider their level 2 Holy Order and level 3 subclass options at character creation. Its only going to be a problem if players decide they want to try out the class without making those supposedly intimidating decisions at the outset which Crawford laid out as the stated primary goal. You are absolutely right that other games put the option right up front. I think D&D should do so as well, rather than waiting until level 2.




> For the second one - even in the unlikely event the character can't get their hands on basic equipment during 2nd level to grab chainmail, being stuck with Scale Mail + Shield slightly longer isn't the end of the world.


Its not the end of the world, but it is an extra and unnecessary hurdle towards getting to the character the player actually wants to play.

----------


## sambojin

Thinking of another idea for the lack of preps and slight blandness of clerics in general (instead of the level 1 choice I suggested). What if at lvl3 when you got your subclass, you got four spell preps known, 2xlvl1 and 2xlvl2 spells?

Life would probably get Healing Word, Bless as well as Lesser Restoration and Prayer of Healing. Sort of back-filling your domain spells, and making the transition from acolyte to "proper preist-of X" a pretty big step.

It would also allow more theming of stuff as well. So you go from "kinda generic cleric #2023" to "yep, actual Life Cleric" in one easy step. Tempest can get zappy and boomy. Nature can nab a couple of Primal spells. Etc etc.

If this was the standard for magic subclasses and lvl3, you could do plenty of fun stuff, even sprinkling off-list cantrips and stuff in there as well, not just for clerics, but for wizards and druids (and even pallies) for theming purposes. It'd open a lot of design space for different subclasses and "feels" to them. Stops some dipping (ala 5e Arcana Cleric for heaps of cantrips at lvl1), while retaining the same overall impact that a domain or circle choice would give.

I liked the Build-A-Bear Cleric style better, and some probably don't even see it as a problem needing a solution, but it still would work pretty well. I know lack of spell prep options seems to be a design goal of 1dnd, probably to reign-in caster power, but it's one that I see as boring and bland. The lvl1 spells tend to end up as flavour anyway, so why not keep it flavourful?


(Having Life as the only example to work from is pretty bad to show any potential versatility, because they tend to heal and heal-more, but I think there would be plenty of fun little combos and quirks and flavour available in conjunction with CDs and subclass features, so you really do feel like a Cleric of "X")

((PS. I like the new Prayer of Healing. 10min short rests sound great, and with Thaumaturge giving a CD back on a short rest, you can trade a lvl2 slot for an extra CD 1/day when required. That's quite a lot of healing at lvl6 for a Life Cleric, plus whatever other short rest resources your party recovers from it))

(((Pps. Clerics get smites too now, and with TWF being ok'ish (or just sword'n'board), and a lvl1 feat, you probably could go a bit smite happy with a Cleric after a few levels if you wanted to. Gear/ build/ feat for it, but compared to other non-warrior characters, you should be able to keep up a bit, even with SW as concentration now)))

----------


## Atranen

> Thinking of another idea for the lack of preps and slight blandness of clerics in general (instead of the level 1 choice I suggested). What if at lvl3 when you got your subclass, you got four spell preps known, 2xlvl1 and 2xlvl2 spells?
> 
> Life would probably get Healing Word, Bless as well as Lesser Restoration and Prayer of Healing. Sort of back-filling your domain spells, and making the transition from acolyte to "proper preist-of X" a pretty big step.
> 
> It would also allow more theming of stuff as well. So you go from "kinda generic cleric #2023" to "yep, actual Life Cleric" in one easy step. Tempest can get zappy and boomy. Nature can nab a couple of Primal spells. Etc etc.
> 
> If this was the standard for magic subclasses and lvl3, you could do plenty of fun stuff, even sprinkling off-list cantrips and stuff in there as well, not just for clerics, but for wizards and druids (and even pallies) for theming purposes. It'd open a lot of design space for different subclasses and "feels" to them. Stops some dipping (ala 5e Arcana Cleric for heaps of cantrips at lvl1), while retaining the same overall impact that a domain or circle choice would give.


This is also a good solution, but as you mention, I'm afraid it goes against the "everyone gets the same spell list" design. Which...why? Separate spell lists was one of the best ways to make classes feel unique and different...it's a great idea if they decide to start making good decisions.

----------


## Tanarii

> *Edit:* I came across too agreeable (also throwing in another quote). Paladins and Clerics have always had that unnecessary overlap (same goes for Druid/Ranger). Why should any full caster automatically have armor proficiency? Doesnt make sense to me. They have other ways of achieving survivability and other ways of controlling the battlefield. I would have preferred they be designed for filling the same role from the back-line. You know that trope, theres the healer, get him! Subclasses exist to create a more gish build. Either way, like I said, Im fine with where it currently is, just a nit-pick.


Because the idea of clerics is they're off-tanks with less blast-y full casting, more healing and defensive buffs.  They make up part of the lack of blasting by getting in there and whacking occasionally with a beat stick, and (in 5e) some nice shorter range damage options, especially Spirit Guardians, which goes along with off-tank well.  Clerics aren't what's come about in later video games, White Mages or Healers.

Druids get less AC but more than arcane full casters because they are a bit more blast-y, but also (in 5e) they're concentration control / DoT oriented and have Wildshape for extra HPs.

Bards are the support/buff class with the weakest defenses, unless you go specific subclasses.  And also one of the weaker classes in 5e because of it. It's a shame really, they were originally Fighter/Thieves with Druid magic layered on top.  They've been in bad shape ever since 2e, although 5e is passable if you either regelate them to arcane squishy caster or go Valor.

----------


## Jervis

> Because the idea of clerics is they're off-tanks with less blast-y full casting, more healing and defensive buffs.  They make up part of the lack of blasting by getting in there and whacking occasionally with a beat stick, and (in 5e) some nice shorter range damage options, especially Spirit Guardians, which goes along with off-tank well.  Clerics aren't what's come about in later video games, White Mages or Healers.
> 
> Druids get less AC but more than arcane full casters because they are a bit more blast-y, but also (in 5e) they're concentration control / DoT oriented and have Wildshape for extra HPs.
> 
> Bards are the support/buff class with the weakest defenses, unless you go specific subclasses.  And also one of the weaker classes in 5e because of it. It's a shame really, they were originally Fighter/Thieves with Druid magic layered on top.  They've been in bad shape ever since 2e, although 5e is passable if you either regelate them to arcane squishy caster or go Valor.


Something a lot of people forget about clerics is that their original role was to fill the same design space as a Gish. Not quite as strong or tanky as a fighter and not quite as good at blasting as a wizard. They can fight, they can buff, they can support, they even got healing which was lacking from wizards, but the cant blast it use the same broken spell effects as a wizard.

----------


## Melil12

So I have a question and it has already sparked lunacy in my private group.

What if we remove spirit guardians from the game?
Would the cleric all of a sudden become unplayable?
How can we break their reliance on 1 spell?

----------


## sambojin

Is wotc really moving away from short rest resources? Considering there's already a lvl2 spell that gives you a 10min short rest (with a bit of healing to boot)?

So far we've only got the lvl7 bardic inspiration, and thaumaturge's +CD on a sr, but martials tend to be short rest based, as does druid wildshape. Are all 'locks coffeelocks now, at least 1 extra break per day? Or even if all these classes end up being prof uses/lr, there seems to be a "but now it's also per sr" option or level-cap for two (out of four) classes so far. And Fighters/BMs and warlocks will exist in 1dnd, I can only assume.

Could it now be considered a 2sr+1PoH and 1lr workday now? Prayer of Healing seems really good in a "let's screw over the resource system" kinda way. Even in those 5min workday campaigns, it's probably not hard to extend that out to 20mins if it means *Moar novas!!!*

("Back compatible" they said.... "Here, have a "class spell" in a UA that would normally be considered grubby cheese homebrew" they said....
Spell tax, or Class feature??? Hmmm.
Might even make for some interesting "protect the Cleric!" scenarios, as your party's warriors desperately try and help you keep concentration for 10mins, so they can go into hyper-mode again. It actually seems like a pretty fun spell for DMs to play with 😎
Sort of fun from a narrative perspective too. "Yeah, my God's a-coming! He'll be here real soon! (Oh please bloody hurry up!). Real soon, and he'll grant us all mega-powers! (Hurry, please...))

----------


## Speely

I like the new direction in some ways. I don't mind postponing heavy armor until level 2 for those who want it because level 1 is generally where we spend the least amount of time anyway and it discourages quick dips. Divorcing it from domain is also fine and even interesting, BUT...

While I like the Holy Order direction, I think the implementation is flawed. I strongly feel that allowing a second option from the list at level 9 is both a homogenization of identities for how a cleric serves their deity and also unexciting. "Hey, now you can pick the one you didn't want before."

Now, sure, maybe you did want the other choice but just not as much, but making that choice should be binding, imo, because...

The level 9 option should 100% double down on the level 2 choice. That would be infinitely cooler and more interesting, not just because it makes the initial choice matter more, but because it's something NEW, not something we saw at level 2. 

Another reason I am adamantly in support of the second option being a double-down is that it could make the perhaps least "powerful" option (Scholar) more competitive by offering a really hefty level 9 feature that makes the investment feel more justified. 

The way it is now, the level 9 feature just makes every cleric more alike than different. You will literally never meet another cleric who doesn't share at least one of the options with you, and I'd wager that most clerics will just pick the two most useful combat options.  This is a squandered opportunity for more diversity in build types for the base cleric class imo.

----------


## Jervis

> So I have a question and it has already sparked lunacy in my private group.
> 
> What if we remove spirit guardians from the game?
> Would the cleric all of a sudden become unplayable?
> How can we break their reliance on 1 spell?


At high levels yeah. They upcast the spell up til 6 or 7 a lot of the time. Without it they kinda just dont have damage. You would need a major rework of their spell list and class features to make up for it

----------


## sambojin

I actually think if there were more options in Holy Orders, it'd feel way better. If it was a list of five (or more?), but you knew you could eventually pick two, it'd be a lot better. That'd give the Build-A-Bear Cleric thingo, with a bit of subtlety and nuance to your character.

Maybe even make a list of six, some with synergy but moderately powerful alone (the war'iest war god that ever warred thing/ or magic'd/ or knew stuff), but you could kind of sprinkle a bit of flavour as well without gimping yourself.

Two synergistic "focuses" of an Order, or fairly wide and diverse, your choice. It might even be best if they were all pretty diverse choices, yet all moderately powerful, and it's up to you to find the synergies in what you do and your party make-up.

So, yeah. More options, even just an extra 2-3, all moderately good without synergies (you do have an actual domain and spell list for that). So it's not a 2-out-of-3 thing by lvl9. If it was 2-out-of-6 + domain choice, it would feel a heap more personalised.

----------


## Speely

> I actually think if there were more options in Holy Orders, it'd feel way better. If it was a list of five (or more?), but you knew you could eventually pick two, it'd be a lot better. That'd give the Build-A-Bear Cleric thingo, with a bit of subtlety and nuance to your character.
> 
> Maybe even make a list of six, some with synergy but moderately powerful alone (the war'iest war god that ever warred thing/ or magic'd/ or knew stuff), but you could kind of sprinkle a bit of flavour as well without gimping yourself.
> 
> Two synergistic "focuses" of an Order, or fairly wide and diverse, your choice. It might even be best if they were all pretty diverse choices, yet all moderately powerful, and it's up to you to find the synergies in what you do and your party make-up.
> 
> So, yeah. More options, even just an extra 2-3, all moderately good without synergies (you do have an actual domain and spell list for that). So it's not a 2-out-of-3 thing by lvl9. If it was 2-out-of-6 + domain choice, it would feel a heap more personalised.


This could work as well. 

One thing I really love about the Holy Orders is the possibilities for DMs and players to explore subplots dealing with the relationships not just between different orders within one religion, but similar orders among other religions. There's a lot of narrative meat to dig into there, potentially.

----------


## kazaryu

> Yes, it is a straight nerf.
> And, No, they won't function anything like a 5e cleric.
> 
> You WILL prepare 4xlvl1 spells, you WILL prepare 3xlvl2 spells, you WILL prepare 3xlvl3 spells, etc, by character lvl6. Which honestly, is a lot of spells, but wow would I love to not prepare them in those lower slots, and "slot-up" my preps to higher level "this *could* be useful" stuff, after just having Bless and Healing Word covered in the lower ones.
> 
> It's a very different game in that.
> Hell, think of the poor Druids, that now can't compete with Wizards. I mean, think of the poor Wizards.... They actually have to prepare lvl1 spells, all-the-time.... No matter how many scrolls they "find/ get-given-by-the-DM". What are they going to do now?
> 
> Lol


thats a good point. i *did* more mean the fact that none of their actual abilities changed. but you're right that the fact they don't have as much freedom to prepare whatever they want. and that is a big deal. i do think its an exageration to say that they won't function *anything* like 5e clerics, but they will definitely have a siginficant difference in feel. at least if this method of spell casting makes it to the book.

----------


## Goobahfish

Heavy armour at level 2 is a bit narratively clunky... isn't it.

I don't think there is a good solution here. Actually there is.

All you need is a kind of Medium armour that has a static AC of 14. Fixed.  :Small Big Grin: 

Ducks.

--- 

Clerics wearing heavy armour has always been a bit of a eyebrow raiser for me anyway. It seemed to muddy the Cleric vs Paladin aesthetics. It seems to me that heavy armour cleric shouldn't be the norm and obviously PF and games like WOW have accepted this.

I'm not sure granting armour proficiency at any level except 1 is a great idea. Frontloading clerics is also a dangerous idea. Not sure they can get around "I want to play my character" without frontloading though... who knows?

----------


## sambojin

I'd almost go on the other side of this. I'd not only stand on toes of other classes with Cleric, I'd smash them with a sledgehammer, so those classes became better designed and more unique. Yet still being able to "do things other ?sub/classes? can".

So "Protector" Holy Order also gets the Resistance cantrip for free. If they already have this cantrip, they may choose another off the Divine list.

BAM! Done. Flavourful. Pretend you're a gish or mini-paladin or something (you're not). Well, you do have heavy armour, and smites on your list, and full spell progression, so whatever. You can do that, you're just not good at it.

And paladin lvl6 *super-power-aura* gets redesigned because of it, so they are way more paladin'y and stuff in their oaths and choices and character.

(Geez I hope they give clerics more cantrips to choose from. Even some Arcane or Primal ones. The list is pretty bare)

----------


## Pex

> I think you're mixing different categories of player here.
> 
> The type of player who is intimidated by too many choices at level 1 probably isn't going to be min-maxing his Strength and Dex to optimize his AC. And the type of player who does care about min-maxing can probably suffer through a single session at level 1 before getting his plate armor at level 2. (And if we're actually playing by the rules, nobody can afford plate armor at level 1 anyway.)
> 
> I think your second paragraph here misunderstands the point of the heavy armor feature: the point is to feel like a tough guy with a big heavy weapon and huge chunky armor, not just to get a moderate increase to durability.


It's not about plate armor. It's about chainmail and being able to dump DX for wanting to be a ST cleric or at least have DX as an option to dump along with IN and CH. Gives flexibility. The cleric in D&Done can still have AC 16 with splint mail, shield, and 10 DX, which is not bad, but it's still a nerf to heavy armor clerics of 5E. Its a question of whether that's a feature or bug, understanding the bug is intended not accidental. For some people it's a bug, and I don't find them being unreasonable about it.

Personally I noticed the change upon first reading it. I was disappointed, but not entirely because I appreciate the choice of going ST or not. As a personal matter when playing a cleric in 5E I choose the Domain for the abilities I want to enjoy. Armor is not a consideration. Once chosen then if given heavy armor I go ST 16 DX 10. If not DX 14 it is and ST is whatever is left over at least 10, but that's the min-maxer of me. With D&Done ST or DX and armor is more about my mood at the time. Being given this choice compensated my disappointment. Still it is irksome because in 5E I can always have AC 18 at first level cleric with medium or heavy armor. In D&Done, to get an 18 AC I _have to_ go DX 14 ST and heavy armor or not. It's a nerf. It's not a seething anger of a nerf to me, but it is a nerf.

----------


## Kane0

> Is wotc really moving away from short rest resources?


Yes, that is absolutely the trend and has been for a while, it appears there just hasnt been enough pushback on it.

----------


## Schwann145

> That's a perfectly fine starting point, especially for a full caster...





> Especially a full caster!





> Yes yes, I agree that the poor full caster...





> Why should any full caster automatically have armor proficiency?


So... I mean... There's an entire lengthy thread about how "Full Caster" doesn't really mean what people insinuate it means. A "full caster Cleric" is a _wildly_ different beast than a "full caster Wizard," and we all know it. Pretending they're on the same level (even close to the same level) is crazy.

----------


## animorte

> So... I mean... There's an entire lengthy thread about how "Full Caster" doesn't really mean what people insinuate it means. A "full caster Cleric" is a _wildly_ different beast than a "full caster Wizard," and we all know it. Pretending they're on the same level (even close to the same level) is crazy.


Yes, its been agreed that Wizard easily stands above the rest. So pointing that out is equally irrelevant.

Wizard > Full Casters > Paladins > Everything else

_Going to add here that I dont play Wizards, so this is based on what Ive witnessed in the community, and what you literally just stated yourself._

----------


## sambojin

Standard 5e guff. It's totally up to the DM. But how I'd fix 1dnd clerics:
*Spoiler*
Show


Ok, the fully definitive, list:
(sambojin "fixing" clerics)
-------
Minor Domain/ Belief/ Ability: At lvl1, you choose in which way you intend to serve your god, or how you came to their notice originally, and the powers you have gained in their service. Or that which you gained from your beliefs, or blessings from a higher power.
You have one of the following options, and always have these spells prepared (on top of your usual amount as a Cleric).

Healing: Healing Word and Sanctuary.
Martial: Heroism and Shield of Faith.
Knowledge: Detect Good and Evil, and Detect Magic.
Dis/~/Order: Compelled Duel and Command.
Hidden: Disguise Self and Fog Cloud.
Temporal: Expeditious Retreat and Longstrider.
Natural: Speak with Animals and Hunter's Mark.
Magical: Guiding Bolt and Faerie Fire.
Illusionary: Silent Image and Unseen Servant.
Destructive: Inflict Wounds and Hex.
Elemental: Burning Hands and Thunderous Smite, either may be any element's damage-type on casting.

Side-text-box:
While there are only 11 Minor Domains listed, it is up to the DM to create ones more fitting for the world they have created, and the societies and civilisations they have crafted. And for their player characters to use (or fight against or for), amongst these cultures and beliefs. This merely gives a small insight to the differences between Clerics of similar subclasses, such as Life etc, and is not meant to be a division amongst them, merely help show the broad spectrum in a belief and how it is utilised and perceived from even similar minded peoples, or the differences amongst.
It also shows how even very different beliefs can work towards common goals, regardless of gods or social structures, even amongst those of otherwise conflicting world-views on things. Sometimes, Clerics are just people too.

----------


## Aquillion

> Just throwing out that it would have made a little more sense to me if they didnt start out years ago with armor proficiency to begin with.


It is worth pointing out that if we're talking about the _original_ Clerics, they were not quite what we would call full-casters.  Prior to (I think) 3e D&D, Divine casting simply didn't go past 7th level, fullstop.  8th and 9th level spells were the domain of wizards and wizards alone.

Of course, they learned new spells at the same rate as a wizard up until 6th level spells (their 7th and final level of spells was delayed a level for some reason, coming at 14th rather than 13th), and would actually learn them a tiny bit faster because they required less XP to level up.  But their spell list as a whole was also _far_ worse in 2e than it was in 3e and beyond.

That said...




> So... I mean... There's an entire lengthy thread about how "Full Caster" doesn't really mean what people insinuate it means. A "full caster Cleric" is a _wildly_ different beast than a "full caster Wizard," and we all know it. Pretending they're on the same level (even close to the same level) is crazy.


Wildly different is overstating it.  Most people agree that wizards are stronger overall, but in 3e and 5e, a Cleric is quite capable of resolving or drastically altering fights with a single well-chosen spell, and can do so regularly and consistently as they progress, especially at higher levels.  If you consider the way tiers are usually defined it is really hard to construct a reasonable argument for Clerics to be below tier 1.

----------


## Gignere

> It is worth pointing out that if we're talking about the _original_ Clerics, they were not quite what we would call full-casters.  Prior to (I think) 3e D&D, Divine casting simply didn't go past 7th level, fullstop.  8th and 9th level spells were the domain of wizards and wizards alone.
> 
> Of course, they learned new spells at the same rate as a wizard up until 6th level spells (their 7th and final level of spells was delayed a level for some reason, coming at 14th rather than 13th), and would actually learn them a tiny bit faster because they required less XP to level up.  But their spell list as a whole was also _far_ worse in 2e than it was in 3e and beyond.
> 
> That said...
> 
> 
> Wildly different is overstating it.  Most people agree that wizards are stronger overall, but in 3e and 5e, a Cleric is quite capable of resolving or drastically altering fights with a single well-chosen spell, and can do so regularly and consistently as they progress, especially at higher levels.  If you consider the way tiers are usually defined it is really hard to construct a reasonable argument for Clerics to be below tier 1.


In 3e Clerics were equal to if not stronger than wizards. Thats where the term Codzilla came from. Clerics can be built to fight better than the fighter, have nearly as many different spells as wizards, and have crazy healing all at once in 3e using enough splat books.

----------


## Warder

Urrgh, this is so DULL. I have no idea what the design intent with D&Done is, but it's just so boring so far. They have a chance to inject some magic back into the increasingly formulaic 5e, but this is what we get instead. I'm happy for everyone who is being catered to with these updates, it's just so obvious that it is not me.

----------


## Tanarii

> It is worth pointing out that if we're talking about the _original_ Clerics, they were not quite what we would call full-casters.  Prior to (I think) 3e D&D, Divine casting simply didn't go past 7th level, fullstop.  8th and 9th level spells were the domain of wizards and wizards alone.


Thats because their 7th level spells were on par with Wizard 9th level spells.  A spell level wasn't a power equivalence thing across classes.

For that matter, a class level wasn't a power equivalence thing across classes.  Two classes of he same XP were expected to have different levels.  A cleric could easily be 2-3 (or more in BECMI) class levels ahead of a Wizard for the same amount of play.

----------


## animorte

> Wildly different is overstating it.  Most people agree that wizards are stronger overall, but in 3e and 5e, a Cleric is quite capable of resolving or drastically altering fights with a single well-chosen spell, and can do so regularly and consistently as they progress, especially at higher levels.  If you consider the way tiers are usually defined it is really hard to construct a reasonable argument for Clerics to be below tier 1.


I would probably say that wildly _different_ is still accurate, because they absolutely are. However, I agree completely agree with you on the matter of power level.

----------


## Melil12

Is that the role of the cleric class? Damage dealer? Or is it a support class like the bard?

I think their role is Support/Control/Tanking.

----------


## Arkhios

> Is that the role of the cleric class? Damage dealer? Or is it a support class like the bard?
> 
> I think their role is Support/Control/Tanking.


Channel Divinity: Divine Spark, 2d8 to 6d8 damage or healing, 2 to 6 times *between long rests*, is hardly something that would make or break their role. It's just an additional option they have for their turns. Damage Dealer should be able to use something like that much more often. I wouldn't say Clerics would have their role changed towards Damage Dealer. If anything, Divine Spark helps them with Support/Control/Tanking roles.

----------


## stoutstien

> Is that the role of the cleric class? Damage dealer? Or is it a support class like the bard?
> 
> I think their role is Support/Control/Tanking.


5e doesn't really do roles in that sense. One is definitely shifting it that way which I fiercely oppose. 
Even using the only the player handbook you can build about any class to do anything well enough to get by. That's a good thing IMO.

----------


## animorte

> 5e doesn't really do roles in that sense. One is definitely shifting it that way which I fiercely oppose.


Nicely put, I hadnt directly thought of it that way, but on a personal level, I feel exactly the opposite. I like the roles being embraced a little better. However, I dont perceive that One is accomplishing that concept nearly as accurately enough to bring it to life.




> Even using the only the player handbook you can build about any class to do anything well enough to get by. That's a good thing IMO.


Agreed. This looks more like the direction One is attempting to embrace. With everything getting a little more modular and customizable, each class is going to have _more_ ways to resemble what others are capable of, not less.

----------


## stoutstien

> Nicely put, I hadnt directly thought of it that way, but on a personal level, I feel exactly the opposite. I like the roles being embraced a little better. However, I dont perceive that One is accomplishing that concept nearly as accurately enough to bring it to life.
> 
> 
> Agreed. This looks more like the direction One is attempting to embrace. With everything getting a little more modular and customizable, each class is going to have _more_ ways to resemble what others are capable of, not less.


Yes and no. They are increasing the illusion of flexibility but because everything is getting shifted to a monolithic progression with clear winners/losers it's falling into the 3.x trap. 

They're shifting stuff around without actually addressing the actual problem where some classes just don't have the space within the subclass capture certain concepts. Or if they do the progression is lop sided.

Player options can and should have an affinity for certain roles in the gamist sense but to at the expense of the initial freedom that 5e provides. For example if I want to play a skirmishing dirty trick combatant I shouldn't be required to take one particular combination to accomplish this. In the same vein is something is integrally required to make something function I shouldn't have to go lookong for it.(I adamantly oppose feat taxes and chain)

----------


## Jervis

I had a interesting discussion elsewhere about spiritual weapon and how bad the nerf is for it. Now its competing with 1st level bless and 3rd level spirit guardians for concentration so I dont think people will actually use it much

----------


## Melil12

> 5e doesn't really do roles in that sense. One is definitely shifting it that way which I fiercely oppose. 
> Even using the only the player handbook you can build about any class to do anything well enough to get by. That's a good thing IMO.


If this is true tell me is an artificer or bard capable as much dmg output as a Fighter or Rogue or Ranger?

----------


## LudicSavant

> If this is true tell me is an artificer or bard capable as much dmg output as a Fighter or Rogue or Ranger?


A Bard built for damage can _absolutely_ keep up with Fighter, Rogue, or Ranger, yes.

----------


## Melil12

> A Bard built for damage can _absolutely_ keep up with Fighter, Rogue, or Ranger, yes.


Ok then we need a way for a cleric to do the same without totally relying on Spirit Guardians.

----------


## LudicSavant

> 5e doesn't really do roles in that sense. One is definitely shifting it that way which I fiercely oppose.


Agreed.  I'm really unhappy to see One D&D shifting in that direction.

----------


## stoutstien

> If this is true tell me is an artificer or bard capable as much dmg output as a Fighter or Rogue or Ranger?


Yes for all possible combinations. *Terms and conditions apply*

----------


## Melil12

What I am getting at is that not all classes are designed for optimal dmg. While some subclasses or spells are better at it the base cleric is not designed to do so. 

If we are going to demand that they take on this role it should be built into the cleric features and not 1 spell to rule them all.

----------


## animorte

> Yes and no. They are increasing the illusion of flexibility but because everything is getting shifted to a monolithic progression with clear winners/losers it's falling into the 3.x trap.


I agree on this clear winner/loser problem and I sincerely hope its addressed more actively. I dont think that it necessarily removes the viability of others in their own niche though, just reduces overall flexibility.




> They're shifting stuff around without actually addressing the actual problem where some classes just don't have the space within the subclass capture certain concepts. Or if they do the progression is lop sided.


Yup, the progression will continue to be lop-sided but at least theyre standardizing subclass *progression* across the board, which I will never not agree with. I just hope that within each subclass, they actually progress similar power-level features at the same time. But they clearly have problems with balancing more obvious smaller things so eh. Well see.




> Player options can and should have an affinity for certain roles in the gamist sense but to at the expense of the initial freedom that 5e provides. For example if I want to play a skirmishing dirty trick combatant I shouldn't be required to take one particular combination to accomplish this. In the same vein is something is integrally required to make something function I shouldn't have to go lookong for it.(I adamantly oppose feat taxes and chain)


I agree to a certain extent. Having to look for it is broad enough of a statement that it doesnt capture the issue as well, but I get what youre saying. I equally stand in opposition to the hot pile of garbage that is feat chains.

This is exactly why I support a more modular direction. Everything doesnt have to be build-a-bear, but if the identity of each class was just a little bit more focused (see: limited), there would be more room within each of those classes to choose more ways to approach the same result, whatever that may be.

----------


## Kane0

> Urrgh, this is so DULL. I have no idea what the design intent with D&Done is, but it's just so boring so far. They have a chance to inject some magic back into the increasingly formulaic 5e, but this is what we get instead. I'm happy for everyone who is being catered to with these updates, it's just so obvious that it is not me.


What would you like to see?

----------


## Psyren

> So... I mean... There's an entire lengthy thread about how "Full Caster" doesn't really mean what people insinuate it means. A "full caster Cleric" is a _wildly_ different beast than a "full caster Wizard," and we all know it. Pretending they're on the same level (even close to the same level) is crazy.


I never said/"pretended" that clerics and wizards are on the same level  :Small Confused:  project much?




> In practice? I think it will be a rare occurrence. But thats because I think the vast majority of players will consider their level 2 Holy Order and level 3 subclass options at character creation. Its only going to be a problem if players decide they want to try out the class without making those supposedly intimidating decisions at the outset which Crawford laid out as the stated primary goal. You are absolutely right that other games put the option right up front. I think D&D should do so as well, rather than waiting until level 2.


A lot of players will consider subclass at chargen, sure - but the point is that now, you don't _have_ to. You can just sit down and play, and figure it out later.




> Its not the end of the world, but it is an extra and unnecessary hurdle towards getting to the character the player actually wants to play.


But you can make that argument about any class that doesn't start with the proficiencies you want them to have. "I want to make a heavy armor wearing sorcerer." "That's fine, but you can't realize that concept at level 1, it'll take you a few more." "What an extra and unnecessary hurdle!"

----------


## stoutstien

> I agree on this clear winner/loser problem and I sincerely hope its addressed more actively. I dont think that it necessarily removes the viability of others in their own niche though, just reduces overall flexibility.
> 
> 
> Yup, the progression will continue to be lop-sided but at least theyre standardizing subclass *progression* across the board, which I will never not agree with. I just hope that within each subclass, they actually progress similar power-level features at the same time. But they clearly have problems with balancing more obvious smaller things so eh. Well see.
> 
> 
> I agree to a certain extent. Having to look for it is broad enough of a statement that it doesnt capture the issue as well, but I get what youre saying. I equally stand in opposition to the hot pile of garbage that is feat chains.
> 
> This is exactly why I support a more modular direction. Everything doesnt have to be build-a-bear, but if the identity of each class was just a little bit more focused (see: limited), there would be more room within each of those classes to choose more ways to approach the same result, whatever that may be.


I think we're just saying the same thing but differently lol. I also think standardizing the class progression is a bad move. The 1-3 lv range of each other works fine if the could just figure out how to weigh them.
 I do have the clause that a class's identity shouldn't necessarily directly correspond with a role.

*I personally believe that if each class had two major points of progression options that would cover 90% of ground needed. As long as they both were running before lv 9 i think it would largely eliminate the need for multi-classing and the like. The difference between this and a more modular approach is it's a lot easier to balance things that are class/level locked. Sort of like I like the concept of certain features being locked into PC groups (I don't agree with their grouping) but it would be easier to shift that material into the classes themselves. This opens up the approach that not only could you have like features grouped by role fulfillment you can also cross over to theme. The eldritch Knight and arcane trickster could share features in a sense.*

----------


## Warder

> What would you like to see?


More choices. HARD choices. Choices with drawbacks! That you can level up and not make a single choice about the direction to take your character is a travesty to me.

Interesting races (or species, or ancestries) that have impactful mechanics, strong flavor and feel like more than just a choice of cosmetic skin. Playing a Goliath should be a very different experience compared to playing a halfling or an elf.

Less standardization and homogenization overall - for every rough edge that gets sanded smooth, the game loses a little more of its magic in my eyes. D&Done's spell lists are a good example of this. D&D to me has always been about being able to spark a feeling of wonder, to trigger the imagination. Every time the game makes concessions for the sake of balance or standardization, it loses a little of that spark. There's been a lot of instances of that over 5e's lifetime, and looking at this playtest it just keeps going.

----------


## Unoriginal

Hill Giant Goliath + Tavern Brawler could be the basis of a pretty fun build, I think.

Punch people, get them knocked away, on the ground and hurt.

On the other hand, is anyone else bothered by how the D&DOne Goliath growing to Large size has no effect on their damage output at all?

----------


## stoutstien

> Hill Giant Goliath + Tavern Brawler could be the basis of a pretty fun build, I think.
> 
> Punch people, get them knocked away, on the ground and hurt.
> 
> On the other hand, is anyone else bothered by how the D&DOne Goliath growing to Large size has no effect on their damage output at all?


 I'm actually more okay with  growing bigger makes you faster/longer reach but not necessarily better at dealing damage.

----------


## Dienekes

> If this is true tell me is an artificer or bard capable as much dmg output as a Fighter or Rogue or Ranger?


If it has spells it can probably make a build that can match any non-spell class at their shtick. At least well enough to get through an adventure day. 

If you really want to challenge stoutsteins claim ask for a support non-tank, non-damage Barbarian build. 

Personally, Im kinda fine with making classes fit roles a bit better. Provided the option to color out of the lines is possible. If anything I find it makes classes more cohesive. 

Though, that said, Id be willing to give up some of that benefit if the result was getting more tailored mechanics to fit the class fantasy. But theres really been no indication that theyre going that route in their design.

----------


## stoutstien

> If it has spells it can probably make a build that can match any non-spell class at their shtick. At least well enough to get through an adventure day. 
> 
> If you really want to challenge stoutsteins claim ask for a support non-tank, non-damage Barbarian build. 
> 
> Personally, Im kinda fine with making classes fit roles a bit better. Provided the option to color out of the lines is possible. If anything I find it makes classes more cohesive. 
> 
> Though, that said, Id be willing to give up some of that benefit if the result was getting more tailored mechanics to fit the class fantasy. But theres really been no indication that theyre going that route in their design.


 Wild mage barbarian with ritual caster and shield master. Sneak in crusher or slasher for some more soft control if you can. 🤔. Totem also make fantastic scouts if wanted to go that route. Barbs and rangers are the ones I think struggle the most due to thier over restrictive niches.

----------


## animorte

> I think we're just saying the same thing but differently lol.


Yeah, I can definitely see that.  :Small Big Grin: 




> The difference between this and a more modular approach is it's a lot easier to balance things that are class/level locked. Sort of like I like the concept of certain features being locked into PC groups (I don't agree with their grouping) but it would be easier to shift that material into the classes themselves.


Thats true, which is why Im fine with them not trying to really embrace the modular concept yet. There are higher priorities currently. Yes, I really like the groups and its overall a good idea. I said as much in my review of the UA-1 release.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> A lot of players will consider subclass at chargen, sure - but the point is that now, you don't _have_ to. You can just sit down and play, and figure it out later.


Gentle reminder that we were talking about the Holy Order choice, in particular the Protector option, though it applies to Scholar as well). And the point is that if a player _doesnt_ consider that choice at character generation, they will run into the issues I laid out. Your response was that in practice players wont fall into the trap I pointed out, but thats only the case if you recognize that players effectively _are_ required to make the Holy Order choice at character generation.

To reiterate the problem: Suppose a player makes a level 1 cleric without considering the level 2 Holy Order options. They see that they are proficient with medium armor, so they make sure to dump Strength and invest a decent amount (say, 14) in Dex. They also pick proficiencies in the skills at which they want their cleric to excel. Then they reach level 2 and see their choices. Protector? The characters ability scores dont line up for heavy armor and martial weapons. Scholar? Theyve already got proficiency in their most desired skills. So the choice comes down to Thaumaturgist or an option that runs counter to your level 1 decisions.




> But you can make that argument about any class that doesn't start with the proficiencies you want them to have. "I want to make a heavy armor wearing sorcerer." "That's fine, but you can't realize that concept at level 1, it'll take you a few more." "What an extra and unnecessary hurdle!"


If we are talking about class-granted proficiencies, you make a good point. Those really should come online level 1. If a player wants to acquire something their class wouldnt normally get, thats an entirely different topic than the standard class progression.





> Hill Giant Goliath + Tavern Brawler could be the basis of a pretty fun build, I think.
> 
> Punch people, get them knocked away, on the ground and hurt.
> 
> On the other hand, is anyone else bothered by how the D&DOne Goliath growing to Large size has no effect on their damage output at all?


That brings up an interesting question. If a Cloud Giant Goliath grapples somebody and then teleports, does the grappled creature come with them? Im imagining teleporting straight up and having a way to mitigate the fall damage on myself (Rage!).

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Yup, the progression will continue to be lop-sided but at least theyre standardizing subclass *progression* across the board, which I will never not agree with. I just hope that within each subclass, they actually progress similar power-level features at the same time. But they clearly have problems with balancing more obvious smaller things so eh. Well see.


Personally, if they standardize subclass progression across classes, that means one of  two things.

a) subclass features of different classes will be ludicrously different in power.
b) base classes will also have to be standardized in how much influence they have on the class.

Because right now, you have "anemic" base classes with strong, thematically powerful subclasses and vice versa. And part of that is possible because some classes get more subclass features than others.

In the end, they seem to be going for a model where no one has much of anything special about them except cosmetically. I, personally, love that my druid/ranger/ranger/cleric party plays _way_ differently than my <custom fighter-ish with a pet>/<custom rogue/monk hybrid>/wizard/paladin group. If you can pick any class from each of the three groups and end up in the same place, the _actual_ number of meaningful variations has gone down even if more things are "viable". Because most of your choices don't really matter that much. It's basically whether you want divine flavored mush or arcane flavored mush.

----------


## Imbalance

> What would you like to see?


I know you aren't asking me, but I just wish this whole edition change would get its own subforum.

----------


## ZRN

> To reiterate the problem: Suppose a player makes a level 1 cleric without considering the level 2 Holy Order options. They see that they are proficient with medium armor, so they make sure to dump Strength and invest a decent amount (say, 14) in Dex.


I genuinely think the Venn diagram of players who min-max their secondary and tertiary stats to maximize AC and players who dont even look at what their character gets at level 2 doesnt have as much overlap as you seem to think. And a decent DM would probably allow a new player to revise their stats when they run into an issue like this at level 2. (At least, I would.)

I will agree that the extra proficiencies at level 2 need a rewrite. Something like choose two skills from this list - youre proficient in them and also add wisdom mod to both. If youre already proficient with one or both, choose any other skill to be proficient in as well.

----------


## ZRN

> Because right now, you have "anemic" base classes with strong, thematically powerful subclasses and vice versa. And part of that is possible because some classes get more subclass features than others.


I could imagine a system where this distinction was intentional and meaningful but I dont think 5e is it. Everyone gets 4-5 subclass abilities and some classes (e.g. rogues) just get them awkwardly spaced out.

----------


## animorte

> Personally, if they standardize subclass progression across classes, that means one of  two things.
> 
> a) subclass features of different classes will be ludicrously different in power.
> b) base classes will also have to be standardized in how much influence they have on the class.


I can see that, but ludicrously different power levels have already been a thing. From what I can tell, the balance has a potential to look a little better than before. Of course weve only seen 4 classes so far, each with only one subclass so theres really not much way to tell yet.




> In the end, they seem to be going for a model where no one has much of anything special about them except cosmetically.


I disagree. While there is a lot of borrowing and mush, the approaches and implementations are still of varying degrees. Cosmetics can be a big part for some people, and theyre still doing ok on maintaining the flavor.




> If you can pick any class from each of the three groups and end up in the same place, the _actual_ number of meaningful variations has gone down even if more things are "viable". Because most of your choices don't really matter that much. It's basically whether you want divine flavored mush or arcane flavored mush.


Thats kind of what I was saying about focusing each class individually a little better. I still think the choices _do_ matter. Unfortunately it seems to be approaching that ideal of everybody borrows something from everybody else, which does turn it into mush. Its not precisely arcane or divine though, its a little bit of everything.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I can see that, but ludicrously different power levels have already been a thing. From what I can tell, the balance has a potential to look a little better than before. Of course weve only seen 4 classes so far, each with only one subclass so theres really not much way to tell yet.
> 
> I disagree. While there is a lot of borrowing and mush, the approaches and implementations are still of varying degrees. Cosmetics can be a big part for some people, and theyre still doing ok on maintaining the flavor.
> 
> Thats kind of what I was saying about focusing each class individually a little better. I still think the choices _do_ matter. Unfortunately it seems to be approaching that ideal of everybody borrows something from everybody else, which does turn it into mush. Its not precisely arcane or divine though, its a little bit of everything.


It's "easy" to balance things...when everything basically does the same thing in much the same ways and only the coat of paint is different. Just saying. And I disagree about the flavor--it's rather twisted. No, the new clerics don't really feel like clerics of different gods. There's just no design space devoted to that. Even the domains are anemic to the extreme and most of the most thematic abilities come really really late.

If they really wanted to do this mush approach right, they'd cut out 3/4 of the classes. Have *one* per category with more options and beefier subclasses. But as with the rest of things, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, which just produces _mush_.

Personally, I think the right thing to do would be to lean into the idea of classes being serious things. For each class, decide what their Big Unique Thing(s) is(are). Those should be both mechanically and (especially) thematically unique. And then let them have something special. So if someone says "I want to play a heavily armored divine warrior", you point them at the Divine Warrior class. This leads to lots and lots of narrower classes, each one narrowly coherent within itself, with everything building on itself.

Imagine, for example, if instead of everyone and their dog getting the ability to shapeshift people/things (polymorph, wildshape, etc), you had a Transmuter class. Their Big Unique Thing is polymorph-esque effects. Some variants would focus on transforming themselves, leading to a dedicated shapeshifter. Others would focus on transforming other creatures. And yet others would focus on transforming inanimate matter (ie the battlefield). No one else would get appreciable amounts of that--they might get minor powers, but as far away as Alter Self is from True Polymorph. Etc.

The way they're going is point-buy (as in GURPS-style "build your character out of tons of tiny, variable-cost options"), but done badly. If you want classes, _lean into them_. If you don't, _don't have them._ Mixing the two is just a recipe for mush.

----------


## Schwann145

> I never said/"pretended" that clerics and wizards are on the same level  project much?


The idea that being a full caster is enough is basically conflating all full casters to be on the same level.
They're just not.
A Cleric doesn't need higher starting AC because they're a full caster? Well the Divine spell list doesn't support self-defense as much as the Arcane spell list does. Shield of Faith is basically the only option a Cleric has to buff their AC and it requires concentration making other choices unavailable. Compare that to something like Mage Armor and it offers a smaller benefit for a higher cost. Spells like Shield and Absorb Elements are also missing entirely. And Clerics are intended to mix it up in the melee, so lacking the AC is more significant to them than it is to most Arcane casters.

So no, you didn't make specific comparisons, but the comparison is inherently implied.




> On the other hand, is anyone else bothered by how the D&DOne Goliath growing to Large size has no effect on their damage output at all?


I mean, size change has been a disappointment through all of 5e too.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## animorte

> And I disagree about the flavor--it's rather twisted. No, the new clerics don't really feel like clerics of different gods. There's just no design space devoted to that.


Yes, in my extended review I gave the Cleric overall flavor a Bad because if they want to move things around, the flavor needs to support that more accurately.




> If they really wanted to do this mush approach right, they'd cut out 3/4 of the classes. Have *one* per category with more options and beefier subclasses.


Agreed. I personally would love that (though I think Im in the minority). I was actually surprised at the idea they might try to embrace that more efficiently with the new groups, but we see thats not happening.




> -snip-


I pretty much agree with everything else youve said. I think if they really embraced the groups idea, they could effectively accomplish the extremely in-depth and focused subclass concepts. Building anything worthwhile requires a stronger foundation.

----------


## Leon

> More choices. HARD choices. Choices with drawbacks! That you can level up and not make a single choice about the direction to take your character is a travesty to me.
> 
> Interesting races (or species, or ancestries) that have impactful mechanics, strong flavor and feel like more than just a choice of cosmetic skin. Playing a Goliath should be a very different experience compared to playing a halfling or an elf.
> 
> Less standardization and homogenization overall - for every rough edge that gets sanded smooth, the game loses a little more of its magic in my eyes. D&Done's spell lists are a good example of this. D&D to me has always been about being able to spark a feeling of wonder, to trigger the imagination. Every time the game makes concessions for the sake of balance or standardization, it loses a little of that spark. There's been a lot of instances of that over 5e's lifetime, and looking at this playtest it just keeps going.


Yes, this is the way it should be but sadly is not where it is heading ~ Hunter Subclass showed that in spades, it was a great subclass for the choice it offered but the UA version striped all that out for mediocre unity and i suspect the same thing will happen to any other subclass that choice, Totem barbarian will prob just be the bear etc.

5e Weapons are another case in point you have several that functionaly are the same but for minor differences (damage type mostly) may as well just say you have a Hand weapon or a Two handed weapon at this point and you cover all the non ranged weapons with how bland it is. Not that Ranged is is any better.

I was looking at adding a second type of versatile on some and removing/changing some weapons to account for the new class of versatile (Damage). Namely Halberds (P/S) and Warhammers (B/P) could choose to another type of damage for the attack being made, Example: the pick being removed as it was merged with the Warhammer to what a warhammer actually is (ie not a hand sledge). That right there makes Halberds stand out from the Glaive which presently is identical but for name. The claims that Pikes are too unwieldly to get the benefit from PAM but leaves them as functionally the same stats as the other polearms ~ if it was to be actually a long "unwieldly" pike then it'd be reaching further at the very least.





> To reiterate the problem: Suppose a player makes a level 1 cleric without considering the level 2 Holy Order options. They see that they are proficient with medium armor, so they make sure to dump Strength and invest a decent amount (say, 14) in Dex. They also pick proficiencies in the skills at which they want their cleric to excel. Then they reach level 2 and see their choices. Protector? The characters ability scores dont line up for heavy armor and martial weapons. Scholar? Theyve already got proficiency in their most desired skills. So the choice comes down to Thaumaturgist or an option that runs counter to your level 1 decisions.


Then that player is at fault for not looking what the class has to offer beyond level one. Its not behind a level locked wall or anything and you don't need to be pre-planning your character to look at the options the class may have beyond the level your at.

----------


## Envyus

I think the new cleric looks cool. I see no issue whatsoever in being able to pick heavy armour at level 2. Too much hyperbole going around.

----------


## Psyren

> The idea that being a full caster is enough is basically conflating all full casters to be on the same level.
> They're just not.
> A Cleric doesn't need higher starting AC because they're a full caster? Well the Divine spell list doesn't support self-defense as much as the Arcane spell list does. Shield of Faith is basically the only option a Cleric has to buff their AC and it requires concentration making other choices unavailable. Compare that to something like Mage Armor and it offers a smaller benefit for a higher cost. Spells like Shield and Absorb Elements are also missing entirely. And Clerics are intended to mix it up in the melee, so lacking the AC is more significant to them than it is to most Arcane casters.
> 
> So no, you didn't make specific comparisons, but the comparison is inherently implied.


So what if the Divine spell list has fewer defensive options at low level? You can still start the game with Scale Mail and a shield. That is going to be good defense starting out no matter what your dexterity is.




> More choices. HARD choices. Choices with drawbacks! That you can level up and not make a single choice about the direction to take your character is a travesty to me.
> 
> Interesting races (or species, or ancestries) that have impactful mechanics, strong flavor and feel like more than just a choice of cosmetic skin. Playing a Goliath should be a very different experience compared to playing a halfling or an elf.
> 
> Less standardization and homogenization overall - for every rough edge that gets sanded smooth, the game loses a little more of its magic in my eyes. D&Done's spell lists are a good example of this. D&D to me has always been about being able to spark a feeling of wonder, to trigger the imagination. Every time the game makes concessions for the sake of balance or standardization, it loses a little of that spark. There's been a lot of instances of that over 5e's lifetime, and looking at this playtest it just keeps going.


I can't understand how you can look at this playtest and think you're not making choices when you level up or that races species are just cosmetic skins. I just can't. It's a viewpoint so disconnected from reality that I hope the designers never listen to it.




> Gentle reminder that we were talking about the Holy Order choice, in particular the Protector option, though it applies to Scholar as well). And the point is that if a player _doesnt_ consider that choice at character generation, they will run into the issues I laid out. Your response was that in practice players wont fall into the trap I pointed out, but thats only the case if you recognize that players effectively _are_ required to make the Holy Order choice at character generation.
> 
> To reiterate the problem: Suppose a player makes a level 1 cleric without considering the level 2 Holy Order options. They see that they are proficient with medium armor, so they make sure to dump Strength and invest a decent amount (say, 14) in Dex. They also pick proficiencies in the skills at which they want their cleric to excel. Then they reach level 2 and see their choices. Protector? The characters ability scores dont line up for heavy armor and martial weapons. Scholar? Theyve already got proficiency in their most desired skills. So the choice comes down to Thaumaturgist or an option that runs counter to your level 1 decisions.


My point is that even on a so-called Heavy Armor Cleric build, 14 Dex is not wasted. Sure it won't factor into your AC, but it factors into plenty of other things.

----------


## Mastikator

Wow 282 replies, this was a controversial UA.

*Spoiler: The cleric*
Show


The first thing I notice is that the cleric is way less front loaded, which I think is good. And we have to take into account that 1st level characters are getting a feat, 2 feats if they're human.

Channel divinity really has 3 uses, heal, inflict damage and turn undead. That plus spells, medium armor, shield and simple weapons is fine for a 1st level cleric. They no longer have 1 CD per short rest but PB per long, so less dependent on your table actually using short rests.

Holy order is a neat thing IMO, it splits previous domain stuff into its own category, meaning we could more combinations. I like choices. The scholar one in particular answers the age old complaint about wizards with religion being better at religion than clerics with religion. No more, now your cleric can be good at knowing religion.
You also get a second holy order at level 9, makes me wish we had a 4th and 5th option. Maybe one called "Preacher" that gives you a follower and one called "Cultist" that makes you sneaky and secretive somehow.

Smite undead. This replaces destroy undead, for weak or damaged undead this may still destroy them but now it also does something useful to strong undead. I think this is an improvement.

Blessed strikes. I like, but I wish it scaled. Raise it to 2d8 at 13 and 3d8 at 17!

Divine intervention, fine.



*Spoiler: Life Domain*
Show


Disciple of life: THANK YOU, no more life berries and adding a quadrillion hp to aura of vitality. This is a good and justified nerf. 

Preserve life: "This feature can bring a creatures current Hit Points to no more than half its Hi Point Maximum" Booo! remove this last bit, allow it to heal to full!

Blessed healer: This is not new and I'm not a fan actually. I think additionally it should let you give that self heal to someone else (that is not the target of the healing).
"When you cast a spell that heals a creature, you can choose a different creature or yourself to be healed for 2 + spell slot level hit points" otherwise this is only useful if you're injured

Supreme healing: neat


*Spoiler: Ardling*
Show

In the 1st UA I felt that the Ardling was stepping on the aasimars's toes. Now I feel it is stepping on the shifters's toes. Seriously, who asked for this race? This race doesn't need to exist. Just dust it.


*Spoiler: Dragonborn*
Show

I like it. It's very similar to the fizban's version but that's ok because the fizban's version is really good. It's different enough to warrant existing. I give thumbs up


*Spoiler: Goliath*
Show

I like having options, and I always felt it was weird that all goliaths are like stone giants.

Cloud seems the best, at least generally. Teleportation is good on any build.
Fire may lead to super nova builds (IE using divine smite + maneuver + fire's burn on every attack)
Frost is basically less damage but more control.
Hill lets you make someone prone and they don't get a save against it, potentially very strong.
Stone.
Storm seems super meh,  storm giants are basically oracles, so let this goliath see the future or something. Use reaction to reroll a d20 PB/day


*Spoiler: Feats*
Show

Boon of fate = lol, why would anyone choose this?
Boon of spell recall = lol, let us cast a 8th or lower spell from any list with no material component.
Boon of true sight. I like this, this feels appropriately epic


*Spoiler: Spells*
Show

Aid: why nerf this spell? I like the 2014 version better.

Banishment: Not a fan of the creature type requirement. What about native fey/fiend/celestial/elemental? A creature not native should go to its native plane. I'm fine with allowing extra saves.

Barkskin: IMO your proficiency bonus should not factor into a spell description. It could give +2 armor while you have your temp hp instead, each spell level it could just add 4 temp hp, meaning you keep the bonus ac for longer.

Guidance: this is stronger than the 2014 version IMO. And the 2014 does not need to be buffed. Guidance no longer competes for concentration. Thumbs down on this cantrip.
Maybe limit it to only checks where you have neither advantage nor disadvantage, or something. Its too stronk, I'm going to be using it all the time. It's like a free proficiency/expertise for all characters on all skills. Why is this so strong?

Resistance: this is also too stronk. At T1 this is the equivalent of everyone having proficiency in every saving throw. Seriously, it's better if it's too weak. Guidance and Resistance are must have cantrips now. We should not have "must have" options, they steal choice. It was better when it was crap.

Spiritual Weapon: uses concentration but also scales better, so maybe it's not a spell you cast and use in combo with a high level spell but rather a spell you upcast. I am unsure how I feel about it.

Prayer of healing: this could potentially give a short rest to half of the party. Do not like. It should instead just target up to 8 creatures of the casters choice within range, and they get 2d8+ability mod healing. If cast using a 3rd level or higher spell slot THEN they also gain the benefit of a short rest.
Creatures that gain a short rest from prayer of healing should not be able to do it again from the same spell level. So if you want to short rest twice you'd need to upcast to 3rd and then 4th.



*Spoiler: Core rules that I have opinions on*
Show

Long rest: YES. THIS IS PERFECT. THIS IS PERFECTION. I WANT LONG REST TO WORK EXACTLY LIKE THIS. THIS CAN NOT BE IMPROVED UPON.

Study action: fine, but IMO DM should be allowed to say it takes more than an action when DM thinks its appropriate.

Influence: I like that is says it's not mind control. Sometimes players forget that rolling a 20 doesn't let you mind control NPCs.

Hide action: I do not like this static DC to hide. Hide should be against passive perception of targets. I realize this makes it difficult to gain benefits like having advantage on initiative rolls since being hidden is a relation to NPC and not a universal condition. Hidden should not be a universal condition. Hidden should be in relation to other creatures. You should be able to be hidden from one creature and not hidden from another. This should not be a contradiction.
I also wish they stated that being hidden does not guarantee that NPCs do not know of your existence, merely that they do not know where you are (but they may be able to guess based on your previous know location). This is totally obvious info but sometimes players need a reminder that it's not a video game  :Small Sigh: 



---

Honestly I think a 1st level UA cleric is a lot STRONGER than a 2014 cleric. Yeah it doesn't have heavy armor, but instead it has an extra feat, more uses of channel divinity with more uses, and the most insane overpowered cantrips. This version of resistance and guidance (and you can put both on a cleric at level 1) puts all other cantrips to shame, eldritch blast? GARBAGE, pure trash compared to resistance and guidance.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> I genuinely think the Venn diagram of players who min-max their secondary and tertiary stats to maximize AC and players who dont even look at what their character gets at level 2 doesnt have as much overlap as you seem to think. And a decent DM would probably allow a new player to revise their stats when they run into an issue like this at level 2. (At least, I would.)


As I mentioned before, I believe in practice the vast majority of players will decide on their Holy Order at character creation. For those players having Holy Order at level 2 doesnt _hurt_ them (beyond some inconvenience at level 1), but it also doesnt _help_ them in any way. The players it supposedly helps are the ones who _dont_ look ahead to what theyll get at level 2. And those players are either making decisions based on what they get at level 1 (and thus fall into that Venn diagram), or make decisions based on things other than what they get from the class (in which case nothing in the class really matters). Regardless of how many people fall into which sections of the Venn diagram, nobody _benefits_ from having Holy Order at level 2 rather than level 1. The class progression would be smoother if Holy Order and Channel Divinity were flipped.

I agree that the DM can (and generally should) help out the player if they run into this issue. But when I give my feedback, Im not going to act like the progression isnt a problem just because the DM can fix it by fiat.




> Then that player is at fault for not looking what the class has to offer beyond level one. Its not behind a level locked wall or anything and you don't need to be pre-planning your character to look at the options the class may have beyond the level your at.


Yes, thats my point. I was responding to being told that the point of having Holy Order at level 2 rather than level 1 was that players didnt have to look at what the class offers beyond level 1. So I totally agree with you; players do still need to make these supposedly intimidating decisions at character generation.




> I think the new cleric looks cool. I see no issue whatsoever in being able to pick heavy armour at level 2. Too much hyperbole going around.


All Im saying is that the cleric class progression would be smoother if they got Holy Order at level 1 and Channel Divinity at level 2, rather than the other way around. I dont consider that stance hyperbole.

----------


## Jervis

> Wow 282 replies, this was a controversial UA.
> 
> *Spoiler: The cleric*
> Show
> 
> 
> The first thing I notice is that the cleric is way less front loaded, which I think is good. And we have to take into account that 1st level characters are getting a feat, 2 feats if they're human.
> 
> Channel divinity really has 3 uses, heal, inflict damage and turn undead. That plus spells, medium armor, shield and simple weapons is fine for a 1st level cleric. They no longer have 1 CD per short rest but PB per long, so less dependent on your table actually using short rests.
> ...


I disagree with the assessment of upcasting SW. unless spirit guardians is nerfed there is almost no reason seeing as it has the same scaling and a far better baseline. As for guidance I agree with the design theory for making it a reaction and the prof bonus limitation was too harsh but making it unlimited use is borked. I also agree that clerics as a whole are stronger but the nerf to SW and no scaling on their damage boost has me very worried going forward. Im also not a fan of the berry vender nerf but thats just me being a fanboy of dedicated healing since that was the only healer build that functioned.

----------


## Warder

> I can't understand how you can look at this playtest and think you're not making choices when you level up or that races species are just cosmetic skins. I just can't. It's a viewpoint so disconnected from reality that I hope the designers never listen to it.


And I've told you before I have no interest in engaging with you due to the bad faith arguments you continually put forward. I wish you'd respect that and acknowledge that you and I will never see eye to eye, so it's best for both of us to not engage.

----------


## Mastikator

> I disagree with the assessment of upcasting SW. unless spirit guardians is nerfed there is almost no reason seeing as it has the same scaling and a far better baseline. As for guidance I agree with the design theory for making it a reaction and the prof bonus limitation was too harsh but making it unlimited use is borked. I also agree that clerics as a whole are stronger but the nerf to SW and no scaling on their damage boost has me very worried going forward. Im also not a fan of the berry vender nerf but thats just me being a fanboy of dedicated healing since that was the only healer build that functioned.


I'm not worried. We've seen that they read the written feedback and take that into account, I think on a whole each iteration is better than the previous. You have to remember that these UA are not the 2024 PHB edition, they're experimental. WotC are asking you what you think of these changes because they want you to be happy so they can sell you their next book.

----------


## Envyus

> And I've told you before I have no interest in engaging with you due to the bad faith arguments you continually put forward. I wish you'd respect that and acknowledge that you and I will never see eye to eye, so it's best for both of us to not engage.


Your views seem a bit warped if you think Psyrens argument are bad faith.

----------


## Envyus

> Yes, thats my point. I was responding to being told that the point of having Holy Order at level 2 rather than level 1 was that players didnt have to look at what the class offers beyond level 1. So I totally agree with you; players do still need to make these supposedly intimidating decisions at character generation.
> 
> 
> All Im saying is that the cleric class progression would be smoother if they got Holy Order at level 1 and Channel Divinity at level 2, rather than the other way around. I dont consider that stance hyperbole.


Nah Holy Order is way better at Level 2. Channel Divinity is the best level 1 option.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> Nah Holy Order is way better at Level 2. Channel Divinity is the best level 1 option.


What makes Holy Order better as a level 2 feature than a level 1 feature?

----------


## Kane0

> I will agree that the extra proficiencies at level 2 need a rewrite. Something like choose two skills from this list - youre proficient in them and also add wisdom mod to both. If youre already proficient with one or both, choose any other skill to be proficient in as well.


Nah make it a blanket rule. If you already have a proficiency, fighting style, spell, feat, boon, etc and later gain the same though some means like a class feature or DM benny, pick another instead.

----------


## Jervis

> And I've told you before I have no interest in engaging with you due to the bad faith arguments you continually put forward. I wish you'd respect that and acknowledge that you and I will never see eye to eye, so it's best for both of us to not engage.


As a tangent the current direction with races makes me wonder what a human only 5e would play like. Assuming the species mechanics were made into level 1 feats or something it would probably work well. Im in the probable minority that thinks that multiple playable fantasy creatures are often to the detriment of a game and that features based on background, upbringing, family ties, etc. make for a more engaging system since those require putting thought into how your character fits into the world instead of just writing elf on your character sheet. With that design space becoming increasingly homogeneous in terms of RP prompting features and lore I think a advanced background system with a humans only setting could work well.

----------


## Mastikator

> What makes Holy Order better as a level 2 feature than a level 1 feature?


Channel divinity is a tiny bit stronger on a level 1 character. Discouraging 1 level dips is also a good thing.

----------


## Envyus

> What makes Holy Order better as a level 2 feature than a level 1 feature?


Channel Divinity being better than it. Channel Divinity is a defining cleric feature.

----------


## OvisCaedo

I'd also agree that with what Holy Order currently represents, it would fit a lot better as a level 1 feature for all purposes besides "but we don't want you to dip for it!". The supposed reason of "players will be overwhelmed by too many choices at level 1" seems completely absurd to me, and having it at level 2 does very little to diminish the issue if people actually have such overwhelming decision paralysis. It just leads to some jank with armor/statlines and selected skill proficiencies as currently written.

Having a choice at such an early level be "you can wear heavy armor now!" as the only real thing you get at the level, when it's not even guaranteed you'll actually have an option to suddenly acquire such a thing, unless you carried around armor you couldn't use at level 1, is... silly. If such things are easily available, then sure, it's a short-lived bit of jank, but it's still just kind of jank for no real benefit besides spiting multiclasses.

And for scholar, they managed to write it as "whatever the two skills are that are MOST important to you and you want a bonus on, make sure you DIDN'T take them at level 1!" It could be rewritten to fix that, of course, but it'd also just not be such an issue as a level 1 feature.

And generally, thematically speaking? The "sacred role" you have "dedicated" yourself to as your training for probably something that should be represented as the initial character. That seems like it should be the level 1 baseline of what your character has done and focused on to become a cleric. Firing a generic god blast may be more "divine", but it's also just a raw expression of generic power. I think it would be perfectly fine at level 2 to be less incongruent with character building and concept/theme. Though, yes, then Thaumaturge would also need to be rewritten; they're really going to have to rewrite things no matter what.

----------


## mjp1050

Regarding the problems with Holy Order, I'm seeing a lot of workarounds being proposed....but why not just fix the base issue instead?

Holy Order clearly isn't well designed, so why does it need to stay as it is? Is that really so controversial an opinion?

----------


## animorte

> they're really going to have to rewrite things no matter what.


I certainly hope so.




> Im in the probable minority that thinks that multiple playable fantasy creatures are often to the detriment of a game and that features based on background, upbringing, family ties, etc. make for a more engaging system since those require putting thought into how your character fits into the world instead of just writing elf on your character sheet.


This makes sense to me as well. The things you learn along the way are valuable in defining your character. This also greatly supports the idea structure of, elf but grew up with dwarves.

----------


## Envyus

> Regarding the problems with Holy Order, I'm seeing a lot of workarounds being proposed....but why not just fix the base issue instead?
> 
> Holy Order clearly isn't well designed, so why does it need to stay as it is? Is that really so controversial an opinion?


I dont think there is anything wrong with Holy Order. A bunch of people here just want it to be level one so they can get HA for a level 1 dip. Which I think is stupid, so I hope those people dont get what they want.

----------


## Leon

> Regarding the problems with Holy Order, I'm seeing a lot of workarounds being proposed....but why not just fix the base issue instead?
> 
> Holy Order clearly isn't well designed, so why does it need to stay as it is? Is that really so controversial an opinion?


Its fine, its also the first iteration we've seen and may well change but by and large people are probably just unhappy they might have to invest more in the class for free stuff. Its on par with Picking a fighting style in my eyes and at the level that the Hybrid warriors get to pick theirs.

----------


## OvisCaedo

> I dont think there is anything wrong with Holy Order. A bunch of people here just want it to be level one so they can get HA for a level 1 dip. Which I think is stupid, so I hope those people dont get what they want.


That is some... incredible strawmanning. I'm not sure if I've seen anyone in this thread saying they want to be able to get heavy armor from the level 1 dip, just people saying they don't think it being possible is such a dire threat that the single class progression should start off in a janky way.

I'm also in the boat of just... not really being convinced that wizards or whatever trying to dip for heavy armor is even a good idea. They don't tend to have very good strength, often do like to have a bit of dex, and thus are probably often better suited to trying to snatch up medium armor and shields instead of caring about heavy at all. Which... would you look at that, cleric multiclassing gives as a baseline!

I actually would say that the current Channel Divinity design gives a lot MORE from a level 1 dip than something as paltry as heavy armor proficiency. The base function scales directly with proficiency bonus (so total character level) instead of cleric levels. Though it's probably not really incredible for that purpose, either. I guess it'd be.... proficiency bonus squared d8s of healing, conservatively? At proficiency 6, that's... 162(?) hit points of healing on average from a single level dip that is its own independent resource pool.

----------


## Psyren

> And I've told you before I have no interest in engaging with you due to the bad faith arguments you continually put forward. I wish you'd respect that and acknowledge that you and I will never see eye to eye, so it's best for both of us to not engage.


...This is an open discussion forum, not a personal blog  :Small Confused:  people who disagree with you are allowed to post too.




> I was responding to being told that the point of having Holy Order at level 2 rather than level 1 was that players didnt have to look at what the class offers beyond level 1. So I totally agree with you; players do still need to make these supposedly intimidating decisions at character generation.


What I'm saying is that subclass is a more monumental character build choice than the others, so not frontloading it does make sense as a design objective. I'd say it's less about players potentially feeling "intimidated" and more about leaning the early game towards more of a "pick-up-and-play" feel. Sure a level 1 cleric now has no build choices to make from their class, but they have many more to make elsewhere.




> All Im saying is that the cleric class progression would be smoother if they got Holy Order at level 1 and Channel Divinity at level 2, rather than the other way around. I dont consider that stance hyperbole.


I agree with you that it wouldn't be wholly unreasonable. Ultimately it depends on whether their design goal is to prevent all means of using a caster dip to gain heavy armor and martial weapons, which does seem to be the case.

I will point out too that Holy Order coming first would cause a similar (albeit lesser) version of the awkwardness we currently have, whereby you get an ability that modifies Channel Divinity prior to receiving Channel Divinity itself. It's likely they would want to continue avoiding that in the redesign too.




> I dont think there is anything wrong with Holy Order. A bunch of people here just want it to be level one so they can get HA for a level 1 dip. Which I think is stupid, so I hope those people dont get what they want.





> Its fine, its also the first iteration we've seen and may well change but by and large people are probably just unhappy they might have to invest more in the class for free stuff. Its on par with Picking a fighting style in my eyes and at the level that the Hybrid warriors get to pick theirs.


There is one big issue with Holy Order, and that's the Scholar option - for the skills that you want to be an expert in, it actually encourages you to not pick those skills at 1st level so that you don't lose out on proficiencies later. So for example if you want to be great at Religion and Persuasion, you are better off making the unintuitive choice of not picking those proficiencies at all at level 1. I think that is something they need to change.

----------


## Kane0

Level 1: Choose Race, Class, Feat
Level 2: Choose Order
Level 3: Choose Domain
Level 4: Choose Feat

Seems an alright spread to me. If Heavy Armor at level 2 annoys people, then change the Protector Order.

Edit: the same goes for the other options of order, and the 9th level retread. The concept is solid, but it definitely needs polish.

----------


## OvisCaedo

> I will point out too that Holy Order coming first would cause a similar (albeit lesser) version of the awkwardness we currently have, whereby you get an ability that modifies Channel Divinity prior to receiving Channel Divinity itself. It's likely they would want to continue avoiding that in the redesign too.


It could have the language tweaked a bit to include "additionally, when you gain X feature, you get Y benefit". I'd have to admit that the concept of that DOES bother me, though! A feature choice's primary benefit being "a later feature is improved" feels fundamentally wrong to me. In this case it probably wouldn't be a complete dealbreaker because if the feature in question being at level 2, and the CD recovery not being the ONLY benefit, but... Still rubs me the wrong way!

Whether they change the order of Order (heh) or not, they're probably going to want to rewrite and rethink some of these, and maybe come up with a few more options.

----------


## animorte

> What I'm saying is that subclass is a more monumental character build choice than the others, so not frontloading it does make sense as a design objective Sure a level 1 cleric now has no build choices to make from their class, but they have many more to make elsewhere.


Yes, I greatly prefer the not front-loaded approach. People who feel otherwise havent paid attention to the second half of this particular quote.




> whereby you get an ability that modifies Channel Divinity prior to receiving Channel Divinity itself. It's likely they would want to continue avoiding that in the redesign too
> 
> you are better off making the unintuitive choice of not picking those proficiencies at all at level 1. I think that is something they need to change.


Yes to these both. The first one is basic common sense, but the second one is kind of tricky. Its been around for a while.

----------


## Tanarii

> Holy Order clearly isn't well designed, so why does it need to stay as it is? Is that really so controversial an opinion?


Agreed.  

They're trying to take two things that used to be embedded in specific domains level 1, and make them domain agnostic.  That's not a terrible idea.  What's terrible is making them level 2, for a variety of reasons.

Worth noting that Knowledge domain already has the stupid thing that the two skills you want to be best at, don't pick as class or background skills.  But at least they're all picked at the same level, so for most people it's going to be a smaller issue.  Like HA, it's the level 2 that's the primary issue.

My suggestion that they just give all Clerics HA, since until 5e it was a class defining feature, unfortunately doesn't line up with the 5e Cleric concept of "sacrifice HA armor for some other class feature if you're not going to use Str to bop things with a melee weapon occasionally anyway."  But they don't need to go out of their way to make the ability that gives HA or other feature instead flawed like they've done.

----------


## Kane0

> They're trying to take two things that used to be embedded in specific domains level 1, and make them domain agnostic.  That's not a terrible idea.  What's terrible is making them level 2, for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Worth noting that Knowledge domain already has the stupid thing that the two skills you want to be best at, don't pick as class or background skills.  But at least they're all picked at the same level, so for most people it's going to be a smaller issue.  Like HA, it's the level 2 that's the primary issue.
> 
> My suggestion that they just give all Clerics HA, since until 5e it was a class defining feature, unfortunately doesn't line up with the 5e Cleric concept of "sacrifice HA armor for some other class feature if you're not going to use Str to bop things with a melee weapon occasionally anyway."  But they don't need to go out of their way to make the ability that gives HA or other feature instead flawed like they've done.


Yes the problem is 'your choices at level 2 dont mesh with your choices at level 1'. If the skill option cant be double-prof (silly class groupings), then double-stat is fine as long as you make allowances for people tjat have already picked those skills at level 1. The same goes for the armor option, and even the casting option if it were to give you say a cantrip that you already chose at level 1 for example.

----------


## SociopathFriend

I kinda like the idea of a Cleric not having an exact deity/domain to associate with starting from Level 1.

You're still 100% viable to say, "I follow X" and maybe you do- but X doesn't have any reason to treat you as special until you really invest in X.

----------


## Atranen

> My suggestion that they just give all Clerics HA, since until 5e it was a class defining feature, unfortunately doesn't line up with the 5e Cleric concept of "sacrifice HA armor for some other class feature if you're not going to use Str to bop things with a melee weapon occasionally anyway."  But they don't need to go out of their way to make the ability that gives HA or other feature instead flawed like they've done.


The only reason cleric HA proficiency appears a problem for multiclassing in the first place is because they *didn't* give it to all clerics. When you multiclass into paladin or fighter or whatever, you don't gain HA by default. But because cleric has it as a benefit for a domain, you can still pick it up with a multiclass. 

If they gave all clerics HA proficiency and didn't give it for multiclassing? No problem. 

And (to beat a dead horse) anyone doing a multiclass dip is likely to want the medium armor + shield anyway. The problem doesn't really exist, to the extent that it does exist it's self-inflicted, and it's not an effective solution to it.

----------


## Schwann145

I can't see Jeremy Crawford's explanation of "analysis paralysis" being the leading justification for pushing Domain selection back to level 3 as anything other than patronizing bunk.

You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that a one-time choice of a handful of options is too much to ask of level 1 players, while the Divine spellcasting style of "you need to choose among _every Divine spell ever printed every single Long Rest_" still exists right alongside it.
No way.

It's so incredibly obvious that they're intent on streamlining and this is just the "whatever justification" they've chosen for Cleric.
Streamlining in itself isn't at all a problem here, but there are _several_ classes where this delay in identity just doesn't work, and Cleric is one of them. Basically, any class that is granted it's power needs it's identity at level 1, because having that power before having the source of that power just doesn't make _any_ sense.
We know this is going to be a problem for Sorcerer. It's going to be a problem for Warlock. It's currently showing a problem for Cleric. It's already been a problem for Paladin for about a decade now.
A better solution would be to just make subclass a level 1 choice for everybody. Hell, a primary reason a lot (if not most) games skip level 1 and 2 currently is because you don't have your class identity/fantasy going until you have your subclass, which for most is level 3.

It's not too much to ask new players. It'd be great if the developers would stop treating it's customers as if we're all too soft in the head to make basic choices.




> I kinda like the idea of a Cleric not having an exact deity/domain to associate with starting from Level 1.
> 
> You're still 100% viable to say, "I follow X" and maybe you do- but X doesn't have any reason to treat you as special until you really invest in X.


That's fine, but you shouldn't have _any_ powers granted by X yet in that case.

----------


## Pex

> I dont think there is anything wrong with Holy Order. A bunch of people here just want it to be level one so they can get HA for a level 1 dip. Which I think is stupid, so I hope those people dont get what they want.


Ray Bolger has left the building.

No one here who wants Holy Order at 1st level have said so because they want to multiclass a one level dip for heavy armor. They want clerics to have heavy armor at 1st level and/or it allows for a more efficient level 1 character creation without need to look ahead to get things right. Those who want Holy Order at 1st level acknowledge the issue of a one level dip for heavy armor. One or two may not be bothered by that, but that's not why they want want Holy Order at level one. To them it's just not an issue. Others who acknowledge the possibility are bothered by the possibility. Their solution is to _fix_ multiclassing so it can't happen. Publish words on paper no matter happens you can never get heavy armor when multiclassing into a class that has it when your first class does not (written in better verbiage). For these people who want Holy Order at 1st level the problem is multiclassing, not 1st level clerics getting heavy armor.

----------


## animorte

> I can't see Jeremy Crawford's explanation of "analysis paralysis" being the leading justification for pushing Domain selection back to level 3 as anything other than patronizing bunk.


I agree with this statement. I think there are entirely different reasons though.




> That's fine, but you shouldn't have _any_ powers granted by X yet in that case.


Entirely disagree. There are many instances across various platforms in which the power-granting-entity provides low-level capabilities just to see what youll do with them before letting you run free with greater capabilities.

----------


## Psyren

> I kinda like the idea of a Cleric not having an exact deity/domain to associate with starting from Level 1.
> 
> You're still 100% viable to say, "I follow X" and maybe you do- but X doesn't have any reason to treat you as special until you really invest in X.


I agree that this kind of delay is fine for Cleric, and Warlock too for that matter, since not only their powers but their very subclass are granted by an external entity. It's _Sorcerer_ where I'll need the most convincing that subclass at 3 for everyone is a good idea, though I'm open to reading the updated fluff and judging based on that.




> Ray Bolger has left the building.
> 
> No one here who wants Holy Order at 1st level have said so because they want to multiclass a one level dip for heavy armor. They want clerics to have heavy armor at 1st level and/or it allows for a more efficient level 1 character creation without need to look ahead to get things right. Those who want Holy Order at 1st level acknowledge the issue of a one level dip for heavy armor. One or two may not be bothered by that, but that's not why they want want Holy Order at level one. To them it's just not an issue. Others who acknowledge the possibility are bothered by the possibility. Their solution is to _fix_ multiclassing so it can't happen. Publish words on paper no matter happens you can never get heavy armor when multiclassing into a class that has it when your first class does not (written in better verbiage). For these people who want Holy Order at 1st level the problem is multiclassing, not 1st level clerics getting heavy armor.


I keep seeing "multiclassing is the real issue!" and it seems forgetful of the fact that if you just _start_ as a cleric with Holy Order at 1 then you'd get heavy armor anyway. Have you all considered that maybe they don't want that regardless of how you arrange the classes?

----------


## animorte

> I agree that this kind of delay is fine for Cleric, and Warlock too for that matter, since not only their powers but their very subclass are granted by an external entity. It's _Sorcerer_ where I'll need the most convincing that subclass at 3 for everyone is a good idea, though I'm open to reading the updated fluff and judging based on that.


See, I imagined something of this nature:

We see stories of folks with some kind of magic. Often, random weird things will happen when theyre at a height of emotions or in danger. They eventually learn how to control some of these basic effects. After finally unlocking their basic understanding, perhaps they happen upon a particular function of their magic that invokes the blood within, something that couldnt have so easily been accomplished without really testing out their magic, pushing it to the next level (literally and figuratively).

----------


## Sindal

On the sorceror thing

I'd like to believe it could work like plainswalker and their sparks

All planeswalker have one

But it only 'ignites' later in life. Lvl 3 got sorcerors could just be when thr 'true nature' of someone's magical connection begins to shine through. They always had magic. They always had an idea of where it might be from bases on the bodily changes thay comes with beinf a sorceror. But now, they can harness it

The real question would be.

What would they get at lvl 1 and 2 exactly. As a sorcrorr advocate who knows that they could use some work , i remain interested.

----------


## Unoriginal

I guess for their UA playtest the Sorcerer will get something like:

Lvl 1: sorcery points

Lvl 2: metamagic

Lvl 3: subclass




> Publish words on paper no matter happens you can never get heavy armor when multiclassing into a class that has it when your first class does not (written in better verbiage).


That would be good.

----------


## OvisCaedo

I'm still not sure I really get what the heavy armor multiclass proficiency problem is. Though this being such a big sticking point is amusing when there's also a nine page thread active arguing about whether heavy armor is even good to begin with. (although how many pages have been about obscurement and stealth now instead...?)

What are some examples of character/classes that are big problems to get heavy armor proficiency with as opposed to being happy with medium+shields? Is the one point of AC over half plate with 14 dex that huge? Is the issue with characters getting heavy armor who WOULDN'T have 14 dex to make medium so close, but either have 15 strength or don't mind a significant movement nerf?

----------


## Unoriginal

> I'm still not sure I really get what the heavy armor multiclass proficiency problem is.


To put it simply: the 5e multiclassing rules make so that either you have heavy armor proficiency at lvl 1, or you don't, as multiclassing does not grant you the proficiency... unless you are taking a Cleric level, as some of the Domains grant heavy armor as a separate feature. 

Meaning that if you have a caster and want heavy armor, it's ridiculously much better to take one Cleric level of the relevant Domain, which in addition gives you a bunch of spells/spell slots.

----------


## Segev

My thoughts so far:

Swap Channel Divinity and Holy Order so Holy Order is chosen at first level.Make Channel Divinity have PB/day + recover one use every short rest, independent of Holy Order.Make Scholar let you choose any of the skills it offers for the expertise, as long as you're proficient in them, and allow any proficiencies you want if you're already proficient in all of them. This is actually primarily for multiclass in purposes, to make the order you take your classes agnostic.Give Thaumaturge the ability to use Channel Divinity (as the second level feature) once, refreshing on a long rest, and the ability to expend cleric spell slots to use it more often.

If Scholar is still too anemic, give that Holy Order _detect magic_ and _identify_ as always-prepared spells that do not count against their number of prepared spells. 


Also, I still hate the "prepare as many spells at each spell level as you get spell slots" thing, and would put it back to 5.0's method.

----------


## Brookshw

> I agree that this kind of delay is fine for Cleric, and Warlock too for that matter, since not only their powers but their very subclass are granted by an external entity. It's _Sorcerer_ where I'll need the most convincing that subclass at 3 for everyone is a good idea, though I'm open to reading the updated fluff and judging based on that.


If they go with something along the lines of "with sufficient use and practice you further awaken the magic in your blood, and..." I'd be fine with it from a fluff perspective.

No complaints about them seeking uniformity in specialization between classes, or about the shift in heavy armor. If the stats don't lend themselves to a concept, adjust the concept is a pretty easy solution. I might prefer that from a story perspective, i.e., _Bob started his life serving [GOD] and, at one point wanted to join Order X, however, realizing he couldn't meet the demands of the Order, realized his calling/best way to serve was through Order Y._ There's some interesting roleplay opportunities there.

----------


## Mastikator

I think the problems with Holy Order can be summed up.
Scholar gives two proficienes that a cleric may rightly want at level 1.
I think it can be fixed easily actually. Scholar gives 2 skills of any kind, and as a second option, pick two skills from the cleric list, those gain a bonus equal to your wisdom modifier. You may start with religion and get your wisdom bonus at level 2, no problem. I don't think it's overpowered at all to expand the list of gained skills to all.

Thaumaturge gives a benefit that relies on channel divinity, I getting it first makes it very weak on level 1, and decoupling channel divinity from Thaumaturge makes Thaumaturge very weak. So I think Holy Order should stay at level 2.

Protector gives heavy armor and martial weapons, something a cleric may want at level 1, but I'm not too worried about this one, a cleric could start with a shield and scale mail and get decent enough armor, then trade it in for a chainmail on level 2 with their winnings from completing their 1st level quest. Honestly it's not a problem. Players that just want to get heavy armor on their arcane caster still have many options, for example start with 1 level of fighter, or take the heavily armored feat at level 4 (_any_ character can start with lightly armored feat, a wizard can wear plate on level 4 if they want and can afford it, you could even dump your strength and accept -10 feet speed)

So that's how I'd fix it, It's mostly Scholar that needs to be buffed IMO. I think getting holy order at level 1 would make clerics at level 1 too weak and not interesting. Heavy armor and martial weapons on a 1st level cleric is IMO weaker than channel divinity.

The only remaining issue is that a protector cleric needs to trade their armor at level 2, but I think upgrading your gear at level 2 after your first quest is a rite of passage, not jank.

----------


## Tanarii

> Entirely disagree. There are many instances across various platforms in which the power-granting-entity provides low-level capabilities just to see what youll do with them before letting you run free with greater capabilities.


Personally, I'm completely fine if Clerics can wear Heavy armor and Turn Undead at level 1, and can't cast spells until 2nd level.




> See, I imagined something of this nature:
> 
> We see stories of folks with some kind of magic. Often, random weird things will happen when theyre at a height of emotions or in danger. They eventually learn how to control some of these basic effects. After finally unlocking their basic understanding, perhaps they happen upon a particular function of their magic that invokes the blood within, something that couldnt have so easily been accomplished without really testing out their magic, pushing it to the next level (literally and figuratively).


Indeed. Again, they could even get away with Sorcerers that can't cast spells at all until some later levels (possibly even Tier 2), instead having some magic-like class features.  However in this case I don't think they _should_.

What I think they _should_ do is either axe Sorcerer, or axe Wizard. They are too similar at the moment.   (I'd say Wizard despite my grognardy-ness, spells from books no longer holds as a main media archetype.) 

However, barring that, Sorcerer needs a complete re-design from the ground up. It's entire purpose when it was created, spontaneous casting, no longer exists.  It's like an appendix of a class, serves no useful purpose and occasionally blows up the fanbase, until it's excised.

----------


## Pex

> I keep seeing "multiclassing is the real issue!" and it seems forgetful of the fact that if you just _start_ as a cleric with Holy Order at 1 then you'd get heavy armor anyway. Have you all considered that maybe they don't want that regardless of how you arrange the classes?


A player may start with one level of fighter or paladin to get the heavy armor, so if the designers hated that they dropped the ball. The only difference is one level delay in spell slot progression. Some players are willing to pay that price and not feel _punished_ at all. If D&Done gives 1st level Paladin spells not even that's a problem. The player may also take Magic Initiate feat at level 1 anyway as a patch to have the spellcaster feel even when not one technically.

----------


## Gignere

> Personally, I'm completely fine if Clerics can wear Heavy armor and Turn Undead at level 1, and can't cast spells until 2nd level.


Youve just described the Paladin. 

Anyway fascinating thread, dont really have a bone in this because I never played a cleric in any edition of D&D unless you count neverwinter nights video game.

However I like the change towards standardizing when each subclass gains their new features.

I also agree with the critique that the level 9 level up of holy order should be further specialization, not picking another holy order.

I think that the Thaumaturgy one use of channel divinity recovers on a short rest should be baked into the base cleric. Hell I wish they did this for all long rest class defining features. I think spell points/rage/other long rest features should all recover a single use during a short rest.

----------


## animorte

> Personally, I'm completely fine if Clerics can wear Heavy armor and Turn Undead at level 1, and can't cast spells until 2nd level.


Oddly enough that kind of makes sense to me except that the closer they get to Paladins, the more I think well start seeing the Sorcerer vs Wizard concern you have so eloquently detailed below.




> Indeed. Again, they could even get away with Sorcerers that can't cast spells at all until some later levels (possibly even Tier 2), instead having some magic-like class features.  However in this case I don't think they _should_.
> 
> What I think they _should_ do is either axe Sorcerer, or axe Wizard. They are too similar at the moment.   (I'd say Wizard despite my grognardy-ness, spells from books no longer holds as a main media archetype.) 
> 
> However, barring that, Sorcerer needs a complete re-design from the ground up. It's entire purpose when it was created, spontaneous casting, no longer exists.  It's like an appendix of a class, serves no useful purpose and occasionally blows up the fanbase, until it's excised.


I personally like the differences that the Sorcerer brings, one of those its spontaneous casting, which looks to be going away as you said. So yes, Im looking forward to seeing what kind of _rework_ theyve got in store, though I doubt its very much.

I actually think the Warlock is enough of a different caster with the invocations that its more suited to the purpose were attempting to achieve. Combine invocations and meta-magic, then you have a fully customizable, albeit otherwise (spell) limited caster. Focus more on the _magical abilities_.

Im actually working on a new class base feature that doesnt require spells, but offers enough different modifications (yes, to only that one feature) that would be worth building an entire class on.

----------


## Tanarii

> I personally like the differences that the Sorcerer brings, one of those its spontaneous casting, which looks to be going away as you said. So yes, Im looking forward to seeing what kind of _rework_ theyve got in store, though I doubt its very much.


  :Small Confused:  Spontaneous casting already went away. Or more accurately, all 5e casters are spontaneous casters.




> I actually think the Warlock is enough of a different caster with the invocations that its more suited to the purpose were attempting to achieve. Combine invocations and meta-magic, then you have a fully customizable, albeit otherwise (spell) limited caster. Focus more on the _magical abilities_.


Yes absolutely. And the warlock could probably be moved to a full at-will magical effects Guy (usually also a GiSH), as it originally was.

----------


## animorte

> Spontaneous casting already went away. Or more accurately, all 5e casters are spontaneous casters.


Sorry, *insert spells known.




> Yes absolutely. And the warlock could probably be moved to a full at-will magical effects Guy (usually also a GiSH), as it originally was.


Im game.

----------


## Tanarii

> Sorry, *insert spells known.


Unfortunately Spells Known is just a way of saying "more restricted than Prepared".  So the opposite of what Sorcerers were intended to be.

----------


## Melil12

Well the good news is this is only the play test and theres lots of time for testing stuff out.

I dont think most people see an issue with  dipping cleric for heavy armor. Whats to stop the same player from taking first level in fighter or Paladin for the same benefit?

The issue at the heart of this is how much should a wizard have to invest to get armor? A feat? a level? Multiple resources? Or should they just plain be barred? 

Out side of that it just makes more sense to move Holy Order to level 1 and Channel Divinity to level 2. I like the idea of someone starting off as a Scribe or guard or mystic slowly discovering divine power being invested in them. And discovering that X god chose them to represent X domain. Maybe thats what sets a Pc apart from the town priest who never discovered that spark.

----------


## animorte

> Unfortunately Spells Known is just a way of saying "more restricted than Prepared".  So the opposite of what Sorcerers were intended to be.


I quite like the idea of restricted and I think more classes should embrace that idea, then have features to improve upon your chosen concept, goal, or restriction.* That way when something does have greater access and versatility, it really stands out (and they get fewer specialization improvements).

* _Whatever you want to call it._

However, I will admit that this is simply approaching just play another system territory. Ill leave it where it is.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Bobthewizard

I think the best fix for this "wizards dipping for armor" problem would be if they make the shield spell only work if you are not wearing armor or a shield. Then dipping just saves you spell slots for shield, and is no longer the way to get your AC higher than the martial characters.

----------


## Kane0

Cleric is a Wis class though, not many wizards are going to be springing for it.

Edit: oh and make shield (the spell) not stack with shields (the item), and shield of faith while you're at it

----------


## sambojin

Just thinking of some fun combos in the current UA material (or some with 5e for stuff we don't have yet). I might not like the Cleric, but the races are quite good.

Ardling Racer Rogue (1). Bonus action dash that gets +20-+40 speed in tier 1-3 sounds fun. That's an 80' move at lvl2 (and you still have your action), or you could even use your action to jump (*gasp!*). It being "always on" and it also nabbing you Resistance or Guidance sounds great for a Rogue. Free Perception too. Thieves also get a climb speed, so bonus-dash-climbing is a possibility.


Dragonborn Moon Druid (1/5e). It's level5 flight, isn't a spell, and depending on how multiattack works, also the occasional breath weapon while in wildshape. Having a firebreathing, flying Polar Bear form every once in a while sounds fun. Cast Summon Dragon at later levels for even more resistances.


Cloud Goliath anything (1). It's essentially 2-4 extra casts a day of Misty Step. That's a lot of free lvl2 slots. Pretty fast (35', 45' when Large), 1/lr 10min large size, and the ability to be a pack mule is handy. Would pair pretty well with Ranger (1), and you can even stack Hunters Mark and Enlarge on it, for Huge size and lots of little dice rolls for damage. A tier 1 race for any class, right alongside High Elf.


Hill Goliath Paladin (1/5e). Exactly what you want. A way to shove stuff prone before you smite them, without losing an attack. Having a bit of grapple protection doesn't hurt either, or a way to lug around heavy armour and weapons. 45' movement when in Large form is a nice little bonus sometimes too, and it'll extend your aura a bit as well, and is already uber powerful even at 1/lr.

------
Maybe some kind of Ardling Climber Monk (1/5e) build, with the new Grappler Feat (1) at lvl4? A smidgen more punchy damage never hurts, and a bit of non-ki slow climbing until you can run up walls would be good too (40' climb by lvl2). Even gets Guidance (for skillz) or Resistance at lvl1, so not weak in non-punchy use.
Punchgrapple-EAttackStab-flurry(punch-punch) seems to be a perfectly reasonable combat routine for low ki-use by lvl5 (add stuns or hands of harm or whatever on top of it).

Or stab-lightstab-putawayweapon-EAttackPunchgrapple-flurry(punch-punch) with a couple of shortswords already out (or that have nice magic bonuses), depending on where you want your grapple to land in your attack chain and the items currently being held. If your punchgrapple lands, the rest of your attacks are at advantage, which is nice. Not bad at lvl5, having 4-5 attacks, with +Dex damage and advantage on some of them, for 1ki.

Later on (lvl9), punchgrapple something, run up a wall while dragging them at full speed, even bonus-ki-dash for more height, and drop-splat them for a laugh. Slowfall afterwards if you have to, but you could just go into climb-mode.

(You could tack the Tavern Brawler lvl1 feat into this for your initial feat, for a full-on martial arts feel, but Monk does plenty of that already.
Stab-lightstab-MArtsPunchw/5'knockback does sound fun at lvl1, I'm just not sure it's legit. Martial Arts (or flurries) kinda are a part of the attack action though.
So, yep, MI/ Alert/ Lucky it is, because they're really good lvl1 feats, but you can go the full-on martial arts route with 1dnd. MAD as hell and not caring is fun 😎)
((Remember, Monks can always use Str or Dex for attack and *damage* rolls, with shortswords, monk weapons and fists/unarmed strikes. Yep, free TWF style in 1dnd/+5e, because two light weapons gives +1attacks. So lightstab actually means normal stab, I just wanted to show where the hell you're getting the extra attack from. And punchgrapple is from the lvl4 Grappler Feat. But 3-5 attacks at lvl1-5 with +dexmod damage is nice))

So there's some pretty cool stuff in the races, even when combined with the expert classes stuff from the previous UA. So 1dnd won't be quite as boring as it appears, even if it does take a bit of looking to make it fun.

----------


## Psyren

> It's not too much to ask new players. It'd be great if the developers would stop treating it's customers as if we're all too soft in the head to make basic choices.


No one's saying that. But their job at the end of the day is to make the onramp to D&D as smooth as possible without removing its depth. Tweaking the starting levels helps with that. And keep in mind they've just _added_ complexity to the early game relative to 5e too, by making a 1st-level feat choice required for everyone, _including_ in featless games.




> I guess for their UA playtest the Sorcerer will get something like:
> 
> Lvl 1: sorcery points
> 
> Lvl 2: metamagic
> 
> Lvl 3: subclass


Font of Magic at 1 would be interesting. It means that Sorcerers will get an extra 1st-level slot relative to every other fullcaster. Granted, that to me feels on par with Channel Divinity at 1 and Bardic Inspiration at 1, especially since the new Bardic Inspiration and Channel Divinity can be used to heal allies.

----------


## Schwann145

> No one's saying that. But their job at the end of the day is to make the onramp to D&D as smooth as possible without removing its depth. Tweaking the starting levels helps with that. And keep in mind they've just _added_ complexity to the early game relative to 5e too, by making a 1st-level feat choice required for everyone, _including_ in featless games.


Nothing about D&D character creation is complicatedly complex. Everything is very by-the-numbers, step-by-step, easy peasy lemon squeezie.
The dumbing down of ttrpgs is a current trend in the market, certainly not unique to D&D, but D&D is also guilty of it.
This is a game all about imagination, simple math, and making some simple choices once in a while. We constantly hear how single-digit kids are playing the game without issue, and it's not even a game meant for kids that young. If the developers are saying that a game easy enough for young children might be too complicated for the average consumer, they are, in fact, being quite condescending in their design philosophy. *shrug*

Edit: Or, they're not condescending because they're right, and we have cause to weep for the decline of society.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Daphne

Oh they finally released the new playtest pdf.

I think all my grievances were already aired by other users so I focus on something else:

When the playtest was announced people were saying that a two years period was a big enough time frame, except... the material has to be ready way before it gets printed. So a period one and a half years was a more approximate estimation.

And it took WotC two months to release a new package after the expert classes, and they have yet to review the responses for that yet (see the comments on the jump rules in this thread)!

Moreover, I doubt they will be working during Christmas and holiday season. At this current pace we will see each class only two times before they hit the prints.

----------


## animorte

> When the playtest was announced people were saying that a two years period was a big enough time frame, except... the material has to be ready way before it gets printed. So a period one and a half years was a more approximate estimation.
> 
> And it took WotC two months to release a new package after the expert classes, and they have yet to review the responses for that yet (see the comments on the jump rules in this thread)!


Thats exactly why Im sincerely hoping they pick up the pace on UA release and quantity of content within each. In the end, I legitimately want quality over quantity, but it _really_ helps the perspective when were able to compare things in context.

Of course, the release _could_ just as easily be closer to the end of 2024, a little more time?




> Edit: Or, they're not condescending because they're right, and we have cause to weep for the decline of society.


Hilarious, and probably not terribly far from the truth. Of course, I did make this statement not too long ago:



> Well, seeing as I have young children that I have begun introducing to this wonderful style of game, simplicity is a blessing. Accessibility is also important, introducing new friends or relatives (and their young ones) is fantastic.
> 
> I like being able to really go in-depth, but the more detailed or complex a system is, its also less convenient for my current purposes.


Sometimes, going a little simpler feels like its not _strictly_ for getting started, but also being able to grasp a better understanding of the entire system.

On another note, I have zero perspective on how well a starter kit functions with an entirely new group of people, including the DM. I think the majority of players are blessed to have at least one kind veteran (for lack of better words).

----------


## Psyren

> Dragonborn Moon Druid (1/5e). It's level5 flight, isn't a spell, and depending on how multiattack works, also the occasional breath weapon while in wildshape. Having a firebreathing, flying Polar Bear form every once in a while sounds fun. Cast Summon Dragon at later levels for even more resistances.


Unfortunately, Attack and Multiattack are different Actions; I expect that will stay the same in 1DnD. Even if they change wildshape drastically to not use monster statblocks and instead function more like the Beastmaster companion, it will still be the Multiattack action.




> Nothing about D&D character creation is complicatedly complex. Everything is very by-the-numbers, step-by-step, easy peasy lemon squeezie.
> The dumbing down of ttrpgs is a current trend in the market, certainly not unique to D&D, but D&D is also guilty of it.
> This is a game all about imagination, simple math, and making some simple choices once in a while. We constantly hear how single-digit kids are playing the game without issue, and it's not even a game meant for kids that young. If the developers are saying that a game easy enough for young children might be too complicated for the average consumer, they are, in fact, being quite condescending in their design philosophy. *shrug*
> 
> Edit: Or, they're not condescending because they're right, and we have cause to weep for the decline of society.


"X can get into the game successfully" does not mean "X cannot be increased / there is no inherent value to trying to increase X." Their job is to cater to people who _don't_ regularly post on D&D forums too.

----------


## animorte

> Their job is to cater to people who _don't_ regularly post on D&D forums too.


We are severely in the minority, and still express a wide range of preference and experience.

Love it.

----------


## sambojin

> Unfortunately, Attack and Multiattack are different Actions; I expect that will stay the same in 1DnD. Even if they change wildshape drastically to not use monster statblocks and instead function more like the Beastmaster companion, it will still be the Multiattack action.


Meh, it's still 1/lr 10min duration flight in any form. And it's not like Druids can't use more instant "non-spell" damage effects while in caster form anyway, being as concentration heavy as they are, so the breath attack is still good as a Dragonborn Druid. Wildshapes can also use the Attack action as well, for those few times a lightning bolt or cold breath or whatever is better than multiattacking (Dire Wolf hellhound fun, etc).

Same with Cloud Goliath's teleport. It's magical, but not a spell, so teleporting wildshape should be available, no matter how 1dnd calls it on how wildshape works. I have no idea how the "you are now large" thing would work. 30' move Large Giant Squid (ie, no size change, just more speed), and be good at jumping (lol) perhaps with a 5e/1dnd crossover?

----------


## Kane0

Things are getting rolled into a 'magic action' now though, so that may or may change things in future playtest packets.

----------


## Jervis

> "X can get into the game successfully" does not mean "X cannot be increased / there is no inherent value to trying to increase X." Their job is to cater to people who _don't_ regularly post on D&D forums too.


Yes but when their attempts to increase X make the game worse for Y when Y makes a larger portion of the player base then I cant blame Y for being upset. Dnd is already one of the most casual games on the market besides games that hardly have rules to begin with like Risus. There comes a point where making the game simpler for a wider audience does just remove complexity and dumb it down. We saw this with advantage rules and flanking where a tactically important +2 was made into something downright broken because the designers are allergic to any numeric scaling that isnt Prof or Ability mod. And the less said about their skill check DC rules the better seeing as weve already had several threads arguing about it in recent weeks.

----------


## Psyren

> Meh, it's still 1/lr 10min duration flight in any form. And it's not like Druids can't use more instant "non-spell" damage effects while in caster form anyway, being as concentration heavy as they are, so the breath attack is still good as a Dragonborn Druid. Wildshapes can also use the Attack action as well, for those few times a lightning bolt or cold breath or whatever is better than multiattacking (Dire Wolf hellhound fun, etc).
> 
> Same with Cloud Goliath's teleport. It's magical, but not a spell, so teleporting wildshape should be available, no matter how 1dnd calls it on how wildshape works. I have no idea how the "you are now large" thing would work. 30' move Large Giant Squid (ie, no size change, just more speed), and be good at jumping (lol) perhaps with a 5e/1dnd crossover?


I was referring more to the breath weapon replacing one of your attacks than the flight. That will work with Extra Attack, but not Multiattack, as currently written.

Teleporting bears will definitely be possible, you can do that now as an Eladrin etc.




> Yes but when their attempts to increase X make the game worse for Y when Y makes a larger portion of the player base then I cant blame Y for being upset. Dnd is already one of the most casual games on the market besides games that hardly have rules to begin with like Risus. There comes a point where making the game simpler for a wider audience does just remove complexity and dumb it down.


I think you're vastly overestimating the proportion of Y who _care._ Just because people are fine with the current implementation does not follow that they _won't_ be fine with the proposed one.

----------


## Mastikator

> Nothing about D&D character creation is complicatedly complex. Everything is very by-the-numbers, step-by-step, easy peasy lemon squeezie.
> The dumbing down of ttrpgs is a current trend in the market, certainly not unique to D&D, but D&D is also guilty of it.
> This is a game all about imagination, simple math, and making some simple choices once in a while. We constantly hear how single-digit kids are playing the game without issue, and it's not even a game meant for kids that young. If the developers are saying that a game easy enough for young children might be too complicated for the average consumer, they are, in fact, being quite condescending in their design philosophy. *shrug*
> 
> Edit: Or, they're not condescending because they're right, and we have cause to weep for the decline of society.


What you're describing that D&D is lacking is needless complexity. _Oh woe it's not convoluted therefore it's dumb_. At level 1 you choose a race, a race may include options/choices. Then you choose two skills, one language, one tool, then one feat. Then you choose a class, that class may include options. The cleric chooses two skills and spells.
If we count all the skills, tools and language as one dimension of choice, the feat as one, then class as one, then one race as one, then your class options as one. That's 5 dimensions of choice. That's a huge amount of choice and variety. But the way it's laid out makes the choices relatively easy. It condenses huge complexity into a step by step elegant flow.

It's only easy enough for kids because they went through the trouble of making pregenerated choices that the player can easily piece together. But those pregens are optional, and beneath the surface is actually a lot of choice and complexity.

----------


## Jervis

> What you're describing that D&D is lacking is needless complexity. _Oh woe it's not convoluted therefore it's dumb_. At level 1 you choose a race, a race may include options/choices. Then you choose two skills, one language, one tool, then one feat. Then you choose a class, that class may include options. The cleric chooses two skills and spells.
> If we count all the skills, tools and language as one dimension of choice, the feat as one, then class as one, then one race as one, then your class options as one. That's 5 dimensions of choice. That's a huge amount of choice and variety. But the way it's laid out makes the choices relatively easy. It condenses huge complexity into a step by step elegant flow.
> 
> It's only easy enough for kids because they went through the trouble of making pregenerated choices that the player can easily piece together. But those pregens are optional, and beneath the surface is actually a lot of choice and complexity.


Youre vastly overselling the complexity of 5e character gen. Tool proficiencies are basically pointless and languages do almost nothing in 90% of games, skills are the only thing from that I would say has any effect on most games and thats not exactly a hard choice most of the time. Players will usually just pick the same skills every time while new players just pick what sounds vaguely useful. This is a choice in the same way starting equipment is. 

Realistically Race, Class, and Feat are the only factors that matter. Two out of three of those are usually decided when you decide to play the game. I wanna play a elf ranger settles two of the main choices here as does dwarf Barbarian and human cleric. The first level feat will vary more and any race that adds choices like human will add some more. But thats still absurdly easy. No points to juggle. No flaws to consider. The game at present does not need any further simplification.

----------


## Mastikator

> Youre vastly overselling the complexity of 5e character gen. Tool proficiencies are basically pointless and languages do almost nothing in 90% of games, skills are the only thing from that I would say has any effect on most games and thats not exactly a hard choice most of the time. Players will usually just pick the same skills every time while new players just pick what sounds vaguely useful. This is a choice in the same way starting equipment is. 
> 
> Realistically Race, Class, and Feat are the only factors that matter. Two out of three of those are usually decided when you decide to play the game. I wanna play a elf ranger settles two of the main choices here as does dwarf Barbarian and human cleric. The first level feat will vary more and any race that adds choices like human will add some more. But thats still absurdly easy. No points to juggle. No flaws to consider. The game at present does not need any further simplification.


You choose to play an elf ranger when you choose to play the game. Yeah, and? That's still a choice, two actually. Then you choose what kind of elf, that's one more. Then you choose what class choices your ranger gets (spells, fighting style, etc). That's 4 choices already. Then you pick a feat at level 1. Great, another choice. 5 choices only at level 1. Any more would be bad, it would feel overwhelming to new players. THEN at each level you gain more choices. This is compounded by choices you make after you finish a long rest, and choices you make during the adventuring day. There is such a thing as too many choices, and there is such a thing as needless complexity. Complexity for the sake of complexity is a bad thing. I'm glad 5e and D&D1 avoids that nonsense.

----------


## Witty Username

> So... I mean... There's an entire lengthy thread about how "Full Caster" doesn't really mean what people insinuate it means. A "full caster Cleric" is a _wildly_ different beast than a "full caster Wizard," and we all know it. Pretending they're on the same level (even close to the same level) is crazy.


Treentmonk had a aside to that in one of his videos, I think in his power rankings of the different classes.

Best casters at spellcasting: wizard, sorcerer
Armor, non-existent
Next best: Druid
Armor, non-metal hurts but light armor with a shield is alright
Then Bard and Warlock
Armor: primarily light, but easy access to medium armor and shields with subclass selection.
Then Cleric
Armor: all of it

I think Heavy Armor prof is something that needs to be available at 1, due to the build constraints in play. Cleric doesn't really gain much from str to warrant a 12ish AC over it. And splitting 14+ between the physical stats for a wis caster doesn't really work for there lies MADness 
For the Record, I haven't read the UA, I am going to be on the back burner until the primaries are over (voting joke). The chaos in the Ranger thread was all I needed to not be much interested in the discussion as of yet.

----------


## Jervis

> You choose to play an elf ranger when you choose to play the game. Yeah, and? That's still a choice, two actually. Then you choose what kind of elf, that's one more. Then you choose what class choices your ranger gets (spells, fighting style, etc). That's 4 choices already. Then you pick a feat at level 1. Great, another choice. 5 choices only at level 1. Any more would be bad, it would feel overwhelming to new players. THEN at each level you gain more choices. This is compounded by choices you make after you finish a long rest, and choices you make during the adventuring day. There is such a thing as too many choices, and there is such a thing as needless complexity. Complexity for the sake of complexity is a bad thing. I'm glad 5e and D&D1 avoids that nonsense.


How long does it take you to pick your outfit in the morning? Youre making it sound like 5 choices is somehow overwhelming. Hell you make three choices every single round (where to move, what action to take, how to use your bonus action). Does every round take hours of deep contemplation? Realistically as I said before most new players get a concept that encompasses (sub)class and race so the amount of choices after that has been decided isnt a big deal.

----------


## Schwann145

> What you're describing that D&D is lacking is needless complexity. _Oh woe it's not convoluted therefore it's dumb_.


Not even close.
What I'm saying is that suggesting that _selecting a Domain at level 1_ is probably the easiest decision that any Cleric player will ever make, and the idea that said choice might cause new players analysis paralysis is shockingly condescending.
You either have an idea of what kind of Cleric you want to be already and your Domain basically picks itself, or you go in clean-slate and pick the one that seems coolest when you read it (and since they're all _very_ distinct, that choice will also be amazingly easy).

Nothing at all to do with needless complexity.
Again, if they truly felt an overabundance of choice was a valid concern, they'd redesign the entire Divine spellcasting playstyle. But they're not, and they won't. So I can't believe they truly feel that way.

----------


## Tanarii

> I think the best fix for this "wizards dipping for armor" problem would be if they make the shield spell only work if you are not wearing armor or a shield. Then dipping just saves you spell slots for shield, and is no longer the way to get your AC higher than the martial characters.


How does nerfing _Shield_ for EKs help with Arcane Casters getting +5-6AC always on by dipping for Medium/Heavy Armor + Shield?




> Sometimes, going a little simpler feels like its not _strictly_ for getting started, but also being able to grasp a better understanding of the entire system.
> 
> On another note, I have zero perspective on how well a starter kit functions with an entirely new group of people, including the DM. I think the majority of players are blessed to have at least one kind veteran (for lack of better words).


Have played with many newcomers, they way to make things simpler for casters isn't to screw with class features.  It's to massively cut back spell choice paralysis, both when selecting prepared/known and slots available to choose from during combat.  Especially in Tier 1 and Tier 2.

Either that or they need to go the 13th Age route, and just slap commentary in the beginning of each class about its suitability for beginners vs experienced players.

I actively steer new players away from Bards, Druids, and Wizards.  For Sorcerers and Clerics I suggest a default slate of easy to use blasting or heal/buff spells.  (Because Clerics are needed and Dragon Sorcerers are quite good simple blasters that use Known Spells.)  Even so, I encourage them to play a Warlock if they really want to play a full caster right away.

----------


## sambojin

I personally think all clerics should get heavy armour at lvl1. It'd make for more interesting subclasses and easier later campaign progression for the class. You won't be able to afford good heavy armour for a while anyway.

(It would make one of the UA Holy Orders redundant, but an extra good choice instead of that would be good anyway. It's not going to stop you making a dexxy-cleric, or running MA+shield+14Dex, or go 15Strplus+HA+shield. It's a silly thing to have HA as an "option" that *could* allow for more interesting subclasses, if you could just give LA+MA+HA+shields to Clerics at lvl1, to *definitely* make for more-more interesting subclasses and builds. And better Holy Order options as well. Remember, you still only prepare a max of 4 lvl1 spells, so you lose that side of it as a caster dip mostly other than list-choice with limited picks and slots. Could go Fighter or anything instead if HA was your goal).

Maybe just don't give new cantrips when multiclassing? That'd be just as effective. But heavy armour is fine in my view.

Quote spoiler:
*Spoiler*
Show





> Not even close.
> What I'm saying is that suggesting that _selecting a Domain at level 1_ is probably the easiest decision that any Cleric player will ever make, and the idea that said choice might cause new players analysis paralysis is shockingly condescending.
> You either have an idea of what kind of Cleric you want to be already and your Domain basically picks itself, or you go in clean-slate and pick the one that seems coolest when you read it (and since they're all _very_ distinct, that choice will also be amazingly easy).
> 
> Nothing at all to do with needless complexity.
> Again, if they truly felt an overabundance of choice was a valid concern, they'd redesign the entire Divine spellcasting playstyle. But they're not, and they won't. So I can't believe they truly feel that way.





Yep, thus my "choose a minor domain/ belief/ whatever" Build-A-Bear Cleric thing at lvl1, above. It gives you whatever flavour or style you want, without your entire career or subclass or features revolving around it. It's like the MI of Clerics. Not that great, but still pretty cool to have as stuff you can do.

----------


## Mastikator

> How long does it take you to pick your outfit in the morning? Youre making it sound like 5 choices is somehow overwhelming. Hell you make three choices every single round (where to move, what action to take, how to use your bonus action). Does every round take hours of deep contemplation? Realistically as I said before most new players get a concept that encompasses (sub)class and race so the amount of choices after that has been decided isnt a big deal.


What is the significance of how long it takes to make a decision?

----------


## Jervis

> What is the significance of how long it takes to make a decision?


Character Gen. The idea that choices are somehow overwhelming on this scale is a flawed premise, the issue is framing and the amount of time it takes to make the decision. A subclass is baked into the concept of character you want to play as much as class or race. Realistically almost no one starts playing a character with no idea what subclass they want to go into. This is the faulty assumption that putting off subclasses was built on.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Character Gen. The idea that choices are somehow overwhelming on this scale is a flawed premise, the issue is framing and the amount of time it takes to make the decision. A subclass is baked into the concept of character you want to play as much as class or race. Realistically almost no one starts playing a character with no idea what subclass they want to go into. This is the faulty assumption that putting off subclasses was built on.


I concur, based on my experience. A substantial supermajority of the players I've played with (and that's a lot) have been new to D&D 5e at their first session with me. A reasonable majority have been new to D&D _generally_ and a substantial minority were outright new to _fantasy roleplaying games_ (including CRPGs). I directly assisted in character creation for nearly all of them (probably 70+%). Virtually all of them (maybe 1 or two didn't) had strong opinions on what subclass they wanted once they'd picked a class; picking a race and class was _way_ more uncertain than picking a subclass. And picking spells is an order of magnitude worse than all of those combined.

----------


## sambojin

I'm kind of surprised they don't give about 36 pages or so of the PHB, to dedicated well-made and strong pre-built characters and their classes, with some really cool stuff to do with them (what, 1-3 of each class, with a quick mechanics blurb on that, on the off-chance you forget you can climb anywhere, or teleport/ prone hit people, or super-dash, or something. Remind everyone to roll their +d4 Bless, because I'm the Cleric that casts bless, etc). That's a start.

Then full-page spread art, 18 pages art, by actual DnD artists, for 1-3 characters in art each page, and 2-3 pre-built characters in text on the facing page (or vica versa). So, 18-54 pre-made characters. Adventurers in focus. Maybe even do it as a two panel, top and bottom, of the same builds but with different outlooks. Or something way better than that. Or just full page, full panel art. That'd work best really. Don't cheap out, do it properly.

Alongside really good art to typify the characters, I think it would work. +18 full pages art, 18 pages for pre-made adventurers. So new players can go "yep, that's the one I want to be", and you can sort of slot it in as a DM regardless of gameworld or campaign type. Where you can just open the book to the "Adventurers" section, and go "choose one of them, and we'll get going", and it'll still be awesome.

Little box with comments of "now you can do this", etc, for lvl 2/3/4/whatever maybe somewhere in the surrounds. How much basic text do you need to give? They're all Un-named characters, but just typical. Race, class, background, that's it. A "whatever whatever whatever", instead of any true identity assumed by the book, but with art and knowledge assisting. Lvl1 characters, but kinda awesome on what they could become, even if you choose as the player to do something entirely different. But quick and fun and awesome.

Not "these are the only types", just damn good art and styles, with reasonable mechanical alacrity and knowledge of the game, and the use of them, included in the stats and build and information given.
((I'd give them a "remind yourself" box, a "remind your party" box, and a "by lvl4-6, consider what you can do" box for each character. It'll help learning heaps of stuff for newbies))

Hell, they could even end up as characters in your campaign as helpers or foils to your plans. It's always nice to have inspiration from book 1 onwards. Adventure saviours, pre-built plot-not-splats, or absolute ongoing early bbegs. Or lieutenants. Or the unseen. Even funner again, if you know the player's could have seen "the typical, that they could have been" version of themselves.

Artwise; Like the "species"/race pictures, or the occasional background pictures, or the 1-2 class pictures. But nope, here's an *actual* adventurer, with a fair few side-box blurbs, to explain it in use. What they do, not just "this is the spell" or ability. Well, yeah, that, but use-of as well. Even in story-form. So, damn good art in full page spreads of it, and well written text (if it's not covering it. Don't do that, it never works well). Keep it DnD, but throw in a few outliers, certainly. It's a system, not a specific setting.

I'd also probably give +5-8 pages of the PHB to little short stories of heroism as well. Not quite a "did you know?", just a someone something did a thing, to get the ideas flowing. Not wh40k/ Bloodbowl style, just a few stories peppered through the mix, on smaller but heroic events (that actually hold up to game mechanic scrutiny, so the players know *they* could do that too). Character classes, or even species, can be named. Or even backgrounds or subclasses. But it's always nice narratively in a very-short-story to reveal powers at will, so I wouldn't mention it until you can go "whoa, that's cool!". It's like anime stories or something, with better thought-out systems. Probably.
(They can be on worlds or planes with everything from plasma arrows in a wasteland regressing, to high intrigue in the godly court, to good honest steal and steel and blood and dragons and gold. With 8 pages of text, I could write a fair few).

If you *can't* make good art, good things this character does, or good stories from it, work out why not. It's a narrative game.

But I'd probably buy the bloody book if it was a work of art as well, in softcover or hardcover. Maybe both.

----------


## Jervis

> I concur, based on my experience. A substantial supermajority of the players I've played with (and that's a lot) have been new to D&D 5e at their first session with me. A reasonable majority have been new to D&D _generally_ and a substantial minority were outright new to _fantasy roleplaying games_ (including CRPGs). I directly assisted in character creation for nearly all of them (probably 70+%). Virtually all of them (maybe 1 or two didn't) had strong opinions on what subclass they wanted once they'd picked a class; picking a race and class was _way_ more uncertain than picking a subclass. And picking spells is an order of magnitude worse than all of those combined.


Yeah spell picking is one thing im very glad they are simplifying. Picking spells known is the reason arcane casters always take longer to build than divine ones. This I think gets down to why more choices doesnt necessarily mean more that character creation is harder. A cleric technically picks more spells than a sorcerer and they do it every day but people take less time building them because its not permanent. IMO the only time something needs to be streamlined is when it makes character Gen or gameplay slow to a crawl. Of that tangent and into subclasses and the like I think race class and subclass kinda get all rolled into a choice of character concept rather than choosing all three in a vacuum from a list. In my experience players having trouble picking between character concepts are usually having trouble picking between X race/class/subclass combination and Y race/class/subclass combination.

----------


## Segev

> I think you're vastly overestimating the proportion of Y who _care._ Just because people are fine with the current implementation does not follow that they _won't_ be fine with the proposed one.


This is a terrible argument, since it can be used to justify any change you want and ignore any objections to that change. It also fails to provide any actual justification for the change. Y are fine with how things are, so they definitely will be fine with things staying that way; the idea that they "might" be okay with the change is still a gamble, and is all but guaranteed to have fewer Y who are okay with the new version than were okay with the existing version. We know for a fact there are people okay with the current version who dislike the new version, as some of them are speaking up about it and their reasons for it.

Saying, "Eh, your dissatisfaction is irrelevant, because others who aren't saying anything will doubtless be fine with it, and those will be the majority, because, um, I assume it's so," is simply not a very sound argument at all.

----------


## animorte

> Y are fine with how things are, so they definitely will be fine with things staying that way; the idea that they "might" be okay with the change is still a gamble, and is all but guaranteed to have fewer Y who are okay with the new version than were okay with the existing version. We know for a fact there are people okay with the current version who dislike the new version, as some of them are speaking up about it and their reasons for it.


Say there are 30 out of 100 that represent Y in this matter. Thats 30%. Its less than half but certainly a worthy number to take into account.

They decide to look at a change for the sake of improvement. No doubt somebody is going to be against it, but others are sure to like it, be fine with it, what-have-you.

Maybe 1/3 of those people dont like the new change. Thats a total 10% of all the people, so Y is down to 20%. But then this change brings on some new fans. Theres a new pile of people that really like the new change, a whole 20% of the population.

So now 40% of the total people enjoy the thing as it is now instead of the initial 30%. Yay, progress!

Yeah, crap numbers, I know! But I would like to think that companies are always trying find a way to branch out and improve. Only ever doing the same thing in fear of losing a bit of support never sits right with me. I try to support the attempt at improvement, even if I dont particularly like it.

_Wow, Im loquacious tonight. I think my words are running away from me._

----------


## Segev

> Say there are 30 out of 100 that represent Y in this matter. Thats 30%. Its less than half but certainly a worthy number to take into account.
> 
> They decide to look at a change for the sake of improvement. No doubt somebody is going to be against it, but others are sure to like it, be fine with it, what-have-you.
> 
> Maybe 1/3 of those people dont like the new change. Thats a total 10% of all the people, so Y is down to 20%. But then this change brings on some new fans. Theres a new pile of people that really like the new change, a whole 20% of the population.
> 
> So now 40% of the total people enjoy the thing as it is now instead of the initial 30%. Yay, progress!
> 
> Yeah, crap numbers, I know! But I would like to think that companies are always trying find a way to branch out and improve. Only ever doing the same thing in fear of losing a bit of support never sits right with me. I try to support the attempt at improvement, even if I dont particularly like it.
> ...


The trouble is, you're assuming without examining or acknowledging the assumption that the remaining 70% who aren't "represent[ing] Y in this matter" will be distributed so differently from the 30% who are "represent[ing] Y in this matter" that they will come out as being majority-opposite the people who allegedly represent them. And the only cause for this assumption seems to be a need to appeal to that presumed majority to reject the concerns of those voicing them.

In short, it's an awful argument because it relies on a fallacious appeal to an authority/majority that is only presumed to exist.

"I assume that the Space Pope exists, and that he is against what you're supporting, and therefore what you support is a bad thing since the Space Pope opposes it," is what this argument amounts to.

----------


## animorte

> In short, it's an awful argument because it relies on a fallacious appeal to an authority/majority that is only presumed to exist.


The numbers are kind of irrelevant because we have no real way of knowing what percentage of any side there is. The point I want to make is that they shouldnt be afraid of trying something new just because some people might get upset. People are already upset because something is the way it is. The only way to make improvement is to try, and it certainly helps to communicate during the process.

----------


## Kane0

Playtest material is all about seeing what works, and what people like. It's in the name. A test.

----------


## Psyren

> This is a terrible argument, since it can be used to justify any change you want and ignore any objections to that change. It also fails to provide any actual justification for the change. Y are fine with how things are, so they definitely will be fine with things staying that way; the idea that they "might" be okay with the change is still a gamble, and is all but guaranteed to have fewer Y who are okay with the new version than were okay with the existing version. We know for a fact there are people okay with the current version who dislike the new version, as some of them are speaking up about it and their reasons for it.
> 
> Saying, "Eh, your dissatisfaction is irrelevant, because others who aren't saying anything will doubtless be fine with it, and those will be the majority, because, um, I assume it's so," is simply not a very sound argument at all.


"They shouldn't change this, because it's guaranteed to upset the majority because, um, I assume it's so" is equally terrible. If folks like you and Jervis don't want to bring numbers into this then don't.

----------


## Mastikator

> Character Gen. The idea that choices are somehow overwhelming on this scale is a flawed premise, the issue is framing and the amount of time it takes to make the decision. A subclass is baked into the concept of character you want to play as much as class or race. Realistically almost no one starts playing a character with no idea what subclass they want to go into. This is the faulty assumption that putting off subclasses was built on.


I've seen people struggle for days deciding what spells to take in 5e. Meanwhile I can build a character in a minute with no issue, because I understand the choices and don't suffer choice paralysis. Time taken measures the player not the game.

----------


## Jervis

> "They shouldn't change this, because it's guaranteed to upset the majority because, um, I assume it's so" is equally terrible. If folks like you and Jervis don't want to bring numbers into this then don't.


Youre the one that brought in X and Y language in my friend so dont blame me for continuing the use of hypothetical algebra. My point wasnt about percentages or math any more than yours was and thats a intentionally disingenuous reading. Your point was Thing is to draw in X group so its good while mine was simply if thing makes it worse for Y then Y has every reason to be upset. Dumbing down the game for the sake of simplicity to attract a wider audience is very much a issue, one I even gave a example of that wasnt addressed. Flanking isnt is a variant rule in 5e as I remember though the fact is was made from a simple bonus to the easiest advantage generation in the game because the design team had a violent allergy to static modifiers at the time. (Ironically double proficiency on flanking attacks is OK if a bit sketchy later in the game but easy (dis)advantage generation for the costing of a little movement is just that strong).

Moving away from hypotheticals though my main issue with domains really is the same as my problem with Paladin oaths. Both are making a choice in design that makes zero character or lore sense for mechanical purposes and simplifying character building. If anything level 1 subclasses should be the default though for some classes Ive seen that complicates design a bit I will admit. But moving forward having Sorcerer and Warlock selecting subclass at 3 is a very bad idea. At the very least they should give a ribbon at 1 with their choice and get the actual features later. 

And yes I know just ask players to make a choice before they get benefits, but its the principle. And removing 1st level domain spells is just annoying.




> I've seen people struggle for days deciding what spells to take in 5e. Meanwhile I can build a character in a minute with no issue, because I understand the choices and don't suffer choice paralysis. Time taken measures the player not the game.


Time taken to make a choice is very much a issue. A lot of people make their characters at the table in session 0 with the DM present. In fact Id argue thats more common than not. Choices that can be made quickly arent a issue and as I said before players will usually know their class, race, and subclass at the concept stage with choices being between which concept to use instead of running down a list of possibilities like you were framing the issue. 

And yes spells for a arcane caster are a nightmare and making everything prepared was a blessing. I say that specifically because picking spells takes forever for players too pick because they dont want to do it right then, usually taking longer than picking feats or race because they are usually divorced from concept and are a purely mechanical choice players get paralyzed on trying to think of what theyre want eventually.

----------


## Psyren

> Your point was Thing is to draw in X group so its good while mine was simply if thing makes it worse for Y then Y has every reason to be upset.


1) I don't think it's _guaranteed_ to be better or worse, rather I think it's worth trying and seeing.

2) You're implying that Y represent the entirety of the current playerbase rather than some smaller portion of it, which could indeed be a _very_ small portion of it.

----------


## Kane0

Protector: Gain proficiency in martial weapons and heavy armor, or your choice of the defense or protection fighting style

Scholar: Choose two skills from the cleric list that you are proficient in. Add +Wis to those skills (or expertise of its already a Wis skill)

Thaumaturge: Add your Wis modifier to the damage of your Divine cantrips, plus gain the Thaumaturgy cantrip or another Divine cantrip if you already have it.

Default rule: any class feature that is usable prof times per long rest also regains one use per short rest

----------


## Jervis

> 1) I don't think it's _guaranteed_ to be better or worse, rather I think it's worth trying and seeing.
> 
> 2) You're implying that Y represent the entirety of the current playerbase rather than some smaller portion of it, which could indeed be a _very_ small portion of it.


To be fair I dont think the trial run of these features in UA is a bad thing, thats what UA is for and we have a survey to yell at them with if we dont like it. 

As an aside and back off the tangent my main issue after thinking about this is the abundance of stealth nerfs here, well that in addition to not picking a domain at 1 making no sense outside of mechanics. The features are better with holy order but the nerf to SW, loss of at will damage scaling into higher tiers, and no 1st level domain spells, while not the biggest in the world, in addition to the Bard buff (something I was in favor of mind you) has me worried that Wizards are going to somehow get even stronger going forward. Ill also fully admit that im a cleric fanboy and im not a fan of seeing the cleric playstyle of SW + SG, the thing they stripped a lot of the classs power out for going into this edition, nerfed and not being replaced by something of equal value is annoying. This isnt rogue bad but its somewhat frustrating coming off the bard revamp

----------


## Sindal

So I've only played a cleric in 3.5 edition (and it was homebrewed to the ever quest world)
I've never played a cleric in 5e but I have played a divine soul sorceror and therefor have atleast context for their spells (while not having any armour cause that's the price you pay for being charming)

But looking qt the cleric proposed xhanges I think they're neat.

I Sar down and pretended go make a character.

-ok its level one. Am cleric. I used to be a town guard with avsolutly no care for thr gods but it seems like ive been chosen by one to represent thrm. I dont know how i feel avout that...but, i bet hes not going to leave me alone so i might as well roll with it! I get all the normal stuff like some armor and spell casting. That should keep me pretty stable. I also get this channeled divinity thingy that let's blast someone or heal someone twice per day. Cool. With my cantripa this should be enough to do my cleric job of healing or doing damage on my first adventure.

-yay level two. 
Ok I got a bit of a spell boost and this holy order thing.
Some martial weapons, some knowledge or more fancy spellpower.

Well I'm getting thr hang of this spellcasting thing ans it's pretty great. I guess I've got thse protective and healinf spells availavleso I don't need heavy armour as much. I've got medium anyway. And I think I got enough spells with the ones I have. So let's try this scholar option to make Mr a bit more useful for skill checks. 

Etc

Seems fine to me
I like that order encourages a bit of personal bias instead of yoru subclass doing it. Scholar is cute. Let your clerics preach now.

Makes sense that your getting 'a clericy' first ability instead of a more general 'passive bonuses' when you already start with decent passives

The spell changes are fine. Some got better some worse. There's others to use. I can't believe I'll be living in a world wete resistance isn't a joke haha

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I said it earlier, and with this new material I say it again: I see nothing that justifies a new edition. The cleric subclass is only marginally different from what it was. Why on earth would anybody spend money on a new edition that resembles the old one this much, while the question on whether it is really 'better' in the details where it does differ is seriously open to debate.


 That's a fair point; but it is early yet. 



> Imagine that, dumping a physical stat might actually be dangerous at level 1...


 Yep. 



> "Domain" is also different than "god."


 Fair point. I think that it is inane that the FR deities in PHB has domains listed as though you need to match domain and deity. (And IIRC, this comes from portfolios in 3.x, doesn't it?)  



> Given that we'll only have 4 domains in the PHB, yes the chances that a given sample deity there (if there even are any) having more than one are slim.


 Deities need to have multiple domains associated with them, though.   



> Would it be a big difference to move CD to level 2 and Order to level 1?
> How much does that wreck their class structure?


 That brings the one level dip for heavy armor back, so no, don't do it.  


> Timestamp 3:08 (thru 3:29) of the "Cleric, Life Domain and Subclasses | Unearthed Arcana: Cleric and Revised Species | One D&D" video, Crawford does list multiclassing as one of the factors driving the Cleric changes.


 Nice catch. 



> Yeah. This is a proper response to the "multiclassing for armor is too easy and too good" issue--_fix multiclassing!_.


 Yep.

----------


## Segev

> The numbers are kind of irrelevant because we have no real way of knowing what percentage of any side there is. The point I want to make is that they shouldnt be afraid of trying something new just because some people might get upset. People are already upset because something is the way it is. The only way to make improvement is to try, and it certainly helps to communicate during the process.


Except the problem is that any criticism of the change is being dismissed with this terrible argument, because there is no better argument with which to dismiss the criticism, but those dismissing the criticism want this change even though it is not a good one. It is not a good one as evidenced by the fact that the only argument defending it is, "I assume more people like it who aren't saying anything, and therefore the majority is with me and should win."




> "They shouldn't change this, because it's guaranteed to upset the majority because, um, I assume it's so" is equally terrible. If folks like you and Jervis don't want to bring numbers into this then don't.


Good thing that's not the argument anybody on the "Shouldn't change this" side is making. You're just dismissing their criticisms with your own acknowledged-now-to-be-equally-terrible-to-the-argument-you-strawmanned-us-as-making argument.

What has been said is that there are people who will be upset by it who like it, and then actual reasons why it's not a good change were made to back up WHY they were upset. Their entire criticism is then dismissed with what you just acknowledged is a terrible appeal-to-imagined-majority.



Trying new things is fine. But it's not "trying" if you dismiss all criticism of it when it's tried and insist "it's absolutely fine so shut up if you're not praising it."

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Interesting that a level 2 cleric can be better at persuasion than a Bard. +8 at level 2 is really solid, especially as the new social rules have all checks be made against a dc15. 
> 
> Honestly this is the biggest win for me. I love the high Charisma preacher cleric archtype, and now dnd allows for it without mticlassing.


 Yes, that's nice. 



> I agree that clerics who are great at Persuasion (and Religion!) is overdue.


 Yes. 



> Doesnt work. Cleric is a control/tanking class, they dont set in the back line, theyre suppose to be front or midline


 My nephew's cleric Disagrees with you.  That Cleric is very much a second row PC.  Now, before Tanarii gives me the needle again for backsliding on my grognardian street cred, that has been the assumption for as far back as I can recall.  Just to let you know: my Knowledge cleric with scale and 14 dex and a shield didn't have problems with AC.  



> While I like the Holy Order direction, I think the implementation is flawed. I strongly feel that allowing a second option from the list at level 9 is both a homogenization of identities for how a cleric serves their deity and also unexciting. "Hey, now you can pick the one you didn't want before."
> The level 9 option should 100% double down on the level 2 choice.


 Why not have both?  either pick one form the first list, or take your original and 'make it more better' so that the player can tailor their PC to their desires?  By 9th level the player will have grown with the character .... 



> Player options can and should have an affinity for certain roles in the gamist sense but to at the expense of the initial freedom that 5e provides. For example if I want to play a skirmishing dirty trick combatant I shouldn't be required to take one particular combination to accomplish this. In the same vein is something is integrally required to make something function I shouldn't have to go looking for it.(I adamantly oppose feat taxes and chain)


 I tend to agree.  



> Less standardization and homogenization overall - for every rough edge that gets sanded smooth, the game loses a little more of its magic in my eyes. D&Done's spell lists are a good example of this. D&D to me has always been about being able to spark a feeling of wonder, to trigger the imagination. Every time the game makes concessions for the sake of balance or standardization, it loses a little of that spark. There's been a lot of instances of that over 5e's lifetime, and looking at this playtest it just keeps going.


 The Tasha's influence seems to have no 'back' button.

----------


## Tanarii

> But it's not "trying" if you dismiss all criticism of it when it's tried and insist "it's absolutely fine so shut up if you're not praising it."


Agreed. (Edit: revised due to objections.) This is why having the feedback restricted to D&D Beyond is such a terrible idea.  The proportion of folks that are all in on WOTC changes there will be much higher, so the feedback with be biased.

Unless, of course, WotC's goal is no longer to grow the brand / bring in new players.  And is instead to sell to those all in.

Even then, it sounds very much like with how we ended up with 4e.  A small feedback sample and ignoring the feedback of anyone that's not on board with the changes they're determined to make.  Exactly the opposite of what happened in D&D Next, from what I understand.

Of course, even opening it up beyond Beyond (heh) won't do _that_ much to get the true feeling of the majority of current players.  IMX very few players follow D&D news online, let alone care enough to read what's coming next from the company in detail and fill out a survey.

----------


## Schwann145

> I think that it is inane that the FR deities in PHB has domains listed as though you need to match domain and deity. (And IIRC, this comes from portfolios in 3.x, doesn't it?)





> Deities need to have multiple domains associated with them, though.


A deity has a portfolio of divine mandates/areas of influence/fundamentals/etc that make up the essence of what that deity _is_, so to speak. Domains are how a Cleric of that deity taps into some of that power thematically. This has been the case for, pretty much, every edition, including 5e.
The reason you need to "match" your Domain to the deity is because those domains are directly related to the power/theme of that deity. A god of Darkness will not/should not have the Light domain, etc and so fourth.

Mechanically, I think this is one of the few areas that older editions just did better than 5e does. The Domain selection in 3.X and prior was significant thematically, but much smaller part of the overall toolkit you had to build, so having more options to fill out more of the theme was significantly easier. In 5e Domain is a _really big_ part of character identity/theme as well as relationship to the chosen deity. Because they're so much weightier mechanically, we're _very_ unlikely to see the developers put in a bunch of extra work to "build out" more Domain choices.
I do agree with you though - it would be much better if Clerics had access to more Domains; more choices as well as more options chosen. A deity is not *one* thing only, after all.




> Of course, even opening it up beyond Beyond (heh) won't do _that_ much to get the true feeling of the majority of current players.  IMX very few players follow D&D news online, let alone care enough to read what's coming next from the company in detail and fill out a survey.


Agreed. I don't know why these discussions don't focus on the reality that, when looking at feedback, you're already looking at only the vocal minority. Having arguments about X and Y percentages of the "vocal" or "non-vocal" parts of the playerbase is silly, because the non-vocal players, even if they do make up a majority, are very unlikely to be seeking out surveys online to discuss playtest material in the first place.
Heck, most of the people I know that _are_ heavily invested in D&D can't be bothered to care about playtest material and online surveys to discuss it!  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Aquillion

> The issue at the heart of this is how much should a wizard have to invest to get armor? A feat? a level? Multiple resources? Or should they just plain be barred?


TBH getting heavy armor as a wizard just isn't...  worth very much.  They had plenty of incredibly strict rules to make it hard to get in earlier editions, and there's a reason they got rid of those rules in 5e.

Normal wizards are going to be in the back row most of the time.  That means that if you're taking significant numbers of hits, things have probably already gone sideways and your armor isn't going to provide more than a marginal benefit.  Maybe it allows you to dump dex, but for what?

You'd only really want armor as a wizard if you're a gish and gish builds are almost always going to be worse than just playing a normal wizard anyway.

It's not worthless but it is absolutely not worth delaying your spell progression.

----------


## animorte

> What has been said is that there are people who will be upset by it who like it, and then actual reasons why it's not a good change were made to back up WHY they were upset. Their entire criticism is then dismissed with what you just acknowledged is a terrible appeal-to-imagined-majority.


I have attempted not to be this example. I believe I started responding to the idea that, we _shouldnt_ be ok with any changes just because some people arent going to like it. From that perspective, I think its fair that Ive done so.

I had no intention of coming across this way, as I generally attempt to refrain from the dreaded straw-man and other numerous logical fallacies.

I often declare in my responses that its fine to disagree and feel differently, thats part of the beauty of this game and community (yes, GitP).




> Agreed. WotC fanboys will automatically love anything they're force fed, waiting for their livers to be cut out for profit. This is why having the feedback restricted to D&D Beyond is such a terrible idea.  The proportion of such folks there will be much higher, so the feedback with be biased.


If Im going to be honest, I would like if we could move away from the talk of fanboi because you like something about One. Tthat consistently continues to come across as increasingly offensive. I do agree with a fair amount of the things, but Im far from blind.

I think some of that harsh reaction were seeing to agreement is in part because a few people are afraid were legitimately going to be stuck with a garbage new system because enough people arent declaring war against it. That ideal is equally harmful to the process.

D20 test, Ardlings, and Dragonborn supposedly scored the lowest (from what weve been told*) and that seems pretty clear to me theyre receiving enough accurate feedback. Im sure well see Jump (Action) in the same area next time around.

I personally think the restrictions to DnDBeyond for contributing feedback is honestly attempting to provide more accurate results instead of it being easily accessed countless times by fewer strong opinions. BUT, to be fair, I guess the entire staff of WotC could easily do that and skew the results in their favor no matter where its available (though I would like to think the employees arent blind sheep, because company =/= its people).


* _Maybe not technically the lowest but they were certainly the lowest rated things mentioned._

----------


## Segev

> I have attempted not to be this example. I believe I started responding to the idea that, we _shouldnt_ be ok with any changes just because some people arent going to like it. From that perspective, I think its fair that Ive done so.
> 
> I had no intention of coming across this way, as I generally attempt to refrain from the dreaded straw-man and other numerous logical fallacies.
> 
> I often declare in my responses that its fine to disagree and feel differently, thats part of the beauty of this game and community (yes, GitP).
> 
> 
> If Im going to be honest, I would like if we could move away from the talk of fanboi because you like something about One. Tthat consistently continues to come across as increasingly offensive. I do agree with a fair amount of the things, but Im far from blind.
> 
> ...


Pretty much all of this is why I would prefer we restrict ourselves to analyzing whether it's good design, good for the game, etc., or not, rather than discussing whether "people will like it." 

We can discuss whether or not it is theoretically easier for new players, or sufficiently deep to keep experienced ones engaged, and in particular whether there's an under- or over-estimation of ability and investment a new player is willing to put into something, but that's not about how MANY new players there are, merely about their likely levels of interest in various things as they get started playing.

----------


## animorte

> Pretty much all of this is why I would prefer we restrict ourselves to analyzing whether it's good design, good for the game, etc., or not, rather than discussing whether "people will like it."


Agreed. Its clearly not headed anywhere pleasant.

----------


## Psyren

> What has been said is that there are people who will be upset by it who like it, and then actual reasons why it's not a good change were made to back up WHY they were upset.


We did exactly this explaining why we think it's good independent of trying to quantify support and were equally dismissed. What's good for the goose, etc.




> Deities need to have multiple domains associated with them, though.


I agree - and they will, eventually. Hell, if it were up to me cleric subclasses would probably be closer to the Holy Order concept than the domain concept, and domains would primarily be bonus spells, thus allowing D&D to have many more of them. Or alternatively, subclasses would stay as domains and cleric would get much more than 4 in core the way they do now.

----------


## Segev

> We did exactly this explaining why we think it's good independent of trying to quantify support and were equally dismissed. What's good for the goose, etc.


Disagreement is not dismissal. If somebody did say, "Well, the majority I imagine exists would not like it, no matter how good it is," then I agree, that is a bad argument against your position.

Disagreement, wherein it is explained why your reasoning is insufficient or otherwise not providing enough benefit compared to what is lost, is not dismissal.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> That brings the one level dip for heavy armor back, so no, don't do it.


I'll admit that allowing the one level dip for heavy armor isn't ideal. But I also don't think it's worth messing up the progression of single-class clerics in order to stop a half-way decent multiclass option. I also think that Channel Divinity - particularly Divine Spark - is more attractive for multiclassing than any of the Holy Order options. Since Channel Divinity and Divine Spark scale solely on Proficiency Bonus, a character who takes a one-level dip into Cleric has the same power Divine Spark as a single-class Cleric of the same overall level.

Maybe the best solution is Holy Order at level 1 but explicitly not gained unless Cleric is your first class?




> My nephew's cleric Disagrees with you.  That Cleric is very much a second row PC.  Now, before Tanarii gives me the needle again for backsliding on my grognardian street cred, that has been the assumption for as far back as I can recall.  Just to let you know: my Knowledge cleric with scale and 14 dex and a shield didn't have problems with AC.


You're both right! That's one of the reasons I love Cleric. Frontline tanky and second row support are both good options.

----------


## Psyren

> Disagreement is not dismissal. If somebody did say, "Well, the majority I imagine exists would not like it, no matter how good it is," then I agree, that is a bad argument against your position.





> Yes but when their attempts to increase X make the game worse for Y *when Y makes a larger portion of the player base* then I cant blame Y for being upset.


Nope, no "imagined majority" here  :Small Sigh:  




> I also think that Channel Divinity - particularly Divine Spark - is more attractive for multiclassing than any of the Holy Order options. Since Channel Divinity and Divine Spark scale solely on Proficiency Bonus, a character who takes a one-level dip into Cleric has the same power Divine Spark as a single-class Cleric of the same overall level.


I think this is a very valid point; Cleric 1 will give any class a relatively powerful healing ability, and if they have decent Wisdom it will give them a reliable blast too.

----------


## Melil12

I would like to see the Holy Order options expanded at level 9.

I could see each order changing a bit and being cleared up. 

Move the Extra channels per day to the level 9 list and pump up the thaumaturge some other way separated from CD. To free up moving it to 2nd level.

----------


## Segev

> Nope, no "imagined majority" here


And in the very quote box you have from me, I agreed it wasn't a good argument. At least, the presumption of majority wasn't. So not sure what point you are making if that  :Small Sigh:  is directed at me. 




> I think this is a very valid point; Cleric 1 will give any class a relatively powerful healing ability, and if they have decent Wisdom it will give them a reliable blast too.


I am so confused. Are we meant to be horrified at cleric 1 dips giving too much, or praising them for giving a great deal? 




> I would like to see the Holy Order options expanded at level 9.
> 
> I could see each order changing a bit and being cleared up. 
> 
> Move the Extra channels per day to the level 9 list and pump up the thaumaturge some other way separated from CD. To free up moving it to 2nd level.


Having the holy orders get more stuff to make them unique and interesting would be neat.

----------


## Psyren

> And in the very quote box you have from me, I agreed it wasn't a good argument. At least, the presumption of majority wasn't. So not sure what point you are making if that  is directed at me.


I'm sighing because all your post-policing and argument-admonishing seem to be directed purely at one side of the debate. And it's not the side that feel the need to namecall other posters "fanboys" for being overall positive on the design direction either.




> I am so confused. Are we meant to be horrified at cleric 1 dips giving too much, or praising them for giving a great deal?


I'm capable of acknowledging both what I like about a design and where I think it might need a bit more work simultaneously.

----------


## animorte

> I am so confused. Are we meant to be horrified at cleric 1 dips giving too much, or praising them for giving a great deal?


The way I have been taking this discussion is that Clerics already have a good level 1, but some people would prefer something else added (heavy armor) or swapped levels of access. Either way, its strong.

----------


## Melil12

> I am so confused. Are we meant to be horrified at cleric 1 dips giving too much, or praising them for giving a great deal?


Imagine the horror! As the whole party dukes it out for the +2 plate. (At least they all now have healing word as an option!)

Its not like a wizard can dip into one of several classes and get medium armor and invest into dex instead of Str. For almost the exact same AC 

The real issue is stacking armor and the shield spell. Or just the shield spell in general

----------


## Jervis

> 25649969[/URL]]Nope, no "imagined majority" here


Your whole point was about attracting new players while mine was about the existing player base. Of course its crazy too assume that people actually playing the game make up a larger portion of the fanbase than some nebulous Ill defined group of people that dont play the game but know its bough about it to care and will play the game if all the changes you like are made. My dude can you stop trying to speak exclusively in dunks for five seconds and actually engage with a point, its getting embarrassing for you at this point.

----------


## Segev

> I'm sighing because all your post-policing and argument-admonishing seem to be directed purely at one side of the debate. And it's not the side that feel the need to namecall other posters "fanboys" for being overall positive on the design direction either.


Not going to defend a position ("fanboys") I have not taken.

But if you feel that a statement that appeal to imagined majority is a bad argument is "post policing" only one side of the debate, that suggests to me that you perceive at side as being more reliant on such appeals. Since I call out both sides as wrong to do it. Equally wrong, in that the argument is always bad.





> I'm capable of acknowledging both what I like about a design and where I think it might need a bit more work simultaneously.


If that is what you are doing, I am failing to follow your arguments. Is the fact that as is the cleric dip gets so much power fine as long as it is healing and blasting, but not fine if it is heavy armor? If so, why?

----------


## Psyren

> If that is what you are doing, I am failing to follow your arguments. Is the fact that as is the cleric dip gets so much power fine as long as it is healing and blasting, but not fine if it is heavy armor? If so, why?


I think a 2d8 blast/heal 2x/day for a dip isn't a big issue. However, it scaling automatically to 6d8 6x/day does give me some pause. A dip, thematically, represents dabbling in clerical techniques, so a dabbler having the same power from their channel as a dedicated practitioner feels off.

As for dipping 1 level for heavy armor, I think that should require starting the game as a fighter or paladin.




> Your whole point was about attracting new players while mine was about the existing player base.


I got that, but you have no basis for asserting that the latter will be turned off in greater numbers than the potential gain from the former. Hence the "imagined majority."

----------


## animorte

> Is the fact that as is the cleric dip gets so much power fine as long as it is healing and blasting, but not fine if it is heavy armor? If so, why?


I cant speak for Psyren, but for me, its because that speaks more Cleric while Heavy Armor speaks more Paladin. I like that theres a difference besides full-caster vs Smite.

It approaches some of those discussions about why the Fighter and several other martial classes just do a whole lot of the same thing with little to set them apart.

----------


## Melil12

> I cant speak for Psyren, but for me, its because that speaks more Cleric while Heavy Armor speaks more Paladin. I like that theres a difference besides full-caster vs Smite.


I asked this same thing in my own group, and I got such a fervent backlash. 

Though I would like to see casters be restricted out of Heavy armor totally.

----------


## Tanarii

> If Im going to be honest, I would like if we could move away from the talk of fanboi because you like something about One. Tthat consistently continues to come across as increasingly offensive. I do agree with a fair amount of the things, but Im far from blind.


objection noted and commentary revised

----------


## Jervis

> I got that, but you have no basis for asserting that the latter will be turned off in greater numbers than the potential gain from the former. Hence the "imagined majority."


Ok so were in an actual discussion now. If you go back to my previous point, the one that started this, youll see I was referring mostly to dumbing down rules in a way that makes the game worse. Just like I cant assume more existing players will dislike a change than hypothetical new players would like it, you cant assume the reverse. So we need to look at changes in how they change the game and not appeal some imaginary majority. Your imaginary majority of new players that somehow know about these changes and care as apposed to just seeing the game advertised and buying it dont exist and my imaginary majority of old players that dont like this hypothetical change dont exist. Good, im glad we agree. So that aside I actually did give a example of over simplifying hurting the game, that being the terrible flanking rules. Making them optional hurts the already low depth of dnd combat and using them as they exist makes it far too powerful. Opinions on flanking itself arent that important, im using this as a point on why changes made to simplify the game are bad if they make gameplay worse.

----------


## Telwar

> I would like to see the Holy Order options expanded at level 9.
> 
> I could see each order changing a bit and being cleared up. 
> 
> Move the Extra channels per day to the level 9 list and pump up the thaumaturge some other way separated from CD. To free up moving it to 2nd level.


And to get rid of the poor design of the "take one of the options you didn't want to earlier," add a secondary option to each holy order to double down, *or* you can take one of the ones you didn't want to begin with.

----------


## Melil12

More options is always better.

I think they hesitate to load up the cleric so much because it just makes the Martial vs Caster situation worse.

----------


## ZRN

> I said it earlier, and with this new material I say it again: I see nothing that justifies a new edition. The cleric subclass is only marginally different from what it was. Why on earth would anybody spend money on a new edition that resembles the old one this much, while the question on whether it is really 'better' in the details where it does differ is seriously open to debate.


I think this edition, like the other ".5" editions, is less about getting everyone excited about a big new product than it is about recognizing that people continue to play D&D, new players continue to buy the books, etc., so we might as well make the material as good as possible now that we've have almost a decade to sit on this edition. 

Why would we spend money on this? If I'm a new player I'm just going to buy the newest PHB so I'm happy it's improved; if I'm an established player I'm probably invested enough in my hobby that spending an extra $40 or whatever for the new PHB isn't a big reach. (D&D is extremely cheap for a nerd hobby, I'll shell out $40 a DECADE without complaint.)

----------


## animorte

> objection noted and commentary revised


Respect.




> Why would we spend money on this? If I'm a new player I'm just going to buy the newest PHB so I'm happy it's improved; if I'm an established player I'm probably invested enough in my hobby that spending an extra $40 or whatever for the new PHB isn't a big reach. (D&D is extremely cheap for a nerd hobby, I'll shell out $40 a DECADE without complaint.)


Im inclined to go along with this. I do believe the ultimate goal has been improvement, following closely behind accessibility. Theres no point in making it _better_ if it needs to be more complex to accomplish that.

It _can_ be cheap for a nerd hobby, or it can be wildly the opposite (theyve got a ton of content across many distributors).  :Small Tongue:  Though accessing the add-on subclasses/feats/etc. does not require purchasing the new material.

----------


## Ralanr

Feels weird for the base dragonborn to just get a better flight ability than the gem dragonborn. Their breath weapon is a good improvement though. Being able to choose between a 30ft line or a 15 ft cone with every use is a nice bump in versatility that can justify picking them over metallic or gem (I'd say chromatic but I can't see people using chromatic outside of flavor. Their special feature takes too much prep). I'd honestly prefer they not have darkvision since so many races have that. Overall, good improvement, glad to see they've adopted the breath attack changes with extra attack, maybe make their level 5 feature more unique. 

Goliath is basically becoming giant-kin. They already were, but they used to be closer to a race of stone than just, well, giants. I'm not wholly against this idea, but maybe just rebrand them as a whole as 'Giant-kin' and just call the stone giant choice 'Goliaths' (incidentally, I feel like they'd need to retcon goliaths into the underdark since that's where stone giants live. The mountains in the frozen wasteland seem more like frost giant stuff).

----------


## Psyren

> Just like I cant assume more existing players will dislike a change than hypothetical new players would like it, you cant assume the reverse.


I'm happy to agree to a cease-fire on this approach, but again, I'm not the one who brought it up. If it comes up yet again, I'm equally happy to respond in kind, because the reminder that neither side can prove being a majority appears to keep being needed.




> So that aside I actually did give a example of over simplifying hurting the game, that being the terrible flanking rules. Making them optional hurts the already low depth of dnd combat and using them as they exist makes it far too powerful. Opinions on flanking itself arent that important, im using this as a point on why changes made to simplify the game are bad if they make gameplay worse.


Flanking is a non sequitur - it was not simplified for new players at all, because the flanking rules are not in Basic, and by consequence they are not found in the expected onramps for new players such as the Starter Set. They're not even in the PHB. The rule is therefore aimed more at experienced groups coming from prior editions who can handle making changes to the game when optional rules don't pan out as expected.

I agree the flanking rules as presented need work (a simple +1 for flankers would reward tactical positioning in melee without being OP). But I would argue that making it optional was exactly the right call as that invites the DM to tweak it as needed for the health of the table. Since those rules even being usable is at the DM's sufferance, they are not seen as tyrannical for declaring adjustments need to be made or deciding later to toss them out entirely, and it also means that Theater of the Mind games become less bogged down with an expectation of minutely tracking positioning.

----------


## ZRN

> Oh they finally released the new playtest pdf.
> 
> I think all my grievances were already aired by other users so I focus on something else:
> 
> When the playtest was announced people were saying that a two years period was a big enough time frame, except... the material has to be ready way before it gets printed. So a period one and a half years was a more approximate estimation.
> 
> And it took WotC two months to release a new package after the expert classes, and they have yet to review the responses for that yet (see the comments on the jump rules in this thread)!
> 
> Moreover, I doubt they will be working during Christmas and holiday season. At this current pace we will see each class only two times before they hit the prints.


Not to overestimate WOTC here, but after each class sees one big release they can fold revisions into later unrelated releases, like they're doing with dragonborn and beastangels here.

----------


## Pex

> To be fair I dont think the trial run of these features in UA is a bad thing, thats what UA is for and we have a survey to yell at them with if we dont like it. 
> 
> As an aside and back off the tangent my main issue after thinking about this is the abundance of stealth nerfs here, well that in addition to not picking a domain at 1 making no sense outside of mechanics. The features are better with holy order but the nerf to SW, loss of at will damage scaling into higher tiers, and no 1st level domain spells, while not the biggest in the world, in addition to the Bard buff (something I was in favor of mind you) has me worried that Wizards are going to somehow get even stronger going forward. Ill also fully admit that im a cleric fanboy and im not a fan of seeing the cleric playstyle of SW + SG, the thing they stripped a lot of the classs power out for going into this edition, nerfed and not being replaced by something of equal value is annoying. This isnt rogue bad but its somewhat frustrating coming off the bard revamp


An interesting theory I've heard elsewhere is some of the nerfs we've seen are on purpose. That is, rather than meant to balance an alleged too powerful a thing they nerf to gauge people's reaction, such as the previous dragonborn. Is something sacred cow enough it is not to be touched? Turn Undead was this way back when 5E was in playtest mode, and clerics didn't have it. No change is by accident.

----------


## animorte

> An interesting theory I've heard elsewhere is some of the nerfs we've seen are on purpose. That is, rather than meant to balance an alleged too powerful a thing they nerf to gauge people's reaction, such as the previous dragonborn. Is something sacred cow enough it is not to be touched? Turn Undead was this way back when 5E was in playtest mode, and clerics didn't have it. No change is by accident.


I agree with this. I have no doubt that some of the decisions are just testing reactions, which Im hoping (at least sometimes) is more of an ulterior motive to legitimate feedback. I saw a comment somebody made about a month ago about the idea they might, nerf it just for the sake of improving it again with a different feature.

----------


## Psyren

> An interesting theory I've heard elsewhere is some of the nerfs we've seen are on purpose. That is, rather than meant to balance an alleged too powerful a thing they nerf to gauge people's reaction, such as the previous dragonborn. Is something sacred cow enough it is not to be touched? Turn Undead was this way back when 5E was in playtest mode, and clerics didn't have it. No change is by accident.





> I agree with this. I have no doubt that some of the decisions are just testing reactions, which Im hoping (at least sometimes) is more of an ulterior motive to legitimate feedback. I saw a comment somebody made about a month ago about the idea they might, nerf it just for the sake of improving it again with a different feature.


Even if they're really doing this, nothing we can do about it but what we're already doing (i.e. upvote what we like and downvote what we don't) so I don't see much point in dwelling on it.

Anyway I wanted to switch gears away from the interminable Cleric discussion and focus on some of the lesser talked about changes in this UA. Starting from Mastikator's detailed post:




> Wow 282 replies, this was a controversial UA.
> 
> *Spoiler: The cleric*
> Show
> 
> 
> The first thing I notice is that the cleric is way less front loaded, which I think is good. And we have to take into account that 1st level characters are getting a feat, 2 feats if they're human.
> 
> Channel divinity really has 3 uses, heal, inflict damage and turn undead. That plus spells, medium armor, shield and simple weapons is fine for a 1st level cleric. They no longer have 1 CD per short rest but PB per long, so less dependent on your table actually using short rests.
> ...


Okay I lied, there's some good points in here I wanted to touch on, and then I'll comment on something other than cleric.

1) It's reasonable to surmise that the most beginner players (i.e. those new even to the fantasy genre, much less TTRPGs) might be likely to grab human - and Crawford re-confirmed in the survey video that it's still the most commonly chosen race species in the game anyway - which means 1DnD is going to be even more frontloaded for these players (because they have 2 feats to pick instead of 1). Thus there's even more reason to push subclasses back to 3 across the board.

2) The idea of new Holy Orders down the line outside the core three is something I hadn't considered but it's a very plausible prediction - much like we got new Fighting Styles, Metamagic options, Invocations and other non-subclass optional features via splat. I could see a lot of potential from a "Cultist" cleric, though I think the stealthy cleric one will probably be "Inquisitor" or "Agent."

3) I didn't comment on it previously (I think) but I'm totally on board with WotC nerfing combos like Lifeberry and aura.




> In the 1st UA I felt that the Ardling was stepping on the aasimars's toes. Now I feel it is stepping on the shifters's toes. Seriously, who asked for this race? This race doesn't need to exist. Just dust it.


I wish it had a bit stronger tie to any of the upper planes like it used to instead of just the Beastlands (which don't even exist in every setting!), but regardless I'm okay with this version. Flyer needs to the most work since it's tied to that godawful Jump action that I'll fight tooth and nail for the next 2 years if I have to. Racer is kinda lame - maybe it'll be okay in those theoretical speed-op builds in place of Tabaxi, but in typical play once you can move above 60ft I see heavily diminishing returns. I'd like it if their Dash action also let you Disengage from one foe or something more meaningful than just gotta-go-fast. (Also, why triceratops instead of velociraptor for Racer, velocity is right in the name!)

The other two I'm fine with, and it's nice to have an aquatic race in core. 
And no, Shifters _aren't_ good enough, they're basically humans with weird teeth and hair. Ardlings being truly animalistic are much better.




> *Spoiler: Goliath*
> Show
> 
> I like having options, and I always felt it was weird that all goliaths are like stone giants.
> 
> Cloud seems the best, at least generally. Teleportation is good on any build.
> Fire may lead to super nova builds (IE using divine smite + maneuver + fire's burn on every attack)
> Frost is basically less damage but more control.
> Hill lets you make someone prone and they don't get a save against it, potentially very strong.
> ...


Agreed on Frost and Fire, the nova potential seems unintended, especially for a core race.

Agree on Storm feeling dull.




> *Spoiler: Spells*
> Show
> 
> Aid: why nerf this spell? I like the 2014 version better.
> 
> Banishment: Not a fan of the creature type requirement. What about native fey/fiend/celestial/elemental? A creature not native should go to its native plane. I'm fine with allowing extra saves.
> 
> Barkskin: IMO your proficiency bonus should not factor into a spell description. It could give +2 armor while you have your temp hp instead, each spell level it could just add 4 temp hp, meaning you keep the bonus ac for longer.
> 
> ...


*Aid:* It's definitely a nerf since it no longer stacks with temp HP, but it's much clearer how it functions now so I'm okay with that. My only issue with making it temp HP is that it now lost its ability to resuscitate multiple downed party members for a getaway. Hopefully they change that underlying rule and allow receiving temp HP at zero to let you regain consciousness.

*Banishment:* Being able to use it as a cheap way to escape an extraplanar adventure was definitely not intended, so I'm okay with this nerf.

*Barkskin*: Fine by me, it's considerably more useful now and opens up Wild Shape itself to have decent AC.

*Guidance:* Fine by me, the range requirement curtails the spammability. I think you're overstating how good this is in practice.

*Resistance:* Fine by me, it's worth taking now and the range requirement keeps it in check. Again, overstating how good this is.

*Spiritual Weapon:* Unless Spirit Guardians is getting some big nerfs I don't see anyone using this past low levels now.

*Prayer of Healing:* Fine by me. Even if you can't cover the whole party with it somehow, it's unlikely all of you will need a short rest anyway.




> *Spoiler: Core rules that I have opinions on*
> Show
> 
> Long rest: YES. THIS IS PERFECT. THIS IS PERFECTION. I WANT LONG REST TO WORK EXACTLY LIKE THIS. THIS CAN NOT BE IMPROVED UPON.
> 
> Study action: fine, but IMO DM should be allowed to say it takes more than an action when DM thinks its appropriate.
> 
> Influence: I like that is says it's not mind control. Sometimes players forget that rolling a 20 doesn't let you mind control NPCs.
> 
> ...


I agree static DC to hide makes no sense, especially 15! A max dex rogue with _expertise_ still fails nearly half the time! And Hidden should be relative to observing creatures, not universal.

Study taking multiple Actions is still possible, just have each one either point you to the others or reveal bits and pieces.

----------


## Aimeryan

> The player will always have some choice in how to flavor their abilities and which ones to use. But the system isn't doing anything to support you here. They made level 3 the new level 1 and decided actual levels 1 & 2 are only useful as tutorials.


I would not be surprised if that is actually what they are going for. It solves 1 level dips by making them 3 level dips. It solves the spikiness of HP at level 1 and 2. Many more enemies are added to the pool for starting characters and campaigns. Campaigns that go for 8 levels now end at early Tier 3. Players are more like adventurers at level 3 than they are at level 1, which instead feels more like playing an adolescent who got lost in the jungle.

I can see many reasons the default should be that players start at level 3, and if they make that official then it does solve a lot of problems - including the Cleric Level 1 not starting with Heavy Armour for the appropriate subclass choice.

----------


## Psyren

> Players are more like adventurers at level 3 than they are at level 1, which instead feels more like playing an adolescent who got lost in the jungle.


Eh, I'd gladly play an "adolescent" with spells, a feat, medium armor/shield, and a 2d8 radiant blast that doubles as a heal  :Small Tongue: 




> I can see many reasons the default should be that players start at level 3, and if they make that official then it does solve a lot of problems - including the Cleric Level 1 not starting with Heavy Armour for the appropriate subclass choice.


Making level 3 the default starting point would exacerbate every single problem they mentioned in the vlog though. You'd have 3 charlevels of spells to prepare, species, background, starting feat, equipment, proficiencies, whatever interim feature your class gets at 2, and then your subclass at 3.

----------


## Aimeryan

> Making level 3 the default starting point would exacerbate every single problem they mentioned in the vlog though. You'd have 3 charlevels of spells to prepare, species, background, starting feat, equipment, proficiencies, whatever interim feature your class gets at 2, and then your subclass at 3.


Agreed. However, it would seem easy enough for WotC to have starting at level 1 as a recommendation for new players to help ease decision paralysis, rather than going with the default level 3 start for experienced players.

A lot of the benefits of starting at level 3 from an experienced player's perspective wouldn't apply for new players. More enemies being added to the potential pool doesn't matter when you haven't seen any before. What level is reached by the end of the campaign is less likely to matter to someone who every level is new content. Being able to make a greater number of meaningful choices from the get go matter less when you don't know what does what. Maybe even character death matter less to new players; new players are less likely to be invested in a character they just created than a character an experienced player has spent a couple of weeks fleshing out (backstory included) before the campaign started.

----------


## Segev

> I cant speak for Psyren, but for me, its because that speaks more Cleric while Heavy Armor speaks more Paladin. I like that theres a difference besides full-caster vs Smite.
> 
> It approaches some of those discussions about why the Fighter and several other martial classes just do a whole lot of the same thing with little to set them apart.


Except that it's not "heavy armor for all clerics." It's a choice: you can pick heavy armor, more skills (and expertise in some?), or an extra cantrip and (if you go with my suggestion) early access to divine channeling as well as more of it when you get regular access.

So, if the "warrior" order speaks more to you of "paladin" than "cleric," I don't see how that is less of a problem when you get it at level 2 than level 1. The choice seemingly should be removed altogether if that objection is to be handled.

----------


## animorte

> So, if the "warrior" order speaks more to you of "paladin" than "cleric," I don't see how that is less of a problem when you get it at level 2 than level 1. The choice seemingly should be removed altogether if that objection is to be handled.


That is correct. Thats _personally_ how I feel, though I recognize Im in the minority and thats ok.

----------


## Psyren

> So, if the "warrior" order speaks more to you of "paladin" than "cleric," I don't see how that is less of a problem when you get it at level 2 than level 1. The choice seemingly should be removed altogether if that objection is to be handled.


From a strict balance standpoint I agree, it's not that big a problem, but _thematically_ it is quite weird that cleric is the only class in the entire game that you can dip a single level of to get heavy armor proficiency training. It implies that, say, becoming a Life cleric entails more martial training than even fighters and paladins get.

Personally I'd be fine with the proposed nerf to armor training whereby you can only cast spells from the class that grants it natively, along with some kind of feat tax to remove that restriction.

----------


## ZRN

> I don't think it's so odd that a cleric will grasp the basics as an acolyte or supplicant before being opened up to the full direction of their deity though. And you still get interesting choices to make at levels 1 and 2 even though subclass isn't one of them anymore.
> 
> Sorcerers and Warlocks are where I'm more skeptical however, those will necessitate a flavor shift I'm not completely on board with yet.


I generally agree. I'm still pretty... suspicious? of the fact that your deity doesn't impact your stats until level 3, because UNLIKE e.g. the difference between a noble-knight fighter and a mean-mercenary fighter, your deity is, in a lot of fantasy, supposed to be the immediate source of your magic. In at least my reading of the default 5e-or-earlier D&D cleric, you're basically a normal nonmagical guy with a good relationship with a god, and it's the god who does magic spells on your behalf.

The changes in this playtest introduce a slightly difference origin story for clerics: you first get access to the raw forces of divine magic with only limited ability to direct them, and with the guidance of your god/church/faith/etc. you learn to focus and direct that gift. At level 1 you can cure or wither with a glance, and depending on what faith you follow you'll later learn to emphasize different aspects of that power (e.g. a follower of Pelor might learn to hone his healing skills).

Honestly the latter story probably fits a lot better into the narrative of a typical D&D campaign, because it shifts the focus more on the character him/herself than on that character's relationship with an NPC god.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I generally agree. I'm still pretty... suspicious? of the fact that your deity doesn't impact your stats until level 3,


Like a paladin, whose oath doesn't impact their stats until level 3...

----------


## Segev

> From a strict balance standpoint I agree, it's not that big a problem, but _thematically_ it is quite weird that cleric is the only class in the entire game that you can dip a single level of to get heavy armor proficiency training. It implies that, say, becoming a Life cleric entails more martial training than even fighters and paladins get.
> 
> Personally I'd be fine with the proposed nerf to armor training whereby you can only cast spells from the class that grants it natively, along with some kind of feat tax to remove that restriction.


I'd personally be fine with Fighter and Paladin (and maybe others that grant heavy armor proficiency if taken as your sole/first class, but those definitely) granting heavy armor proficiency with a single level dip, too.

It's just an oddity of how they restrict things with multiclass rules that makes the fact that clerics get it from their subclass (or, in 5.1, their level 2 (or 1 if the swap is made) class feature choice) strangely better for multiclassing dips.

Alternatively, make the Warrior Order give you Medium armor and shield proficiency if you don't already have it, and heavy armor proficiency if you do. And then make Cleric give you MEdium armor and shield proficiency if it's your first class, or light armor proficiency only if it's a multiclass. If it's so important to keep heavy armor prof. from being a dippable acquisition.

----------


## Psyren

> Alternatively, make the Warrior Order give you Medium armor and shield proficiency if you don't already have it, and heavy armor proficiency if you do. And then make Cleric give you MEdium armor and shield proficiency if it's your first class, or light armor proficiency only if it's a multiclass. If it's so important to keep heavy armor prof. from being a dippable acquisition.


I think this is a great compromise honestly, cosigned

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I think this is a great compromise honestly, cosigned


I'd be fine with this. And generally, I'd like to see more "upgrade" features (get X, if you have X, you get Y better thing instead), especially for things like skill/tool proficiencies.

----------


## ZRN

> Like a paladin, whose oath doesn't impact their stats until level 3...


Most of the paladin orders are close enough thematically that this doesn't bug me as much - even Oathbreaker kind of works because it sort of implies you start as some kind of good paladin before breaking your oath.

----------


## ZRN

> Alternatively, make the Warrior Order give you Medium armor and shield proficiency if you don't already have it, and heavy armor proficiency if you do. And then make Cleric give you MEdium armor and shield proficiency if it's your first class, or light armor proficiency only if it's a multiclass. If it's so important to keep heavy armor prof. from being a dippable acquisition.


That's a lot of added complexity for... what? Denying people the option of getting 15+ strength instead of 16+ dex to have good AC? I don't think heavy armor prof is that big a deal mechanically.

----------


## Aimeryan

> Alternatively, make the Warrior Order give you Medium armor and shield proficiency if you don't already have it, and heavy armor proficiency if you do. And then make Cleric give you MEdium armor and shield proficiency if it's your first class, or light armor proficiency only if it's a multiclass. If it's so important to keep heavy armor prof. from being a dippable acquisition.


Seems pretty obvious in hindsight; not sure why that is not already the case. Guess they never thought of that? Hopefully someone can get the idea to WotC.

----------


## Segev

> Seems pretty obvious in hindsight; not sure why that is not already the case. Guess they never thought of that? Hopefully someone can get the idea to WotC.


Glad it seems like a good compromise. We can all put it in our surveys when it comes time for that. That said, one reason it might not be the case is:




> That's a lot of added complexity for... what? Denying people the option of getting 15+ strength instead of 16+ dex to have good AC? I don't think heavy armor prof is that big a deal mechanically.


...this. And I agree with ZRN. I actually don't think 1-level dips for heavy armor are a big deal. Heck, I would change multiclassing rules to allow heavy armor classes to give heavy armor prof. when multiclassed into. BUT, the more complex proposal, which several people have liked, is one I think works well enough if it truly is too big of an "ask" to give heavy armor to anybody who dips fighter or cleric or paladin.

So, IF 15+ strength on a wizard getting him heavy armor for a dip is that big of a deal, go with the "it upgrades your armor" and "clerics only get light armor from multiclassing" rule. If it's not, just make heavy armor dippable.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> That's a lot of added complexity for... what? Denying people the option of getting 15+ strength instead of 16+ dex to have good AC? I don't think heavy armor prof is that big a deal mechanically.


I think there's more potential benefit than just avoiding the one-level dip for heavy armor. If the armor section of the PHB included a table with the different armor training levels, and defined "upgrade" as moving to the next line on the table, then the term could be applied ubiquitously. The same could work for simple/martial weapons.  Holy Order could simply say "upgrade your armor training and weapon training." Instead of having two separate feats, they could have one feat for Armor Training that you can take multiple times to progress through the armor trainings.

----------


## sambojin

Yeah. It's not really heavy armour that is broken, it's the Shield spell that's the problem.

Boy, wouldn't some classes cry if it got changed to +proficiency AC....? Not really. It's still a pretty good spell, and it scales a bit. It just stops it being near immunity to attacks for a turn with a 1lvl HA dip alongside it. *Then* things like Shield of Faith seem pretty good as well, even with concentration required.

(Pass without Trace could afford to be 2xproficiency bonus as well. It's currently a bit too good at what it does. Or even 2xwismod bonus. Either one works, is fairly powerful, and scales a bit too.
Could do Shield as 2xcastermod as well, but it's a bit unfair on EKs/ATs/etc. Maybe 1+proficiency +AC? So +3 at lvl1, +4 at lvl5, +5 at lvl9, then it gets even better than original Shield. But it's usually not AC/HP damage that'll kill a caster by then anyway. Maybe still a bit too good. +profAC is fine.

I'd leave War's CD at +10to-hit strangely enough. Now there's a blast/ heal/ turn/ turn+damage option in CD, it really is a choice on what you'd use your option for. A nearly auto-hit, or something else?)

----------


## Psyren

> That's a lot of added complexity for... what? Denying people the option of getting 15+ strength instead of 16+ dex to have good AC? I don't think heavy armor prof is that big a deal mechanically.


They're allowed to want to prevent things that aren't a big deal _mechanically_ for _thematic_ reasons too. Dipping cleric for heavy armor training when not even martial classes can grant it is one such theme.




> Yeah. It's not really heavy armour that is broken, it's the Shield spell that's the problem.
> 
> Boy, wouldn't some classes cry if it got changed to +proficiency AC....? Not really. It's still a pretty good spell, and it scales a bit. It just stops it being near immunity to attacks for a turn with a 1lvl HA dip alongside it. *Then* things like Shield of Faith seem pretty good as well, even with concentration required.


I fully expect Shield to eat a nerf between now and 2024. We're unlikely to know until the Mage UA however.

----------


## sambojin

I'm also wondering on encounter design in 1dnd. It used to be "everything over 60' movement starts to become niche". Or "kiting is hard'ish to do". But now we've got:

Everyone having at least 30' movement.
Wood elves with 35' movement and Longstrider.
High elves with Misty Step.
Goliaths with 35'/45' large movement (and Cloud pseudo-misty step).
Ardlings with climb speeds or +profx10' dashes.

Alongside any other jank or difficult terrain removing abilities in sub/classes. Does it hint at a more open/ kite heavy environment? Or even 3d depth to consider in campaigns? Or just "dungeons/ building/ room size will limit that, but outside them it might/ will really matter"?

(Just wondering because original UA stuff tends to also portray at least a bit of core-gameplay design philosophy. Sort of like how 5e wasn't like the Next tests, but it was pretty close. Maybe Jumping is an action for a reason, because otherwise it would all be kiting/shooting rooftop shenanigans)

----------


## Pex

> I'd personally be fine with Fighter and Paladin (and maybe others that grant heavy armor proficiency if taken as your sole/first class, but those definitely) granting heavy armor proficiency with a single level dip, too.
> 
> It's just an oddity of how they restrict things with multiclass rules that makes the fact that clerics get it from their subclass (or, in 5.1, their level 2 (or 1 if the swap is made) class feature choice) strangely better for multiclassing dips.
> 
> Alternatively, make the Warrior Order give you Medium armor and shield proficiency if you don't already have it, and heavy armor proficiency if you do. And then make Cleric give you MEdium armor and shield proficiency if it's your first class, or light armor proficiency only if it's a multiclass. If it's so important to keep heavy armor prof. from being a dippable acquisition.





> I think this is a great compromise honestly, cosigned





> I'd be fine with this. And generally, I'd like to see more "upgrade" features (get X, if you have X, you get Y better thing instead), especially for things like skill/tool proficiencies.


We need to stop agreeing on solutions. People are looking at us funny now.

----------


## Kane0

Aw man, didn't I already propose that?

----------


## sambojin

Mine above? Yeah, I think so. Someone did. Just took a few days for it to seep in to it being an actually good idea.

----------


## Psyren

> I'm also wondering on encounter design in 1dnd. It used to be "everything over 60' movement starts to become niche". Or "kiting is hard'ish to do". But now we've got:
> 
> Everyone having at least 30' movement.
> Wood elves with 35' movement and Longstrider.
> High elves with Misty Step.
> Goliaths with 35'/45' large movement (and Cloud pseudo-misty step).
> Ardlings with climb speeds or +profx10' dashes.
> 
> Alongside any other jank or difficult terrain removing abilities in sub/classes. Does it hint at a more open/ kite heavy environment? Or even 3d depth to consider in campaigns? Or just "dungeons/ building/ room size will limit that, but outside them it might/ will really matter"?
> ...


Don't forget Orcs who can double-Dash, and Dragonborn getting straight-up flight, also being core.

I agree this appears to be a deliberate design shift for 1DnD. If I had to guess at reasons, I'd land on two:

1) Increasing low-level survivability seems to be a big focus for them - see also them fiddling with things like the monster crit rule, and recommending feats like Tough for people who don't know what else to pick as their starter. They might have data somewhere that says that a high cause for new groups bouncing off D&D is getting downed or TPK during an early/unlucky combat session. They want to preserve the sense of danger - otherwise they would just give us all more HP and call it a day - but more speed/mobility means more get-out-of-trouble cards, as well as more reposition-to-safety-then-attack ones.

2) They want low-level characters to feel more heroic. Movement is an easy way to enable that - when you're quite literally running rings around a goblin, or able to quickly get between some bandits and some commoners, your character feels more like they're saving the day / superhuman.

----------


## sambojin

True. In some ways, I kinda like it.

----------


## Tanarii

> I'd personally be fine with Fighter and Paladin (and maybe others that grant heavy armor proficiency if taken as your sole/first class, but those definitely) granting heavy armor proficiency with a single level dip, too.


This doesn't fix the problem.




> Alternatively, make the Warrior Order give you Medium armor and shield proficiency if you don't already have it, and heavy armor proficiency if you do. And then make Cleric give you MEdium armor and shield proficiency if it's your first class, or light armor proficiency only if it's a multiclass. If it's so important to keep heavy armor prof. from being a dippable acquisition.


Also does not fix the problem.

The problem is that for 1 level of a class, you get several ASI/Feats worth of stuff: an armor prof upgrade of (even with the 'fix' you propose) at least 1 bump up, usually a weapons upgrade, as well as a number of class features.

Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken as long as you get level 1 features AND proficiencies of some kind.

----------


## animorte

> This doesn't fix the problem.
> 
> Also does not fix the problem.


They should bump the multi-class requirement up to 14 in relevant stat.

Which still doesnt address this:



> Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken as long as you get level 1 features AND proficiencies of some kind.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

I'll simplify that quote to say how _I_ feel--




> Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken[...].


Period. Level-by-level multiclassing and a class/level game don't go together well. It will always be a compromised mess. If it's not too strong it will be uselessly weak.

Now some may accept that. And that's their right. But I don't happen to like it, personally.

----------


## Psyren

> Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken as long as you get level 1 features AND proficiencies of some kind.


Again, it's not "broken." Just athematic. The current 5e cleric granting Heavy at 1 wasn't making the sky careen to earth, they'd just rather not keep doing that. That's the "problem."




> I'll simplify that quote to say how _I_ feel--
> 
> 
> 
> Period. Level-by-level multiclassing and a class/level game don't go together well. It will always be a compromised mess. If it's not too strong it will be uselessly weak.
> 
> Now some may accept that. And that's their right. But I don't happen to like it, personally.


To paraphrase Winston Churchill - "level-by-level is the worst form of multiclassing, except for all the others."

----------


## Segev

> This doesn't fix the problem.
> 
> 
> Also does not fix the problem.
> 
> The problem is that for 1 level of a class, you get several ASI/Feats worth of stuff: an armor prof upgrade of (even with the 'fix' you propose) at least 1 bump up, usually a weapons upgrade, as well as a number of class features.
> 
> Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken as long as you get level 1 features AND proficiencies of some kind.


I honestly don't see it as a problem big enough to worry about. The price of multiclassing is always high enough that it just doesn't make for overpowered characters.

"You get too much!" Ignores what you lose, and that loss is as much in the forever-delayed access to abilities and features meant for lower levels than you will now get them. It's not so bad that it is not worth it, necessarily,  but it is bad enough to be a cost one must consider and sometimes reject.

I am playing a druid in a game right now. The DM's extremely generous house rules allow full respecs until level 5. We just hit level 4. My concept is very rogue-y, but due to party composition andre way I wanted to approach the concept, he is a straight Druid 3. I have been seriously considering respecting so his first level is Rogue, for the much better skill proficiencies and the Expertise in two skills. The sneak attack even goes well with his preferred poisoned dagger approach to combat. But the delay on things he would have from delaying druid has me deciding that I am probably better off sticking with straight druid.

It isn't a sure thing, though. I am torn on it. And Rogue as level one is so, so much better than multiclassing into it later. 

So I think it is probably fine, in terms of what you get vs. what you pay in opportunity costs by dipping even one level.

----------


## Sorinth

If the concern really is 1 level dip, then one potential solution is just to increase the penalties when not meeting the Strength Requirement. If in addition to the movement penalty you had disadvantage on initiative checks, or couldn't use your reaction that would probably stop dipping Cleric for HA in it's tracks. But it would still allow for the front-line Cleric build since they would want to meet there STR requirement anyways.

----------


## Melil12

Anyone thought about how changing the level structure affects backwards compatibility? For subclasses that wont be redone for one dnd.

If you want say a Peace Domain cleric  how does that fit into this new One dnd format as backwards compatible? Do you then have to use the 5E cleric? Or just wait till they remake the Subclass?

----------


## Segev

> Anyone thought about how changing the level structure affects backwards compatibility? For subclasses that wont be redone for one dnd.
> 
> If you want say a Peace Domain cleric  how does that fit into this new One dnd format as backwards compatible? Do you then have to use the 5E cleric? Or just wait till they remake the Subclass?


Either use the 5.0 Cleric or wait for the subclass, probably. That's kind-of how it worked in 3.5: where backwards compatibility meant some class feature or choice wasn't viable, you either used the 3.0 version or you made due with what 3.5 gave you.

Note that there's a mix of things that go into "updating" to 5.1: you can easily use the 5.1 spells with 5.0 classes, for example. Or vice-versa.

I will probably try to encourage DMs to use 5.0 Keen Mind as an option, if 5.1 keeps the gutted version that was printed in the previous UA, for example.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Yeah. It's not really heavy armour that is broken, it's the Shield spell that's the problem.


 +3 rather than +5 then?  (I like the proficiency idea, but that scales up rather largely in late game ... but when a CR 19 monster with a 29 STR has +15 to hit, is shield really that much of a problem, presuming Heavy Armor on Wizards/Full casters is gone?)  
Just make a rule: Arcane Caster classes cannot wear heavy armor (or metal armor) because it interferes with (something). 
Rune Knights and EK's are an exception...for "reasons to be determined". 
Divine casters can.  
Also: if they get rid of War Domain cleric I'd be perfectly happy. 



> They're allowed to want to prevent things that aren't a big deal _mechanically_ for _thematic_ reasons too. Dipping cleric for heavy armor training when not even martial classes can grant it is one such theme.


 Yeah. But the whole "feel" argument gets turned over with their inane ardling gambit.   :Small Yuk:  
OK, here goes my rant: make Genasi Core, darnit!   :Small Furious: 



> I'm also wondering on encounter design in 1dnd.


 We have time to discover that. Even in straight 5e it's a bit of a moving target. 



> We need to stop agreeing on solutions. People are looking at us funny now.


 I'll cast fog cloud, so that can't see us doing that!   :Small Smile: 



> 1)They might have data somewhere that says that a high cause for new groups bouncing off D&D is getting downed or TPK during an early/unlucky combat session.


Rant not indluged in. 



> 2) They want low-level characters to feel more heroic. Movement is an easy way to enable that - when you're quite literally running rings around a goblin, or able to quickly get between some bandits and some commoners, your character feels more like they're saving the day / superhuman.


 They need to read their own manual again.  



> In the first tier (levels 14), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers. They are learning the features that define them as members of particular classes, including the major choices that flavor their class features as they advance (such as a wizards Arcane Tradition or a fighters Martial Archetype). The threats they face are relatively minor, usually posing a danger to local farmsteads or villages.





> To paraphrase Winston Churchill - "level-by-level is the worst form of multiclassing, except for all the others."


 There are a number of class restrictions in MC as is that can be tweaked to ensure that the one level dip exacts a higher cost ...

----------


## Segev

> There are a number of class restrictions in MC as is that can be tweaked to ensure that the one level dip exacts a higher cost ...


I'm not sure it really needs to. The more this topic is discussed, the more I think the anti-MC position is motivated by being anti-MC rather than concern that MC is overpowered. I could be wrong, but it just seems to me that the premise for "we need to make MC less attractive" is often an unexamined assumption that MC is something to discourage.

If Multiclassing is to be discouraged, it should simply be banned. That can be done at a table level; it need not be baked into the rules for everybody playing the game. "But having to balance the game for MC makes game design harder!" Sure, and valid concern. But I don't think it makes it sufficiently harder that you should be bothered by discussion of it. 

Generally speaking, the tools for balancing against making MC overpowered compared to staying in a single class amount to this: keep the single class interesting at every level, so every delayed level is an opportunity cost felt by the player.

The big "but it's so overpowered" things tend to be things like this thread's discussion: "I don't want a 1-level dip to give wizards heavy armor." But in the scheme of things, is a wizard delaying his access to higher-level spells by a level REALLY a negligible cost? Because that's how the "we can't let them 1-level dip for heavy armor!" argument seems to treat it. It almost seems like the opportunity cost of dipping is forgotten entirely, and treated as if the wizard gets to have the 1 level dip AND be a full wizard at the same time.

Again, I have what I consider a strong level 1 dip into cleric in a game I'm in right now. I took it at level 1 for character reasons on both the mechanical and "his path through life" side: he's a Knowledge Cleric raised in a temple orphanage who veered off into wizardry after absorbing enough training to be a cleric 1. So his first level, even, is cleric; an equivalent "Fighter 1/Wizard X" would not have his level 1 dip into Fighter be denied heavy armor proficiency, either. (I actually don't have heavy armor proficiency with this dip, due to Knowledge cleric, but if I did, it still wouldn't be a big deal: dex is a better secondary stat for me than strength would've been.)

With this dip, I consistently feel the pinch every odd level when I am a spell level behind. A couple of custom spells help as a work-around, to a degree - If you've read my thread on _shadow evocation_, you'll see why - but even so, it is a sting. Enough of one that the option to go full wizard in a respec would not be something I would reject out of hand; I'd have to think about it. I probably wouldn't take it because of those aforementioned flavor reasons; this build makes sense for this character. But it'd be tempting, nonetheless. And I think that shows that the wizard, at least, is well-designed in terms of its progression-attractiveness. 

I'm feeling similarly about the option to take Rogue retroactively at level 1 with a third level druid I'm leveling up to 4th. In this case, despite the very tempting expertise and more skills and the fact that this character doesn't use damage cantrips but instead poisoned daggers, I am likely to just stick with druid for exactly the reason that levels 4 and 5 are painful to delay.


And, in the case of heavy armor: it's a very baked-in build choice. It isn't something you just "pick up" casually as a natural upgrade to medium armor. You need to have a strength of 15 or higher, and NOT to have a dexterity of 14 or higher, for it to really be worth it. The aesthetics are a bigger deal than the mechanics, honestly, and while I am all for thematic enforcement with mechanics, any "wizard type" who builds for heavy armor is deliberately going for the counter-theme aesthetic. And I think we should let him; it is hard enough to do, and encourages a different enough kind of character in terms of skills and approach to non-magic things, that it's simply not a problem.

It certainly isn't worse than a wizard with medium armor. And I don't see people bending into pretzels in apoplectic horror at the concept that they might dip Cleric or Fighter for that.

----------


## Melil12

> And, in the case of heavy armor: it's a very baked-in build choice. It isn't something you just "pick up" casually as a natural upgrade to medium armor. You need to have a strength of 15 or higher, and NOT to have a dexterity of 14 or higher, for it to really be worth it. The aesthetics are a bigger deal than the mechanics, honestly, and while I am all for thematic enforcement with mechanics, any "wizard type" who builds for heavy armor is deliberately going for the counter-theme aesthetic. And I think we should let him; it is hard enough to do, and encourages a different enough kind of character in terms of skills and approach to non-magic things, that it's simply not a problem.
> 
> It certainly isn't worse than a wizard with medium armor. And I don't see people bending into pretzels in apoplectic horror at the concept that they might dip Cleric or Fighter for that.


Pretty much agree with this. 

Heavy armor existing was never an issue, even if a caster spent feats or level dipped to get it. It still requires them to invest their resources to make it effective. 

The real issue has always been the ways casters can stack AC and the shield spells interactions. Often times resulting in wizards trumping Martials in AC.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> The real issue has always been the ways casters can stack AC and the shield spells interactions. Often times resulting in wizards trumping Martials in AC.


Sounds like we have an easy fix. Put a restriction on the Shield spell that says you cannot cast it while wearing heavy armor.

----------


## Aquillion

> Sounds like we have an easy fix. Put a restriction on the Shield spell that says you cannot cast it while wearing heavy armor.


Or make Shield raise your AC _to_ a specific value instead of _by_ a specific value, which solves the problem at the root.

...hrm.  The problem, though, is that certain gish classes are supposed to be able to benefit from that Shield interaction (it's a major feature for Eldritch Knights in particular.)  Perhaps Eldritch Knights could just get a feature that makes Shield stronger for them, same as with Arcane Tricksters and Mage Hand.

----------


## Xihirli

Or medium armor / shields.
Thats more common with wizards anyway, to avoid the speed penalty.

----------


## Psyren

> Yeah. But the whole "feel" argument gets turned over with their inane ardling gambit.


Rant not indulged in  :Small Tongue: 




> They need to read their own manual again.


You mean the DMG?

_"Even 1st-level characters are heroes, set apart from the common people by natural characteristics, learned skills, and the hint of a greater destiny that lies before them."_





> Anyone thought about how changing the level structure affects backwards compatibility? For subclasses that wont be redone for one dnd.
> 
> If you want say a Peace Domain cleric  how does that fit into this new One dnd format as backwards compatible? Do you then have to use the 5E cleric? Or just wait till they remake the Subclass?


Looking at both versions of the Life Cleric, it looks like they've nerfed the domain-specific channel divinity feature  (Preserve Life in Life's case) by pushing it back to 6th. This is likely to counterbalance the buff CD received at 1 via Divine Spark. The 6th level feature then got pushed back to 10. However, the "subcaspstone" got pulled down from 17th to 14th, meaning it will see play at a lot more tables.

Extrapolating from this to Peace we would get:

*3: Domain spells, Emboldening Bond.* (Implement of Peace would probably be removed as it's redundant with Holy Order.)

*6: Balm of Peace*

*10: Protective Bond* (NB: Potent Spellcasting removed as Blessed Strikes is now baseline.)

*14: Expansive Bond*

You'll want to look at the channel divinity and 10th (formerly 6th) level features to make sure they are powerful enough for their new level but other than that it's pretty compatible.

----------


## stoutstien

> Or make Shield raise your AC _to_ a specific value instead of _by_ a specific value, which solves the problem at the root.
> 
> ...hrm.  The problem, though, is that certain gish classes are supposed to be able to benefit from that Shield interaction (it's a major feature for Eldritch Knights in particular.)  Perhaps Eldritch Knights could just get a feature that makes Shield stronger for them, same as with Arcane Tricksters and Mage Hand.


Best bet is just give them a feature that does what you want it to do and cut out the noise trying to get anything that deals with spells to work properly.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Best bet is just give them a feature that does what you want it to do and cut out the noise trying to get anything that deals with spells to work properly.


Yeah. Making everything a spell (or any other "reusable by many classes" thing like feats) comes with costs. One of them is that you can't fine-tune it. Which leads to either homogenization (to avoid the need to fine tune anything) and/or jank/distorted incentives (in either direction).

----------


## Segev

> Pretty much agree with this. 
> 
> Heavy armor existing was never an issue, even if a caster spent feats or level dipped to get it. It still requires them to invest their resources to make it effective. 
> 
> The real issue has always been the ways casters can stack AC and the shield spells interactions. Often times resulting in wizards trumping Martials in AC.


And as you say, Medium armor is as much an issue with this as Heavy. (Or as little an issue, as the case may be.)

Frankly, I'd rather see martials get class features that enable spiking their AC against certain blows, rather than see wizards lose _shield_ or have it become even more niche than it already is.

I am playing a wizard right now, but the number of times _shield_ has made a difference is... 2, I think, in almost a year of play. If I'm getting hit, it's either a natural 20, or by so much more than my AC that a +5 is meaningless. Maybe this is just luck/vagaries of dice rolling, but even when I'm pseudo-tanking by using stacked AC and the dodge action to play wacky-wavey-armed-inflatable-tube-man in front of enemies with a fortuitously-chosen set of defenses, I get hit more than once per combat and I cast _shield_ less than once per combat. And I do cast _shield_ every time it would help. (The DM rolls his attack rolls in the open and tells us what he got.)

----------


## animorte

> Looking at both versions of the Life Cleric


I made absolutely sure to do this when writing  my review.




> Extrapolating from this to Peace we would get:
> 
> You'll want to look at the channel divinity and 10th (formerly 6th) level features to make sure they are powerful enough for their new level but other than that it's pretty compatible.


I certainly hope so.




> Frankly, I'd rather see martials get class features that enable spiking their AC against certain blows, rather than see wizards lose _shield_ or have it become even more niche than it already is.


Parry as a reaction (not the maneuver).

----------


## Tanarii

> But in the scheme of things, is a wizard delaying his access to higher-level spells by a level REALLY a negligible cost?


For medium or heavy armor and a shield, especially if it's Cleric so you get the spell slots accesss anyway?  Yes, yes it is.

----------


## Segev

> For medium or heavy armor and a shield, especially if it's Cleric so you get the spell slots accesss anyway?  Yes, yes it is.


We disagree, then. The delay on higher level spells is a non-negligible cost I feel at least every odd level.

----------


## animorte

> For medium or heavy armor and a shield, especially if it's Cleric so you get the spell slots accesss anyway?  Yes, yes it is.





> We disagree, then. The delay on higher level spells is a non-negligible cost I feel at least every odd level.


It depends on the cool features Im getting from a dip. Just for armor? Absolutely not. If I dip, its going to be for some interesting flavor, a thematic inclusion to what Im going for.

Yes, I feel when somebody else gets that higher level spell slot available, but I still have fun and have never struggled to keep up.

----------


## ZRN

> The problem is that for 1 level of a class, you get several ASI/Feats worth of stuff: an armor prof upgrade of (even with the 'fix' you propose) at least 1 bump up, usually a weapons upgrade, as well as a number of class features.
> 
> Level by level Multiclassing will never not be broken as long as you get level 1 features AND proficiencies of some kind.


Here's the thing: on balance, heavy armor isn't actually a strict "upgrade" from medium armor. Heavy armor gives you disadvantage on stealth and it requires a minimum strength score. And obviously medium armor is only an upgrade from light if you have <16 Dex.

Armor proficiencies/"training" don't generally increase your overall power level - they define the thematic possibilities for your character.

----------


## Segev

> It depends on the cool features Im getting from a dip. Just for armor? Absolutely not. If I dip, its going to be for some interesting flavor, a thematic inclusion to what Im going for.
> 
> Yes, I feel when somebody else gets that higher level spell slot available, but I still have fun and have never struggled to keep up.


I didn't say I don't have fun. I said I feel the pinch. If the criterion for whether multiclassing is "too good" is "can you still have fun while multiclassing? Then it's too good!" then you're really just saying, "I don't want multiclassing to be allowed, and nobody who is doing it should be allowed to enjoy their character." The criterion for it should be whether the opportunity cost is felt; it is too good if you can multiclass and feel you lost nothing, and are strictly superior to single-classing. 

I think we're actually in about the right place, though, where multiclassing is just good enough. And, if there's any flaw, it lies in the higher-level class features being too sparse or too weak.

----------


## OvisCaedo

There might be a couple individual cases where there are some multiclassing concerns for me, but... I'm not sure anything really springs to mind for me besides Hexblade being REALLY overloaded. And it's kind of a pretty silly subclass on its own even before multiclassing concerns.

----------


## Tanarii

> It depends on the cool features Im getting from a dip. Just for armor? Absolutely not.


The +6 AC or more is well worth it.  Especially when paired with either keeping up with slot progression (Cleric) or getting Con saves (Fighter).

----------


## animorte

> The criterion for it should be whether the opportunity cost is felt; it is too good if you can multiclass and feel you lost nothing, and are strictly superior to single-classing.


Correct.




> I think we're actually in about the right place, though, where multiclassing is just good enough. And, if there's any flaw, it lies in the higher-level class features being too sparse or too weak.


This is probably true. That and some classes being front-loaded.




> The +6 AC or more is well worth it.  Especially when paired with either keeping up with slot progression (Cleric) or getting Con saves (Fighter).


It speaks volumes that its more valuable to drop a level, doesnt it?

The solution still lies mostly within fixing multi-classing altogether. One of my ideas is a minimum of 14 (or maybe even 15) in prerequisite stat.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Correct.
> 
> This is probably true. That and some classes being front-loaded.
> 
> 
> It speaks volumes that its more valuable to drop a level, doesnt it?
> 
> The solution still lies mostly within fixing multi-classing altogether. One of my ideas is a minimum of 14 (or maybe even 15) in prerequisite stat.


IMO, classes _should_ be front-loaded. Because you want to be up and going, to have all your base tools to make your character actually work early on. Especially since the distribution of play-time is heavily front-loaded.

This is in inherent tension with level-by-level multiclassing. Thankfully, that latter is a variant option. Which automatically means that it loses any priority games and should be fixed to make it not care about front-loading. This may involve making it not level-by-level (or at least not _full_  level-by-level), such as each class spelling out exactly what features you gain when if you multiclass into it. Which should be a strongly restricted subset of all the features.

IMO, multiclassing should always come out second class in any power comparison. Taking the next level of your original class should always produce a (vertically) stronger character than branching out, but branching out should be a source of horizontal growth, which some people might weight as more important for them.

----------


## Segev

> It speaks volumes that its more valuable to drop a level, doesnt it?


+6 to AC? If they already have a 15 to put into their choice of Strength or Dexterity, _mage armor_ gets them to AC 15. Light armor to 14, and medium to 16. 18 with a shield. (Assuming the 15 is in Dex.) If they put that 15 into Strength, they do get to 16 AC, 18 with a shield, pretty easily...for values of "easily" that involve spending more gold on armor than the medium alternatives. 

The only way it's a +6 is if you consider that they WILL have 15 in Strength...as a caster...and NOT a commensurate Dexterity. At which point they've made a deliberate build choice that actually costs them a more-commonly-called-upon save, as well as initiative and stealth checks in favor of things that typically aren't easily mixed with a caster's normal playstyle. And if they do make it work, great, but they're no more powerful than the guy with 15 Dexterity and Medium Armor, and even not much better-off than the guy with _mage armor_.

So, no, it doesn't "speak volumes" because it isn't "more valuable" to "drop a level" on +6 AC, since that...doesn't happen. It's +2 AC at most, comparing actual build to actual build.




> The solution still lies mostly within fixing multi-classing altogether. One of my ideas is a minimum of 14 (or maybe even 15) in prerequisite stat.


I don't see how that helps. Especially since we're talking about dipping cleric as being this woebegone problem.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> And it's kind of a pretty silly subclass on its own even before multiclassing concerns.


 Right you are. 

I am looking forward to the Warlock UA for D&Done to see what tweaks they intend to make.

----------


## Kane0

Just thought i'd reiterate and refine some of my thoughts over the last few pages of discussion.




> Nah make it a blanket rule. If you already have a proficiency, fighting style, spell, feat, boon, etc and later gain the same though some means like a class feature or DM benny, pick another instead.





> Level 1: Choose Race, Class, Feat
> Level 2: Choose Order
> Level 3: Choose Domain
> Level 4: Choose Feat
> 
> Seems an alright spread to me. If Heavy Armor at level 2 annoys people, then change the Protector Order.
> 
> Edit: the same goes for the other options of order, and the 9th level retread. The concept is solid, but it definitely needs polish.





> Yes the problem is 'your choices at level 2 dont mesh with your choices at level 1'. If the skill option cant be double-prof (silly class groupings), then double-stat is fine as long as you make allowances for people that have already picked those skills. The same goes for the armor option, and even the casting option if it were to give you say a cantrip that you already chose at level 1 for example.





> Protector: Gain proficiency in martial weapons and heavy armor, or your choice of the defense or protection fighting style
> 
> Scholar: Choose two skills from the cleric list that you are proficient in. Add +Wis to those skills (or expertise of its already a Wis skill)
> 
> Thaumaturge: Add your Wis modifier to the damage of your Divine cantrips, plus gain the Thaumaturgy cantrip or another Divine cantrip if you already have it.
> 
> Default rule: any class feature that is usable prof times per long rest also regains one use per short rest


On multiclassing and AC from shield.



> Cleric is a Wis class though, not many wizards are going to be springing for it, and you make yourself MAD by doing so especially if you want it for the heavy armor (str for armor, con for HP and concentration, wis for MCing, int for wizarding).
> Druids already get most of the same armor profs and are limited by metal, rangers also get most of the same profs but potentially could go with STR builds if they arent archers, and monks definitely wont be in it for the armor.
> 
> Oh and make shield (the spell) not stack with shields (the item) nor shield of faith. Just reword the spells so they magically generate a +3 and +0 shield for you respectively for their durations, that dont need you to hold while it lasts.

----------


## animorte

> IMO, classes _should_ be front-loaded. Because you want to be up and going, to have all your base tools to make your character actually work early on. Especially since the distribution of play-time is heavily front-loaded.


I believe the distribution of play-time correlates with the nature of the classes, not the other way around. The more evenly spread class features are, were likely to see a wider range of levels.




> This is in inherent tension with level-by-level multiclassing. Thankfully, that latter is a variant option. Which automatically means that it loses any priority games and should be fixed to make it not care about front-loading. This may involve making it not level-by-level (or at least not _full_  level-by-level), such as each class spelling out exactly what features you gain when if you multiclass into it. Which should be a strongly restricted subset of all the features.


I would actually be quite satisfied with this, though the amount of work going into it would require essentially summarizing each base class and subclass. As has been clearly stated several times, multi-class rules are not particularly high on the list of priorities, so I doubt well see this. Cool idea though.




> IMO, multiclassing should always come out second class in any power comparison. Taking the next level of your original class should always produce a (vertically) stronger character than branching out, but branching out should be a source of horizontal growth, which some people might weight as more important for them.


Nicely put. Though I admit I dont know how exactly that would be easily differentiated, aside from just increasing numbers.




> So, no, it doesn't "speak volumes" because it isn't "more valuable" to "drop a level" on +6 AC, since that...doesn't happen. It's +2 AC at most, comparing actual build to actual build.


Thank you for taking the time to go over that. I also recognize its not all that spectacular, which is why I keep bringing up how little it really matters to me. There are, of course, other features to take into account, but the point still stands.




> I don't see how that helps. Especially since we're talking about dipping cleric as being this woebegone problem.


I think it does help overall as the concept of dipping for armor (and many other features) is easily attributed to more classes than just Cleric.




> I am looking forward to the Warlock UA for D&Done to see what tweaks they intend to make.


Yes, I cant wait to see what theyve done with my favorite class!


Some of this (somehow) just reminded me of an idea on a recent thread about being limited to one subclass, except I have a slight modification to it. What if, through multi-classing, you can choose a subclass, but once you do, you cant benefit from any other subclass. Even if you want to go Cleric 3/Fighter 17 and you chose your Cleric subclass at 3 before multi-classing into Fighter, you would never get Fighter subclass. Base class features would continue to be gained as normal.

Shorthand: Subclass features are acquired at character level, not class level (just like proficiency bonus).

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Yes, I cant wait to see what theyve done with my favorite class!


 And I hope they don't screw it up.  :Small Annoyed:

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I believe the distribution of play-time correlates with the nature of the classes, not the other way around. The more evenly spread class features are, were likely to see a wider range of levels.


That doesn't track my experience. Most games don't fall apart because of anything mechanical, but just because of attrition, scheduling, real life, story-telling, and other concerns that scale worse-than-linear with campaign duration. And starting at higher levels just is not the same as starting lower (it radically changes the build-time incentives and constraints).

There's always going to be a downward-sloping play-time distribution. The details may change, but that's a constant across all media that have the notion of "play time".

----------


## Psyren

Druid and Paladin are next, plus we're owed new versions of the Experts after their survey analysis, so Warlock won't be for a while. I'd predict no Mages until at least March.




> Some of this (somehow) just reminded me of an idea on a recent thread about being limited to one subclass, except I have a slight modification to it. What if, through multi-classing, you can choose a subclass, but once you do, you cant benefit from any other subclass. Even if you want to go Cleric 3/Fighter 17 and you chose your Cleric subclass at 3 before multi-classing into Fighter, you would never get Fighter subclass. Base class features would continue to be gained as normal.


That would kill a lot of multiclass builds while doing absolutely nothing to dips, the thing they appear to be most interested in adjusting.

----------


## Melil12

Sorry everyone was discussing things and I was too busy working lol.

The shield spell itself has to change  ether lower or scale the AC bonus or require a free hand to cast it. (A standard +3 but requires a free hand or scaling with a rider  like it breaks your concentration.)

Maybe require a feat to cast spells in armor if that class or sub class didnt give you armor proficiency. So wizard 1/ cleric 1 can cast cleric spells in armor but not wizard  unless they spend a feat. (This may be a bit harsh to my armored wizard fans, I would invite your own perspective on that.)

Martials need a buff  I reserve this till I see the warrior group and their weapon abilities.

----------


## animorte

> That doesn't track my experience. Most games don't fall apart because of anything mechanical, but just because of attrition, scheduling, real life, story-telling, and other concerns that scale worse-than-linear with campaign duration. And starting at higher levels just is not the same as starting lower (it radically changes the build-time incentives and constraints).
> 
> There's always going to be a downward-sloping play-time distribution. The details may change, but that's a constant across all media that have the notion of "play time".


In my experience, thats exactly the same. But as that is a notion we can neither accurately measure nor account for, the few times that mechanical _dead zones_ would contribute to that can still be addressed.

----------


## animorte

> Druid and Paladin are next, plus we're owed new versions of the Experts after their survey analysis, so Warlock won't be for a while. I'd predict no Mages until at least March.


Also expecting this.




> That would kill a lot of multiclass builds while doing absolutely nothing to dips, the thing they appear to be most interested in adjusting.


True. Thats a sacrifice Im willing to make.  :Small Tongue: 




> Martials need a buff  I reserve this till I see the warrior group and their weapon abilities.


Agreed. I would be fine with some combination of any of those alterations, honestly.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> In my experience, thats exactly the same. But as that is a notion we can neither accurately measure nor account for, the few times that mechanical _dead zones_ would contribute to that can still be addressed.


But at what cost? If classes _aren't_ front-loaded, you've got two choices
1) insane (to me) scaling. Those first few levels _have_ to be relatively fast, since you have to go from nothing to a fully functioning character in only a small fraction of the level range. Which means that if you project that rate upward and increase it (like you have to in order to make the end levels worth more than the beginning ones0, you're way past even the dreams of high-power fanatics (relative to where it is now). And you might as well play an entirely different game--the structures we have now just don't work for that.
2) force people to wait a lot longer for builds to come online. Which affects a lot more games than late-game dead levels, since way more are just naturally going to play the early game. IMO, slow starts are way worse for player retention than slower ends.

Personally, I think a concave down power curve is healthiest. Start strong, go gangbusters the first few levels. Then reach a more stable rate of growth, one that can even slow down over time. So the difference from 1-5 is way smaller than from 15-20, more horizontal growth and filling out the body, not cancerous exponential growth. It's like a person--they grow really fast in the early years (up through adolescence). And then things stabilize. You still grow over time, just a lot slower. Mostly, in late adolescence, you're just filling out and growing into yourself. That's the natural path IMO.

----------


## Kane0

> Mostly, in late adolescence, you're just filling out


Aint that the truth

----------


## animorte

> But at what cost? If classes _aren't_ front-loaded, you've got two choices
> 1) insane (to me) scaling. Those first few levels _have_ to be relatively fast, since you have to go from nothing to a fully functioning character in only a small fraction of the level range. Which means that if you project that rate upward and increase it (like you have to in order to make the end levels worth more than the beginning ones0, you're way past even the dreams of high-power fanatics (relative to where it is now). And you might as well play an entirely different game--the structures we have now just don't work for that.
> 2) force people to wait a lot longer for builds to come online. Which affects a lot more games than late-game dead levels, since way more are just naturally going to play the early game. IMO, slow starts are way worse for player retention than slower ends.
> 
> Personally, I think a concave down power curve is healthiest. Start strong, go gangbusters the first few levels. Then reach a more stable rate of growth, one that can even slow down over time. So the difference from 1-5 is way smaller than from 15-20, more horizontal growth and filling out the body, not cancerous exponential growth. It's like a person--they grow really fast in the early years (up through adolescence). And then things stabilize. You still grow over time, just a lot slower. Mostly, in late adolescence, you're just filling out and growing into yourself. That's the natural path IMO.


_*rubs hands together*_

I mostly agree. You should learn things quicker and get to a solid point of fully functioning before leveling out. It should maintain a horizontal level of progression, at minimum, as weve also been discussing over in another thread how often just multi-class can be better than higher level single class options. As it stands currently, many later levels often _arent_ worth more than the beginning ones.

I think the standard progression with subclass at 3rd level and then 6th level is a respectable time to fully have the build online. Of course, they still have no way to prepare for the imagination of all players and what they might come up with. But even so, say 6th level is the goal, that also will _always_ equal a multi-class character reaching two different subclass features if you go 3/3. I personally believe that to be equally respectable (yes, even worth trading out the ASI).

100% agree that each class should have their build online and ready to go early, but absolutely not at level 1. Then if the only point of progressing is increasing numbers, thats certainly a lousy mechanic (not saying you ever claimed that).

I honestly dont think the cost is so bad. Most relevant class features should receive their relevant subclass modifications and the primary subclass features should all be well established by level 6. Following that should be an improvement on all of the those pre-existing features. In essence, I think we are on the same page with slightly different perspectives.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> _*rubs hands together*_
> 
> I mostly agree. You should learn things quicker and get to a solid point of fully functioning before leveling out. It should maintain a horizontal level of progression, at minimum, as weve also been discussing over in another thread how often just multi-class can be better than higher level single class options. As it stands currently, many later levels often _arent_ worth more than the beginning ones.
> 
> I think the standard progression with subclass at 3rd level and then 6th level is a respectable time to fully have the build online. Of course, they still have no way to prepare for the imagination of all players and what they might come up with. But even so, say 6th level is the goal, that also will _always_ equal a multi-class character reaching two different subclass features if you go 3/3. I personally believe that to be equally respectable (yes, even worth trading out the ASI).
> 
> 100% agree that each class should have their build online and ready to go early, but absolutely not at level 1. Then if the only point of progressing is increasing numbers, thats certainly a lousy mechanic (not saying you ever claimed that).
> 
> I honestly dont think the cost is so bad. Most relevant class features should receive their relevant subclass modifications and the primary subclass features should all be well established by level 6. Following that should be an improvement on all of the those pre-existing features. In essence, I think we are on the same page with slightly different perspectives.


I'm considering "front-loaded" to be "you get it in T1". _Ideally_, things that would make you alter your ability score distribution (such as armor proficiencies and basic "ranged vs melee" style, as well as spellcasting modifiers, etc) should come online ASAP (level 1). Because otherwise you end up limping for the most visible part of the game. Which sucks.

And that's another reason I don't put much value on multiclassing--generally, builds that multiclass and aren't super dead simple don't come online until part-way through T2 at the earliest. So those are already disfavored in my mind.

But yeah, I think we agree more than we disagree. There's a rash of that (agreement) going around...the CDC needs to get involved before it becomes pandemic.

----------


## animorte

> I'm considering "front-loaded" to be "you get it in T1". _Ideally_, things that would make you alter your ability score distribution (such as armor proficiencies and basic "ranged vs melee" style, as well as spellcasting modifiers, etc) should come online ASAP (level 1). Because otherwise you end up limping for the most visible part of the game. Which sucks.


Nailed it.




> And that's another reason I don't put much value on multiclassing--generally, builds that multiclass and aren't super dead simple don't come online until part-way through T2 at the earliest. So those are already disfavored in my mind.


It is disfavored, but another problem is with games starting in Tier 2. I dont see much of any issue with one-shots, but anything else that breaks the mold in that fashion is even more difficult to address because they dont have that slow start.




> But yeah, I think we agree more than we disagree. There's a rash of that (agreement) going around...the CDC needs to get involved before it becomes pandemic.


Funny, that. The more everybody is in agreement, the less we have to talk about. _I mean, unless somebody wants to organize our agreement society to overthrow WotC._

----------


## Pex

> I honestly don't see it as a problem big enough to worry about. The price of multiclassing is always high enough that it just doesn't make for overpowered characters.
> 
> "You get too much!" Ignores what you lose, and that loss is as much in the forever-delayed access to abilities and features meant for lower levels than you will now get them. It's not so bad that it is not worth it, necessarily,  but it is bad enough to be a cost one must consider and sometimes reject.
> 
> I am playing a druid in a game right now. The DM's extremely generous house rules allow full respecs until level 5. We just hit level 4. My concept is very rogue-y, but due to party composition andre way I wanted to approach the concept, he is a straight Druid 3. I have been seriously considering respecting so his first level is Rogue, for the much better skill proficiencies and the Expertise in two skills. The sneak attack even goes well with his preferred poisoned dagger approach to combat. But the delay on things he would have from delaying druid has me deciding that I am probably better off sticking with straight druid.
> 
> It isn't a sure thing, though. I am torn on it. And Rogue as level one is so, so much better than multiclassing into it later. 
> 
> So I think it is probably fine, in terms of what you get vs. what you pay in opportunity costs by dipping even one level.


Exactly. People cry about Paladin/Hexblade, but there's a lot to consider. CH as the attack stat is nice, and Paladins love CH. However, if Paladin first for heavy armor still need high 15 ST. If not 14 DX is still needed for medium armor, not much of a difference. You're not smiting until Paladin level 2. When do you take it? If Paladin is your first two levels, you're not using CH for attacks. If you take one level of Warlock first then two levels Paladin you're finally smiting at level 3. Meanwhile single class characters are getting their subclass or 2nd level spells. Note you also don't have infamous Agonizing Blast. 4th level you're Paladin 2/Hexblade 2. Great. You are smiting. You have Agonizing Blast. You're attacking with CH. You still don't have a subclass. Using Point Buy, single class characters are getting their 18 or a feat. 5th level. Paladin 3. Great. Get your subclass. Wonderful. Single class spellcasters are getting 3rd level spells. Single class warriors are getting Extra Attack. Level 6 you are Paladin 4/Hexblade 2. Wonderful. 18 CH or feat. Know what you don't have? CH bonus to your saving throws. That's still two levels away, and you still don't have Extra Attack. But oh boy you only need worry about CH for future ASI and have Agonizing Blast. Devil's Sight too perhaps for those one or two encounters out of every seven the DM has the bad guy cast Darkness. Yay?

----------


## Psyren

We're three UAs in, we'll be back at loggerheads soon enough.




> Great. You are smiting. You have Agonizing Blast. You're attacking with CH. You still don't have a subclass.


You do have _one_  :Small Tongue:  I get your point though.




> Using Point Buy, single class characters are getting their 18 or a feat. 5th level. Paladin 3. Great. Get your subclass. Wonderful. Single class spellcasters are getting 3rd level spells. Single class warriors are getting Extra Attack. Level 6 you are Paladin 4/Hexblade 2. Wonderful. 18 CH or feat. Know what you don't have? CH bonus to your saving throws. That's still two levels away, and you still don't have Extra Attack. But oh boy you only need worry about CH for future ASI and have Agonizing Blast. Devil's Sight too perhaps for those one or two encounters out of every seven the DM has the bad guy cast Darkness. Yay?


Even though you're missing some of the things single-class builds get, you also get things they don't. For example, Pal 4/Lock 2 may not have the Cha to saves yet, but they have a much better ranged attack than most Pal 6, unless the latter found some magic javelins somewhere.

All this to say, I don't think multiclassing is overpowered _or_ underpowered. It's just a viable option, and its presence in the game enables a lot more depth and value than the issues it causes.

----------


## Segev

> All this to say, I don't think multiclassing is overpowered _or_ underpowered. It's just a viable option, and its presence in the game enables a lot more depth and value than the issues it causes.


Fully agree. I think they've got it in roughly the right place right now. I can see the desire to limit dipping, but I don't think it's as big a concern as they seem to.

To roll back around to the topic that got us onto here, what I value more than trying to prevent dipping is a smooth progression, especially if you're single-classing. If you're multiclassing, the possible hiccups in progression are on you; they didn't design the game with every possible multiclass having a perfectly smooth progression in mind. That's impossible. 

What do I mean by "smooth progression?" That there are no awkward levels where you have to have your stat line be bass ackwards from what you're trying to build, or have your stat line be in line for what you're trying to build but force you to be grossly sub-optimal for those levels. i.e., I am not in favor of having anything in a single-class build cause you to switch to Heavy Armor later in your build.

Such progressions worked okay in 3.5, because heavy armor was, while not "just better" than medium and light armor, still better, and while it would diminish the applicability of dexterity, it did so in ways that allowed for use of a lower dexterity score to your AC anyway. You weren't utterly crippling your low-level AC to avoid crippling your other, more important stats at high level.

In 5e, you actively need a 15 strength to properly use heavy armor, and dexterity is useless to your AC if you use heavy armor. It just shouldn't be treated as a "progression" from medium to heavy. They're basically two distinct paths, despite the feat progression treating medium armor proficiency as a prerequisite for heavy armor proficiency. 

You simply won't see builds in 5e that are made to use both medium and heavy armor. You might see some that CAN, but they're going to be moderately unusual, and possibly a consequence of rolling really good stats so you happen to have enough dexterity to use medium armor and enough strength to use heavy armor, so you use whichever is the better one at the moment. 

And armor isn't the only thing that does it. The Hexblade was specifically introduced to smooth the progression of a bladelock. It was a bad hack job in terms of flavor, and creates a problem of a sort of unipath for that build (you shouldn't take Pact of the Blade with any other Patron, and taking any other Pact with that Patron is sub-optimal, I think), but it does do the job of smoothing out the warlock gish so that you don't have to start as a caster and THEN become a gish, either being awful compared to other casters due to the MAD split that isn't used for 2 levels, or being less capable as a gish after that because your gish-based combat stats are weak.

Any time you have what feels like a trap option because you are encouraged to build one way at the start and another way later on, such that you either build organically without looking ahead and suffer later on or build with the final build in mind and suffer more than merely being low level at the lower levels, it's bad class design. At least, if you're doing it for a single class build. (Again, if you're multiclassing and have to make these decisions, that's on you for how you're choosing to multiclass.)

----------


## Frogreaver

> Really they just need to give Clerics HA as a proficiency and be done with it.
> 
> Fix Multiclassing dip for armor problems by fixing Multiclassing, not by screwing with the classes.


This is the way.  There are enough tradeoffs to going 15-16 str and heavy armor or 14 dex and medium armor given dex's additional benefits that heavy armor is no longer a clearly superior choice.

----------


## Lyracian

> So, no, it doesn't "speak volumes" because it isn't "more valuable" to "drop a level" on +6 AC, since that...doesn't happen. It's +2 AC at most, comparing actual build to actual build.
> I don't see how that helps. Especially since we're talking about dipping cleric as being this woebegone problem.


Is it not more like +3 AC?
Dex 15 + Mage Armour = AC 15.
Dex 15 + Medium Armour + Shield = AC 18.

----------


## Segev

> Is it not more like +3 AC?
> Dex 15 + Mage Armour = AC 15.
> Dex 15 + Medium Armour + Shield = AC 18.


Fair enough. Either way, that's not +6 AC.

And Str 15 + Chain Mail + Shield is also AC 18.

I think you get to 19 with a lot more money on heavier armor, so that might push you to +4.

+4 AC is nice, don't get me wrong! But is still isn't better than access to the next level up of spells, generally speaking.

----------


## LudicSavant

> Fair enough. Either way, that's not +6 AC.
> 
> And Str 15 + Chain Mail + Shield is also AC 18.
> 
> I think you get to 19 with a lot more money on heavier armor, so that might push you to +4.
> 
> +4 AC is nice, don't get me wrong! But is still isn't better than access to the next level up of spells, generally speaking.


Indeed, many of the strongest builds in the game are still just a variant of Wizard 20.  If anything, this is likely to increase being the case in 1D&D, since theres a level 1 feat that grants medium armor + shields to Wizards now.  One D&D has armored and shielded Wizards, from level 1, single classed.

The notion that Holy Order is somehow going to somehow fix armored Wizards is barking up completely the wrong tree.

What is going to matter, and quite a lot if you ask me, is that Clerics have the important thematic levers jammed back a full tier.  A cleric of the storms doesnt even have the ability to do anything storm-related until level 3, and doesnt really do anything importantly storm-related until level 6.  You cant really call a Tempest Cleric a blaster until at least then.  

Clerics got a little more flexibility with their ribbon-like choices via Holy Order, but those choices arent the ones that really define their core identity and playstyle, meaning less build flexibility overall until tier 3.  Having to wait until 6th for a unique CD is going to be a right pain.  Even Paladins get a unique CD by 3.

Also, as a lesser complaint, Holy Order is just designed in a way that seems to completely forget about the game design concept of organic progression.  They do this both for the armor option (since if youre statted for heavy armor, youll likely be awful in medium at level 1), and the skills option (since you have to pick up and master entirely new skills, rather than having the option to pick up two and refine two).

----------


## Segev

> Also, as a lesser complaint, Holy Order is just designed in a way that seems to completely forget about the game design concept of organic progression.  They do this both for the armor option (since if youre statted for heavy armor, youll likely be awful in medium at level 1), and the skills option (since you have to pick up and master entirely new skills, rather than having the option to pick up two and refine two).


For me, this is actually the greater complaint, but I acknowledge it's a bit subjective which is the "lesser/greater" in this case. But both of these are bad design, precisely because they make you have to plan from level 1 what you're doing at level 2 in such a way that you're worse at what you're allegedly specialized in than somebody who isn't going to take your specialty, at least at level 1.

----------


## Psyren

> Indeed, many of the strongest builds in the game are still just a variant of Wizard 20.  If anything, this is likely to increase being the case in 1D&D, since theres a level 1 feat that grants medium armor + shields to Wizards now.  One D&D has armored and shielded Wizards, from level 1, single classed.
> 
> The notion that Holy Order is somehow going to somehow fix armored Wizards is barking up completely the wrong tree.


I agree with all this, though it remains to be seen whether "fix armored wizards" is even a goal they have. It's reasonable to assume that they didnt forget Wizards when they were bumping Moderately Armored down to 1st level.




> What is going to matter, and quite a lot if you ask me, is that Clerics have the important thematic levers jammed back a full tier.  A cleric of the storms doesnt even have the ability to do anything storm-related until level 3, and doesnt really do anything importantly storm-related until level 6.  You cant really call a Tempest Cleric a blaster until at least then.


While that's mostly true I'm also not seeing this as a big issue. It's like saying a Wild Magic Barbarian doesn't get to do anything magic-related until 3; well yeah, of course not, the base class isn't really designed for that; that's added functionality coming in purely from the subclass. Some class/subclass combinations just work like that and that's okay. It just means you're not a "storm cleric" until 3rd level, even if you happen to be worshiping a storm deity; you have some clergical foundation to build before you can access that part of their portfolio.

As for non-storm blasting, I'd say Divine Spark is a solid addition to their repertoire, especially with Thaumaturge effectively doubling your uses after a single level.




> Also, as a lesser complaint, Holy Order is just designed in a way that seems to completely forget about the game design concept of organic progression.  They do this both for the armor option (since if youre statted for heavy armor, youll likely be awful in medium at level 1), and the skills option (since you have to pick up and master entirely new skills, rather than having the option to pick up two and refine two).


100% agreed on the skills option.

Regarding the armor, I don't know that you'll be "awful", just sub-par. 15-16 starting AC (depending on how far you dump your dex) is still reasonable.

----------


## Snowbluff

> Here's the thing: on balance, heavy armor isn't actually a strict "upgrade" from medium armor. Heavy armor gives you disadvantage on stealth and it requires a minimum strength score. And obviously medium armor is only an upgrade from light if you have <16 Dex.
> 
> Armor proficiencies/"training" don't generally increase your overall power level - they define the thematic possibilities for your character.


Indeed. Shields are a better pick up than heavy armor, at the very least. Although, as far as the "armored caster" argument goes, Cleric 5 >>>> cleric1/wizard 4 anyway. Concerns about dipping aren't really a big issue with me. Being pure classed is better in at least half of the levels in your whole career.

----------


## ZRN

> What is going to matter, and quite a lot if you ask me, is that Clerics have the important thematic levers jammed back a full tier.  A cleric of the storms doesnt even have the ability to do anything storm-related until level 3, and doesnt really do anything importantly storm-related until level 6.  You cant really call a Tempest Cleric a blaster until at least then.  
> 
> Clerics got a little more flexibility with their ribbon-like choices via Holy Order, but those choices arent the ones that really define their core identity and playstyle, meaning less build flexibility overall until tier 3.  Having to wait until 6th for a unique CD is going to be a right pain.  Even Paladins get a unique CD by 3.
> 
> Also, as a lesser complaint, Holy Order is just designed in a way that seems to completely forget about the game design concept of organic progression.  They do this both for the armor option (since if youre statted for heavy armor, youll likely be awful in medium at level 1), and the skills option (since you have to pick up and master entirely new skills, rather than having the option to pick up two and refine two).


Agreed overall. Even if they're dead set on starting subclasses at level 3, I don't know why they can't move the unique CD back down to 3 instead of 6. For a cleric your subclass needs to be a really defining part of your character, and the playtest Life subclass just doesn't do much before level 6.

The skills option is one of those things where in my mind, this is CLEARLY an oversight on their part, but they've got an unfortunate history of just publishing those clear mistakes (see the Soulknife), so I'm still worried.

----------


## animorte

> Agreed overall. Even if they're dead set on starting subclasses at level 3, I don't know why they can't move the unique CD back down to 3 instead of 6. For a cleric your subclass needs to be a really defining part of your character, and the playtest Life subclass just doesn't do much before level 6.


I do agree, the defining feature should make an appearance at 3rd level. Nothing wrong with improving it later on. I do still think the additional healing will be noticed though, and Preserve Life having that half-max restriction has never made any sense to me.

----------


## Segev

Overall design-wise, I think switching Order to level 1 and CD to level 2, with the Thaumaturge Order getting early access to CD and an extra use of it per short rest, will do it. I can see moving the domain-specific CD to level 3, but as long as level 3 gives a sufficiently "domain-feeling" class feature, I don't know that that's strictly necessary. Leaving level 3 open to broader ranges of effects than specifically one more use for the CD probably leaves more space for the domains to have some solidly iconic features at that level.

----------


## ZRN

> Overall design-wise, I think switching Order to level 1 and CD to level 2, with the Thaumaturge Order getting early access to CD and an extra use of it per short rest, will do it. I can see moving the domain-specific CD to level 3, but as long as level 3 gives a sufficiently "domain-feeling" class feature, I don't know that that's strictly necessary. Leaving level 3 open to broader ranges of effects than specifically one more use for the CD probably leaves more space for the domains to have some solidly iconic features at that level.


I see your latter point, but I'd say that the Life domain certainly doesn't get there with its effective-but-passive level 3 benefit. 

I still don't like swapping 1 and 2. Everything you get at level 1 should be absolutely iconic for the class, and "wears heavy armor" or "good at knowledge skills" is less core to the cleric than "harnesses divine energy." 

If swapping armors at level 2 is really the end of the world, how about all clerics get heavy armor at 1 and the level 2 choice gives you martial weapons + shields?

----------


## Frogreaver

> If swapping armors at level 2 is really the end of the world, how about all clerics get heavy armor at 1 and the level 2 choice gives you martial weapons + shields?


Honestly, I like that.  It solves the armor issue and ensures the less martial cleric options are actually trading something important away for better skills or more magic.

----------


## Pex

> We're three UAs in, we'll be back at loggerheads soon enough.
> 
> You do have _one_  I get your point though.


Depends on point of view, but I can see how Patron does have the better claim. Still, thanks for understanding the intent.




> Even though you're missing some of the things single-class builds get, you also get things they don't. For example, Pal 4/Lock 2 may not have the Cha to saves yet, but they have a much better ranged attack than most Pal 6, unless the latter found some magic javelins somewhere.
> 
> All this to say, I don't think multiclassing is overpowered _or_ underpowered. It's just a viable option, and its presence in the game enables a lot more depth and value than the issues it causes.


For sure. Paladin 4/Hexblade 2 isn't terrible. You can have Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade as a patch not having Extra Attack. Two smites recharging on a short rest is nice. If you're not Vengeance Paladin with Hunter's Mark you can have Hex and getting Shield spell is nice for those occasions you really, really don't want to get hit. As you say it is a viable option, just reinforcing the point it's not D&D Armageddon a Paladin player dipped into Hexblade as many anti-multiclassing/min-maxers like to profess, hyperbolically speaking.

I can agree there can be game breaking issues. Coffeelock is a problem, but that's a loophole combination of stuff problem not a specifically multiclassing problem.




> I see your latter point, but I'd say that the Life domain certainly doesn't get there with its effective-but-passive level 3 benefit. 
> 
> I still don't like swapping 1 and 2. Everything you get at level 1 should be absolutely iconic for the class, and "wears heavy armor" or "good at knowledge skills" is less core to the cleric than "harnesses divine energy." 
> 
> If swapping armors at level 2 is really the end of the world, how about all clerics get heavy armor at 1 and the level 2 choice gives you martial weapons + shields?


That's not a bad solution, but the problem is not only about the armor. Skills is another matter. If you want that route you're almost forced not to take two skills you want at level 1 so as not to feel cheated at level 2. A simple fix for that, given keeping it at level 2, is giving the cleric two extra skills of choice and then choose any two for the Wisdom modifier bonus.

----------


## animorte

> We're three UAs in, we'll be back at loggerheads soon enough.


Respectfully, as usual. Cant wait!

Also, I just came across this comment under a YouTube video and wanted to drop it in here:



> _Its almost like the people who write the rule books were beaten up by the high school wrestling team and have spent their adulthood using this game to get back at athletes._

----------


## Kane0

Not true in my case, though that said i'm only a lowly 'brewer.

----------


## Mastikator

> Okay I lied, there's some good points in here I wanted to touch on, and then I'll comment on something other than cleric.
> 
> 1) It's reasonable to surmise that the most beginner players (i.e. those new even to the fantasy genre, much less TTRPGs) might be likely to grab human - and Crawford re-confirmed in the survey video that it's still the most commonly chosen race species in the game anyway - which means 1DnD is going to be even more frontloaded for these players (because they have 2 feats to pick instead of 1). Thus there's even more reason to push subclasses back to 3 across the board.
> 
> 2) The idea of new Holy Orders down the line outside the core three is something I hadn't considered but it's a very plausible prediction - much like we got new Fighting Styles, Metamagic options, Invocations and other non-subclass optional features via splat. I could see a lot of potential from a "Cultist" cleric, though I think the stealthy cleric one will probably be "Inquisitor" or "Agent."
> 
> 3) I didn't comment on it previously (I think) but I'm totally on board with WotC nerfing combos like Lifeberry and aura.


Sorry for the delayed response, I wanted some time to consider the cleric UA, and I think I've something interesting to say.

1) I think 1st level characters in D&Done will be as front loaded as they are in D&D5e, but players will not be able to make super charged characters by combining the frontloadedness, IMO multiclassing should be driven by character development more than optimatization. I think this move alleviates the pressure of optimizers like myself to always multiclass, a well balanced class should not need to be multiclassed to be competetive.

2) I think holy order at level 9 should present upgrades, meaning you either pick another holy order OR you upgrade the one you have. I still think scholar is problematic so I want it changed to decouple the skills you gain and the skills you add wisdom modifier to, that way a cleric can have religion on level 1 and wisdom bonus to religion on level 2.
For protector I think the upgrade is obvious, extra attack
For scholar I'd give expertise, which would make religion clerics supercharged at making religion checks (double proficiency + int mod + wis mod) I think that's perfectly fair.
For thaumature I'd add the Blessed Strikes to all damaging spells.
If they scale blessed strikes (at least to 2d8 at some higher level) it would go a very long way.
That way a protector could be making two attacks, both benefitting from a strong blessed strike. Scholar would be out-religioning anyone (even high int rogues) and thaumaturge would be a strong blaster.

2.5) One thing I heard mentioned is that clerics should have the option to change their channel divinity and blessed strikes damage type to fit their deity. I think a single blurb like "_when you gain a level of cleric you can change channel divinity damage type based on your chosen deity or religion, this also applies to blessed strikes damage type, discuss with your DM about which is appropriate_" would suffice. After all an evil death cleric may prefer necrotic, a storm cleric may prefer thunder or lightning, an arcana cleric may prefer force.





> I wish it had a bit stronger tie to any of the upper planes like it used to instead of just the Beastlands (which don't even exist in every setting!), but regardless I'm okay with this version. Flyer needs to the most work since it's tied to that godawful Jump action that I'll fight tooth and nail for the next 2 years if I have to. Racer is kinda lame - maybe it'll be okay in those theoretical speed-op builds in place of Tabaxi, but in typical play once you can move above 60ft I see heavily diminishing returns. I'd like it if their Dash action also let you Disengage from one foe or something more meaningful than just gotta-go-fast. (Also, why triceratops instead of velociraptor for Racer, velocity is right in the name!)
> 
> The other two I'm fine with, and it's nice to have an aquatic race in core. 
> And no, Shifters _aren't_ good enough, they're basically humans with weird teeth and hair. Ardlings being truly animalistic are much better.


Maybe it's my bias against the uh.. disneyfication of D&D, IMO there are so many humanized animal races that in my opinion signal has turned into noise. Sometimes I look at D&D and all I see is a furrycon. I wouldn't be upset if they went along with ardling, but I do intend on banning ardlings at my table if they do.




> Agreed on Frost and Fire, the nova potential seems unintended, especially for a core race.
> 
> Agree on Storm feeling dull.
> 
> 
> 
> *Aid:* It's definitely a nerf since it no longer stacks with temp HP, but it's much clearer how it functions now so I'm okay with that. My only issue with making it temp HP is that it now lost its ability to resuscitate multiple downed party members for a getaway. Hopefully they change that underlying rule and allow receiving temp HP at zero to let you regain consciousness.
> 
> *Banishment:* Being able to use it as a cheap way to escape an extraplanar adventure was definitely not intended, so I'm okay with this nerf.
> ...


*Aid*: They could change it to "you target 4 creatures and they recover 5 hp, any healing that exceeds their max hp is converted into temp hp". Best of both worlds.

*Banishment*: one issue I have with this is that it is now virtually impossible to send an outsider back where they came. I really liked that option. If the effect of that is too strong then I'd like the upcast to enable it rather than target multiple creatures. The permanent sending back could be restricted to fiends, celestials, elementals and fey to prevent players from escaping.
How about this: if upcast to level 6 and 7 the creature only makes one save when the spell is cast, and when the spell finishes. At 8th and 9th level the creature only makes a save when the spell is cast.

*Guidance and Resistance*: I don't think the range curtails anything. Any character can grab Magic Initiate on level 1 and take those two cantrips, they now have a permanent free +1d4 to _all_ saves and _all_ ability checks. Even if you only ever use it on yourself it's still much too strong. I'd say this is basically the new "must have". It doesn't even use concentration, it's a reaction, you always use it exactly when you need it.

----------


## Segev

Giving all clerics heavy armor proficiency, but making the warrior order be where you get shield and martial weapon proficiency, would work to smooth out that progression while leaving the order of CD and Order as they are in the UA.

The scholar order is actually pretty easy to fix: Decouple the new skills gained from the ones that gain the Wisdom bonus to their rolls. "Studying and teaching about lore of the gods and the multiverse, you gain Proficiency in two of the following Skills of your choice: Arcana, History, Nature, Persuasion, and Religion. In addition, choose two skills from that list in which you are proficient as your God-Given Talents. Whenever you make an Ability Check using Skills in your God-Given Talents, you gain a bonus to the check equal to your Wisdom Modifier."

This change smooths out the progression just fine: you gain 2 new skills, just like now, and you may choose any skill on that list with which you're proficient (so you could START proficient with, say, Persuasion if you wanted to play an evangelist, rather than having to be inexplicably worse at Persuasion than the rogue who picked it up because he had a spare proficiency until level 2 when you're suddenly amazing at it). This allows for everything you can do now with it as written in the UA, while also allowing you to actually take a skill you consider that important as a proficiency at level 1.

----------


## Melil12

I hesitate to give any full caster extra attack, how much of the Martials tool box do we want to give up? 

Heavy armor  Martial Weapons  Extra attack with an extra d8 radiant dmg. At that point whats the difference between a fighter or a cleric? 20 levels of Spells vs 2 extra feats?

These things do not fix the gap between full casters and martials.

----------


## animorte

> I hesitate to give any full caster extra attack, how much of the Martials tool box do we want to give up? 
> 
> Heavy armor  Martial Weapons  Extra attack with an extra d8 radiant dmg. At that point whats the difference between a fighter or a cleric? 20 levels of Spells vs 2 extra feats?
> 
> These things do not fix the gap between full casters and martials.


Thats my argument as well. Why do the casters need to keep getting more of the martial features?

----------


## stoutstien

> Thats my argument as well. Why do the casters need to keep getting more of the martial features?


Using more attacks as the unifying base Martial feature was a mistake from the get go.

----------


## Segev

> Using more attacks as the unifying base Martial feature was a mistake from the get go.


Why? This is the first I've heard this assertion, so I am curious about the reasoning.

----------


## Psyren

I'm fine with the second Holy Order letting you upgrade the first one instead of picking a second one (if you don't want to), but Extra Attack should only _ever_ be a subclass feature for full casters, e.g. Valor Bard. Instead of that, what I'd be okay with for Protector taken twice is either a Fighting Style, or some kind of 1/turn martial damage or defensive boost.

I'm also okay with changing the damage type on Blessed Strikes and Divine Spark, or at least letting you swap from radiant to a thematic damage type (e.g. Necrotic for Grave, Lightning for Tempest etc.)

@ Mastikator - I agree with your proposed change for Aid. Permanent Banishment SHOULD be hard. And Guidance/Resistance aren't free - they cost your reaction, which is pretty significant during a fight. Outside a fight, rogues were grabbing Guidance anyway, it's not like they had anything else to concentrate on.

----------


## LudicSavant

> I hesitate to give any full caster extra attack, how much of the Martials tool box do we want to give up? 
> 
> Heavy armor  Martial Weapons  Extra attack with an extra d8 radiant dmg. At that point whats the difference between a fighter or a cleric? 20 levels of Spells vs 2 extra feats?
> 
> These things do not fix the gap between full casters and martials.


The big, weight-carrying Nice Things features are things like spellcasting progression, paladin aura, action surge, Rune Knight or Battle Master features, etc.

By contrast, armor/weapon/skill proficiencies are relatively minor features.  Even Extra Attack is not that big a deal in a vacuum -- see for instance why the Valor Bard just doesn't care that much about getting it (Extra Attack isn't much better than a cantrip unless it's acting as a force multiplier on other class features that boost attacks... and the only attack-booster that Valor Bard has is spell slots that could just as easily have been going to something like Animate Objects instead of an attack buff.  Even just boosting their Dex is an investment they're taking _instead of_ boosting their Cha).  

If you want to make life better for martials, the more effective answer isn't to try and hedge other people out of relatively minor features.  It's to give them more Nice Things.

----------


## stoutstien

> Why? This is the first I've heard this assertion, so I am curious about the reasoning.


First off it's a low hanging fruit. It's easy when developing new content to snipe it and reuse it regardless of the chassis ( see full casters with extra attacks). Even then they can't help but give it more value for martials. In other words the extra attack for bladesinger takes up less budget than it does on the barbarian even if it's superior  in most cases. They can cut and paste it with little consideration to anything else as long as its after lv 5.

Second it gives on hit options ill-proportionate values. This is the number one  causes of the gaps in values when trying to get a handle on innerparty balance and game/campaign design. This is also why they can't get AO and other reaction attack value ratios to work properly.

Thirdly its boring. Yes grappling/shove are options but past that its one of the biggest hurdles to break boring game play. Without dipping into specific feats or subclasses it's just damage. This leads to the paradigm that martials are good for damage and just damage...until a caster decides they want to play that game as well. Booming blade is a cantrip and it's vastly more engaging as an attack than swinging more often.

I not saying we should ditch it but it's value is closer to 2 cantrips not 3rd lv spells.


A slightly clearer example is the value ppl put on martial weapons over simple. I almost constantly see it as some huge boom when it's such a tiny value in reality. anything tired to martials has this effect. Looks like they are giving up with armor lol.

----------


## Mastikator

> I hesitate to give any full caster extra attack, how much of the Martials tool box do we want to give up? 
> 
> Heavy armor  Martial Weapons  Extra attack with an extra d8 radiant dmg. At that point whats the difference between a fighter or a cleric? 20 levels of Spells vs 2 extra feats?
> 
> These things do not fix the gap between full casters and martials.


We'll have to see the fighter UA to see. But honestly if plate armor, longsword, shield and 2-4 attacks per round is all they have then they don't have enough. Fighters should have real options that go beyond "i attack, but a lot", IMO it's fine if martial focused clerics can be good at "i attack, but twice" in addition to spells

----------


## LudicSavant

The new Cleric doesn't discourage 1-level dips.  Because we've now got medium armor+shields, casting progression, and a Proficiency^2 scaling Channel Divinity feature all at one level -- this is _better than_ most Cleric dips used to be, not worse.

That Divine Spark gives you a pool of proficiency bonus _squared_ d8s of healing.  That's more hp than most characters even have.  By +6 proficiency, it's 162 hp of healing off that 1-level feature.  Even at just level 1, it's 18hp!

The idea that heavy armor (but not medium+shields!) was a dipping problem, but this _isn't_, is just full on pants-on-head backwards.

The new Cleric is strong for dipping.  They're just strong in a really bland and uninteresting way... because they decided to push the flavor elements of the class back.  You no longer have to actually invest in Cleric levels to scale your Channel Divinity.  You need to invest in Cleric levels (6 of them!) to change your generically good CD into an _actually thematic_ CD.  Your power scaling got pushed up (since it's now based on proficiency).  Your FLAVOR got pushed back (and it really shouldn't be).

----------


## Psyren

> First off it's a low hanging fruit. It's easy when developing new content to snipe it and reuse it regardless of the chassis ( see full casters with extra attacks). Even then they can't help but give it more value for martials. In other words the extra attack for bladesinger takes up less budget than it does on the barbarian even if it's superior  in most cases. They can cut and paste it with little consideration to anything else as long as its after lv 5.


As Mastikator mentioned, I think "I attack twice" is a fine feature to exist outside the Warrior group."




> Second it gives on hit options ill-proportionate values. This is the number one  causes of the gaps in values when trying to get a handle on innerparty balance and game/campaign design. This is also why they can't get AO and other reaction attack value ratios to work properly.


This one I'm confused about. What makes you say AOs don't work properly?




> Thirdly its boring. Yes grappling/shove are options but past that its one of the biggest hurdles to break boring game play. Without dipping into specific feats or subclasses it's just damage. This leads to the paradigm that martials are good for damage and just damage...until a caster decides they want to play that game as well. Booming blade is a cantrip and it's vastly more engaging as an attack than swinging more often.


I'd say to the extent attacking multiple times is boring (which I don't necessarily agree with) it's because things like maneuvers and attack-replacements aren't widespread enough. That seems to be the easier fix that trying to restrict extra attacks to only be the Warrior group.




> A slightly clearer example is the value ppl put on martial weapons over simple. I almost constantly see it as some huge boom when it's such a tiny value in reality. anything tired to martials has this effect. Looks like they are giving up with armor lol.


This I agree with, but again I think you're diagnosing the wrong problem. The issue of simple vs. martial isn't the damage dice, rather it's what you can do with the weapons besides damage. In 3.5 for example, the damage dice on a spiked chain or a kukri wasn't the reason they were so popular.




> The new Cleric doesn't discourage 1-level dips.  Because we've now got medium armor+shields, casting progression, and a Proficiency^2 scaling Channel Divinity feature all at one level -- this is _better than_ most Cleric dips used to be, not worse.
> 
> That Divine Spark gives you a pool of proficiency bonus _squared_ d8s of healing.  That's more hp than many characters even have.  By +6 proficiency, it's 162 hp of healing off that 1-level feature.


I agree; one of those (pool or uses) should scale with cleric level rather than PB / character level.

----------


## stoutstien

> As Mastikator mentioned, I think "I attack twice" is a fine feature to exist outside the Warrior group."
> 
> 
> 
> This one I'm confused about. What makes you say AOs don't work properly?
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say to the extent attacking multiple times is boring (which I don't necessarily agree with) it's because things like maneuvers and attack-replacements aren't widespread enough. That seems to be the easier fix that trying to restrict extra attacks to only be the Warrior group.
> ...


The initial statement was that i didn't think extra attack should be the key feature for martials which mostly echos your stance. The entire identity of martials needs a ground up rework. It's better in 5e than other editions but it could also be leagues better.

On the AO front extra attack has no direct value for it. So you end up with stuff like the fighter who has the most attacks but one of the weakest AOs.

----------


## animorte

> If you want to make life better for martials, the more effective answer isn't to try and hedge other people out of relatively minor features.  It's to give them more Nice Things.


I agree, but the more cross-over easily granted from one to the other, Nice Things *or* mundane, doesnt help the process (especially in favor of the casters). Its still obviously noticeable.




> I'm fine with the second Holy Order letting you upgrade the first one instead of picking a second one (if you don't want to), but Extra Attack should only _ever_ be a subclass feature for full casters, e.g. Valor Bard. Instead of that, what I'd be okay with for Protector taken twice is either a Fighting Style, or some kind of 1/turn martial damage or defensive boost.


Yes to all of this. I still dont think you should have two Holy Orders at any time. Choose your path, your niche, and have fun with it/play it the best you can. With that case though, I think it would be fair to allow switching out your Holy Order at some point if its not suiting your purposes.




> I'm also okay with changing the damage type on Blessed Strikes and Divine Spark, or at least letting you swap from radiant to a thematic damage type (e.g. Necrotic for Grave, Lightning for Tempest etc.)


I certainly agree, but going to a more resisted damage type wont usually be the best choice. Not that it removes the option for the former, obviously.




> Permanent Banishment SHOULD be hard. And Guidance/Resistance aren't free - they cost your reaction, which is pretty significant during a fight.


Absolutely.

----------


## Joe the Rat

I'm looking at the Cleric breakdown, and it's making me think they might have learned a thing or two from the Warlock.




> I'm also okay with changing the damage type on Blessed Strikes and Divine Spark, or at least letting you swap from radiant to a thematic damage type (e.g. Necrotic for Grave, Lightning for Tempest etc.)


  I would be rather disappointed if this doesn't come up as a feature for specific domains. 

But this also raises another thought - I know they are doling everything out like it's eventual srd content, but I think it would be more constructive if they had _any_ other subclasses in these releases.  We're making some educated guesses about their design principles based on what they have released, but I'd like a little evidence that they are consistent or making evaluative calls in their changes.

----------


## Psyren

> The initial statement was that i didn't think extra attack should be the key feature for martials which mostly echos your stance. The entire identity of martials needs a ground up rework. It's better in 5e than other editions but it could also be leagues better.
> 
> On the AO front extra attack has no direct value for it. So you end up with stuff like the fighter who has the most attacks but one of the weakest AOs.


The solution to both of these is the same - more Warrior-specific attack riders/replacements.




> Yes to all of this. I still dont think you should have two Holy Orders at any time. Choose your path, your niche, and have fun with it/play it the best you can. With that case though, I think it would be fair to allow switching out your Holy Order at some point if its not suiting your purposes.


I think you should be able to choose between Upgrade Holy Order or Have Two Unupgraded Ones.

For your second point, I'm in favor of general class retraining rules like PF has.




> I certainly agree, but going to a more resisted damage type wont usually be the best choice. Not that it removes the option for the former, obviously.


Indeed, 90% of the time radiant will be the best option, but I think a Tempest Cleric being able to call upon thunder when cowing an earth elemental (for example) can be pretty thematic.

----------


## stoutstien

> The solution to both of these is the same - more Warrior-specific attack riders/replacements.


I'm personally taking a step further and creating class/Martial specific conditions to go with those riders. They're just some limitations to magic where they can't emulate the effects of a well placed strike with a weapon. Some of them aren't even tied directly to attacking like creating DT within reach.

Also reworking classes to just to be less dependent on extra attack period. Like barbarians deal glancing damage on missed attacks and monks FoB is closer to an AOE save than more attacks.

----------


## animorte

> I'm looking at the Cleric breakdown, and it's making me think they might have learned a thing or two from the Warlock.


Ever since I tried out the Warlock and fell in love with it, I have hoped the future of the game would learn something from it. 




> The solution to both of these is the same - more Warrior-specific attack riders/replacements.


100% though I recall opposition from some on the matter of anything better than battle maneuvers.




> I think you should be able to choose between Upgrade Holy Order or Have Two Unupgraded Ones.


That would be fine as long as they take another look at higher level style feature progression. I think it should be equal to or greater than having two un-upgraded ones.

----------


## Melil12

> The big, weight-carrying Nice Things features are things like spellcasting progression, paladin aura, action surge, Rune Knight or Battle Master features, etc.


Idk why you are listing specific subclass features. While some of the Martial subclasses are good I could say peace or twilight domain. Thus we have to look at the base class itself.

Those minor features you are pointing out are the base features for martials. The fact that you can write them off so easily IS THE ISSUE. Besides that on the base class what does a fighter have that equal a full casters single feature of spell casting.

But you want to tell me action surge is on or with any 9th level spell? Or 2 feats? Vs  Spirit guardians? Wish? Fireball? Shield? Absorb elements?

----------


## Pex

> But at what cost? If classes _aren't_ front-loaded, you've got two choices
> 1) insane (to me) scaling. Those first few levels _have_ to be relatively fast, since you have to go from nothing to a fully functioning character in only a small fraction of the level range. Which means that if you project that rate upward and increase it (like you have to in order to make the end levels worth more than the beginning ones0, you're way past even the dreams of high-power fanatics (relative to where it is now). And you might as well play an entirely different game--the structures we have now just don't work for that.
> 2) force people to wait a lot longer for builds to come online. Which affects a lot more games than late-game dead levels, since way more are just naturally going to play the early game. IMO, slow starts are way worse for player retention than slower ends.
> 
> Personally, I think a concave down power curve is healthiest. Start strong, go gangbusters the first few levels. Then reach a more stable rate of growth, one that can even slow down over time. So the difference from 1-5 is way smaller than from 15-20, more horizontal growth and filling out the body, not cancerous exponential growth. It's like a person--they grow really fast in the early years (up through adolescence). And then things stabilize. You still grow over time, just a lot slower. Mostly, in late adolescence, you're just filling out and growing into yourself. That's the natural path IMO.


That only encourages the multiclassing you don't like. With high level abilities being 'meh' then multiclass to always have exciting new stuff to get. Which is better? Gain a level in same class for +1d8 damage to your attacks or take 1st level in another class that let's you cast a 1st level spell for +1d6 damage to your attacks plus you also get all these other features?

High level abilities need to be exciting stuff worthy of high level. Being powerful is a feature. For those who don't like that power, they end the game before then anyway or play "E6". It won't stop real world ending campaigns, but game mechanics shouldn't be a reason.

----------


## LudicSavant

> But you want to tell me action surge is on or with any 9th level spell? Or 2 feats? Vs  Spirit guardians? Wish? Fireball? Shield? Absorb elements?


That is not what I told you.

What I am telling you is that getting overprotective about minor features is not going to fix the martial/caster divide any more than when they _already tried that_ in past editions.  You could make every single thing a Champion has exclusive, and the Champion would still be weak.

Characters with actual Nice Things tend to not be so worried about whether other characters can poach parts of their kit.  We can already see this in casters themselves -- a Wizard doesn't care one whit that (in 5e, not 1D&D) a Fighter can use their Bonus Feat to poach the entire ritual book casting mechanic, up to the very highest level rituals, and get them at the same level the Wizard can.  They don't care that you can take stuff like Fey-Touched.  Or that plenty of classes or subclasses grab other spells (including, occasionally, their really good ones!  Like Bards or Arcana Clerics or Genielocks poaching some of the very nicest Wizard goodies).  They don't care that other people can use those nice things.  Because the problem isn't whether or not things you get are exclusive, it's whether the things you get are _nice_.

Getting bent out of shape over little things like who gets minor features like martial weapon proficiency is not going to be fixing any caster/martial divides.  It's not even going to make a dent.  Even things like Extra Attack are not a big deal here -- for instance, if the Valor Bard didn't exist, that wouldn't suddenly make martials way more valuable relative to the Lore or Glamour or Whispers Bards.

Or, in other words:



> If you want to make life better for martials, the more effective answer isn't to try and hedge other people out of relatively minor features.  It's to give them more Nice Things.

----------


## Kane0

If we are calling out protector for replicating warrior abilities I feel the need to point out that scholar is almost identical to expertise, and stacks with it to boot.

----------


## animorte

> If we are calling out protector for replicating warrior abilities I feel the need to point out that scholar is almost identical to expertise, and stacks with it to boot.


Thats exactly why I keep talking about this pseudo-approach to a modular concept. Its weird how everything is gradually starting to overlap anyway.

Dont worry, folks. Im building it

----------


## Hael

Regarding divine spark..  The scaling is simply terrible design!

It scales altogether way too well for the healing component (basically prof^2).

And for the damage component, its simply atrocious.  Compared to a baseline cantrip, it actually does worse at numerous levels (lvl 11-12, lvl 7-8), and is really only worth it for the first three levels.  Making this one of the bigger newbie traps out there.

One would have hoped someone could have run the numbers first, before publishing what seems like random values that happened to match a simple keyword multiple.

Prof scaling has a place for a few concepts, but this is not one of them.

----------


## Mastikator

> As Mastikator mentioned, I think "I attack twice" is a fine feature to exist outside the Warrior group."


Already does, ranger is an expert. Valor and swords bard also gets it. Bladesinger gets it. Battlesmith gets it. Paladin gets it (apparently priest group).

The only ones who currently don't have extra attack as an option are rogue, druid and cleric. So it's hardly a warrior group thing.

----------


## Segev

> If we are calling out protector for replicating warrior abilities I feel the need to point out that scholar is almost identical to expertise, and stacks with it to boot.


Yeah, the fact it stacks with it is nice on the one hand, but holy cow is it possibly overpowered in the "breaks bounded accuracy" sense. Though it is limited to specific skills, which could mean it is actually not that bad since those skills probably aren't ones that benefit from being super-high.

----------


## Mastikator

> If we are calling out protector for replicating warrior abilities I feel the need to point out that scholar is almost identical to expertise, and stacks with it to boot.


Who should _actually_ be best at making religion checks? A wizard with proficiency? An int based rogue/bard with expertise? Or a scholar cleric?

My issue with scholar is that you can't take religion at level 1 if you want your wisdom bonus to it. The fact that scholar clerics finally get to be the best at making religion checks is a GOOD thing. YES. Finally. Inject that directly into my veins.

----------


## Segev

> Who should _actually_ be best at making religion checks? A wizard with proficiency? An int based rogue/bard with expertise? Or a scholar cleric?
> 
> My issue with scholar is that you can't take religion at level 1 if you want your wisdom bonus to it. The fact that scholar clerics finally get to be the best at making religion checks is a GOOD thing. YES. Finally. Inject that directly into my veins.


I mean, Knowledge Domain clerics could do that, too. I'm playing one!

----------


## Frogreaver

More on the note of Life Clerics

A One D&D life cleric at level 6 can use his channel divinity and heal for 30 hp 3 times per day (of course it cannot heal more than half hp).

Any One D&D cleric at level 6 can use his channel divinity and heal for 3d8 = 13.5 hp 3 times per day (slightly under half).  

It just seems like the amount of extra healing a life cleric gets is very low in comparison to the base cleric in One D&D.  I guess the life clerics will scale well into late game, but dang!

----------


## animorte

> It just seems like the amount of extra healing a life cleric gets is very low in comparison to the base cleric in One D&D.  I guess the life clerics will scale well into late game, but dang!


They do also add a flat amount to every single healing spell they cast.

----------


## Kane0

But not their own base healing channel strangely enough

----------


## LudicSavant

> The new Cleric doesn't discourage 1-level dips.  Because we've now got medium armor+shields, casting progression, and a Proficiency^2 scaling Channel Divinity feature all at one level -- this is _better than_ most Cleric dips used to be, not worse.
> 
> That Divine Spark gives you a pool of proficiency bonus _squared_ d8s of healing.  That's more hp than most characters even have.  By +6 proficiency, it's 162 hp of healing off that 1-level feature.  Even at just level 1, it's 18hp!
> 
> The idea that heavy armor (but not medium+shields!) was a dipping problem, but this _isn't_, is just full on pants-on-head backwards.
> 
> The new Cleric is strong for dipping.  They're just strong in a really bland and uninteresting way... because they decided to push the flavor elements of the class back.  You no longer have to actually invest in Cleric levels to scale your Channel Divinity.  You need to invest in Cleric levels (6 of them!) to change your generically good CD into an _actually thematic_ CD.  Your power scaling got pushed up (since it's now based on proficiency).  Your FLAVOR got pushed back (and it really shouldn't be).


Adding to what I already said, the new Cleric 1 dip _also_ gives access to the powerful new versions of Guidance and Resistance, which grant +1d4 to any save or ability check, _after_ seeing the roll, as an at-will reaction.

----------


## Mastikator

> Adding to what I already said, the new Cleric 1 dip _also_ gives access to the powerful new versions of Guidance and Resistance, which grant +1d4 to any save or ability check, _after_ seeing the roll, as an at-will reaction.


OK I'm convinced, just put holy order at level 1.

----------


## Psyren

> Already does, ranger is an expert. Valor and swords bard also gets it. Bladesinger gets it. Battlesmith gets it. Paladin gets it (apparently priest group).
> 
> The only ones who currently don't have extra attack as an option are rogue, druid and cleric. So it's hardly a warrior group thing.


I'm well aware; I was saying I'm okay with that design.




> Who should _actually_ be best at making religion checks? A wizard with proficiency? An int based rogue/bard with expertise? Or a scholar cleric?


Strictly speaking it doesn't actually matter because the DM can define what success and failure mean by person. So a cleric"s "failure" can be "success at a cost" whereas the rogue's failure can be a true failure, or vice versa, or anything in between.

----------


## Kane0

> OK I'm convinced, just put holy order at level 1.


As in swapping it with channel at level 2?

----------


## Envyus

> OK I'm convinced, just put holy order at level 1.


I am not, things are best as they currently are.

----------


## animorte

> I am not, things are best as they currently are.


Currently, as in 5e or One?

----------


## OvisCaedo

I think that two of the three current Holy Order options fit a lot more smoothly into natural character building at level 1, that its theme of "what sort of field did you dedicate your clerical training to" makes a lot more sense to be at level 1, that the feared "heavy armor dip" isn't a real problem (though the base class's medium+shields actually might be, that sounds way more like what most dips would actually use?), and that the generic channel divinity scales absurdly with total character level from a one level clerical dip. 

I've seen some concerns over Holy Order not being divine magicky enough to sell the class fantasy from level 1, but... they have divine spellcasting still? I guess not a lot!

Thematically I also understand where the concerns come from about subclasses/domains coming in late when they're seemingly the central source of power of the class, but you can still eke out some logic of "well you were ALWAYS a cleric of the life domain, you just weren't strong enough to receive the unique powers of that domain yet". Holy Order comparatively just sounds like it's mostly representing what the cleric in question did to train themselves, rather than being part of escalating granted powers from a god. That just feels a bit weirder to have delayed, flavor-wise, unless all of your training in armor and weaponry, or *literal studying*, somehow took place between levels 1 and 2. I guess it could just finally all click into place and you've come to understand how to wear heavy armor! All you needed to do was go out and fight a bit while wearing... definitely not heavy armor?

scholar order is especially blatantly bad along these lines but I think even people who prefer it to be at level 2 would say it just needs to be rewritten to not be so bafflingly at odds with level 1 skill choices. And that's fair!

----------


## Mastikator

> As in swapping it with channel at level 2?


Yeah. The 1 level cleric dip is too stronk. It's a massive power spike to always pick up 1 level of cleric on any class.

Also seriously nerf or just _remove_ guidance. Guidance gives as much as proficiency in every skill in T1, it also turns all of your proficiencies into expertises. It's basically a +2.5 on all skills. How is that not OP?

----------


## Sorinth

> Yeah. The 1 level cleric dip is too stronk. It's a massive power spike to always pick up 1 level of cleric on any class.
> 
> Also seriously nerf or just _remove_ guidance. Guidance gives as much as proficiency in every skill in T1, it also turns all of your proficiencies into expertises. It's basically a +2.5 on all skills. How is that not OP?


I mean it's pretty useless in Social situations since casting anything will likely result in auto-failure. It can't be used for stealth because of the V component. So it's really only going to be the knowledge and exploration type checks that it will see use. Doesn't seem that OP to me.

Though for Resistance I can see an argument for not being able to target yourself.

For Cleric as a dip, I don't really see the problem but I don't think HA is that big of a boost over medium and shields. But if you wanted to fix that just do something like don't give proficiency in Shields or you can't use reactions if you don't meet the Str requirements for HA.

----------


## animorte

> I mean it's pretty useless in Social situations since casting anything will likely result in auto-failure.


I dont understand this logic. How does that spell auto-fail social encounters?




> Though for Resistance I can see an argument for not being able to target yourself.


Yes, I dont believe you can react to your own action.

----------


## Sorinth

> I dont understand this logic. How does that spell auto-fail social encounters?
> 
> 
> Yes, I dont believe you can react to your own action.


Because people have no idea what you are casting and since it could easily be a charm effect cast at them and so will react poorly.

----------


## animorte

> Because people have no idea what you are casting and since it could easily be a charm effect cast at them and so will react poorly.


I do believe that is certainly a possibility that would occur sometimes, but definitely not so consistently that every NPC reacts this way.

----------


## Mastikator

> I dont understand this logic. How does that spell auto-fail social encounters?
> 
> 
> Yes, I dont believe you can react to your own action.


Making saving throws is not an action, it's not new to have class features that let you add a bonus after you roll a saving throw or fail a saving throw to turn them into a success. But they're all expended resources. Resistance only costs your reaction. It's functionally a +1d4 on all your saves




> Because people have no idea what you are casting and since it could easily be a charm effect cast at them and so will react poorly.


That depends on the DM and the table. No non-hostile NPC should care that you're casting a cantrip on yourself.

----------


## Unoriginal

> I do believe that is certainly a possibility that would occur sometimes, but definitely not so consistently that every NPC reacts this way.


Your PC is talking with a NPC. Suddenly, they start casting a spell, your PC doesn't know which one. What does your PC do?

Alternatively: your PC is talking with a NPC, and the NPC tells you they want to cast a spell to make it easier to convince you/influence you. Do you let them cast the spell?




> That depends on the DM and the table. No non-hostile NPC should care that you're casting a cantrip on yourself.


Most NPCs will be unable to say you're casting a cantrip, or on whom you're casting it.

Those who *are* able will likely object to you boosting yourself to be more competent at influencing them. 

Same way that if I agree to play poker with someone I will likely object if they pull out their phone and start using an app that helps them predict which cards I have.

----------


## Sorinth

> I do believe that is certainly a possibility that would occur sometimes, but definitely not so consistently that every NPC reacts this way.


I would say it's the opposite, unless there is the expectation ahead of time of someone casting then it's going to lead to poor reactions in most instances.

Someone is trying to convince you to do something and then their friend casts a spell out of the blue with no visible effects, why wouldn't you think it was some sort of charm magic meant to influence your decision? Especially since it's basically true, they did use magic to influence your decision.

----------


## Sorinth

> That depends on the DM and the table. No non-hostile NPC should care that you're casting a cantrip on yourself.


How do they know your casting a cantrip on yourself vs casting Fireball at them?

----------


## Sorinth

> Your PC is talking with a NPC. Suddenly, they start casting a spell, your PC doesn't know which one. What does your PC do?
> 
> Alternatively: your PC is talking with a NPC, and the NPC tells you they want to cast a spell to make it easier to convince you/influence you. Do you let them cast the spell?
> 
> 
> 
> Most NPCs will be unable to say you're casting a cantrip, or on whom you're casting it.
> 
> Those who *are* able will likely object to you boosting yourself to be more competent at influencing them. 
> ...


Given that all the DM has to do to get a hostile response is say "Roll Initiative" I think we all know that PCs wouldn't treat a stranger casting spells at/near them.

----------


## animorte

> Resistance only costs your reaction. It's functionally a +1d4 on all your saves.


This is true, but _guidance_ does not apply.




> Someone is trying to convince you to do something and then their friend casts a spell out of the blue with no visible effects, why wouldn't you think it was some sort of charm magic meant to influence your decision? Especially since it's basically true, they did use magic to influence your decision.


While technically accurate, theyre not casting a spell on you or at you. Theyre casting it at their friend. For all you know, they could be trying to hinder them. Or _prestidigitation_ the dirt out of their clothes, make them smell bad, make them smell good, _minor illusion_ a fart coming from their bum The list goes on.

----------


## Segev

Yet another reason to push to just keep _guidance_ as it is in 5.0: avoid arguments over whether casting spells does the opposite of what the spell is intended to do due to NPCs reacting poorly to a spell being cast.

While they often didn't, sometimes it seems that the original writers might have had good reason for the design choices they made!

----------


## animorte

> Yet another reason to push to just keep _guidance_ as it is in 5.0: avoid arguments over whether casting spells does the opposite of what the spell is intended to do due to NPCs reacting poorly to a spell being cast.
> 
> While they often didn't, sometimes it seems that the original writers might have had good reason for the design choices they made!


Technically some of the arguments could be made no matter how the spell is worded, according to the current status of our conversation.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Gignere

> Yet another reason to push to just keep _guidance_ as it is in 5.0: avoid arguments over whether casting spells does the opposite of what the spell is intended to do due to NPCs reacting poorly to a spell being cast.
> 
> While they often didn't, sometimes it seems that the original writers might have had good reason for the design choices they made!


This new guidance and current guidance is too much, maybe limit it to each creature once per short rest and reaction on failure would be the best of both worlds.  Not entirely useless but not so good that it is the best cantrip automatically.

----------


## Segev

> This new guidance and current guidance is too much, maybe limit it to each creature once per short rest and reaction on failure would be the best of both worlds.  Not entirely useless but not so good that it is the best cantrip automatically.


Nah, it is a big investment to get it and, especially when currently, it requires concentration,  you are quite limited in how you can apply it to stack with other magics. My druid frequently has to forgo _guidance_ on his or others' stealth checks to keep _pass without trace_ up, for example. He also can't use the cantrip on lock picking if he wants to maintain the stealth spell.

----------


## Sorinth

> This is true, but _guidance_ does not apply.
> 
> 
> While technically accurate, theyre not casting a spell on you or at you. Theyre casting it at their friend. For all you know, they could be trying to hinder them. Or _prestidigitation_ the dirt out of their clothes, make them smell bad, make them smell good, _minor illusion_ a fart coming from their bum The list goes on.


Why would a random NPC care about the technicalities of who is the target? All they'll care about is that you used magic to influence them.

The fact that the spell could've been anything shouldn't mean they ignore it, at a minimum the NPC to ask what you just did. Which either leads to a Deception check (Meaning you probably haven't really gained much mathematically) or you tell the truth which is you used magic to help convince the NPC which will almost certainly cause an issue regardless of who was the target of the spell or other technicalities.

----------


## stoutstien

Guidance shouldn't be a spell. It would be better suited as a low lv cleric feature. Then you could play with different forms of limitations and applications without janky interactions.

----------


## animorte

> Why would a random NPC care about the technicalities of who is the target? All they'll care about is that you used magic to influence them.
> 
> The fact that the spell could've been anything shouldn't mean they ignore it, at a minimum the NPC to ask what you just did. Which either leads to a Deception check (Meaning you probably haven't really gained much mathematically) or you tell the truth which is you used magic to help convince the NPC which will almost certainly cause an issue regardless of who was the target of the spell or other technicalities.


Your NPCs must always be incredibly suspicious. Again, I agree with you, this makes sense *sometimes*, but not all the time. Not all NPCs are expected to know what a spell looks like. Not all NPCs are extremely suspicious.

Aside from making their own Arcana/Insight checks, they have no way of knowing what kind of influence you had, if any. Honestly, Id think they were more concerned with the other person thats *actively* attempting to intimidate/deceive/persuade/investigate/etc. them in the first place.

----------


## Tanarii

> Guidance shouldn't be a spell. It would be better suited as a low lv cleric feature. Then you could play with different forms of limitations and applications without janky interactions.


It just shouldn't be an ability.  Or if it is, it needs to be high level and limited.  Things like Guidance are why the default DCs math is too high.  And that's a problem, because it means you need a Cleric or go home.




> Your NPCs must always be incredibly suspicious. Again, I agree with you, this makes sense *sometimes*, but not all the time. Not all NPCs are expected to know what a spell looks like. Not all NPCs are extremely suspicious.


Any sane NPC is going to be suspicious of what unknown spell was just cast around them, if not outright hostile.

If recognizing a spell cast, or maybe even style of spell (divine or arcane), was possible PHB it might be different. If the DM allows any and all NPCs to use e Xan optional rule to identify spells being cast and they successfully identify it, it might be different.  But otherwise an NPC that _doesn't_ get suspicious is incredibly trusting.

And casting _Guidance_ in the middle of any kind of negotiation should be considered a hostile act, if successfully identified.




> Yet another reason to push to just keep _guidance_ as it is in 5.0: avoid arguments over whether casting spells does the opposite of what the spell is intended to do due to NPCs reacting poorly to a spell being cast.
> 
> While they often didn't, sometimes it seems that the original writers might have had good reason for the design choices they made!


They really should revisit spells be identifiable & V&S components being separate for additional things in the spell (like Message or Suggestion).  Some specific spells should probably be changes so they are more subtle and can more easily be used against NPCs without being instantly identifiable as a spell being cast.

Guidance isn't one of those spells tho.




> Your PC is talking with a NPC. Suddenly, they start casting a spell, your PC doesn't know which one. What does your PC do?
> 
> Alternatively: your PC is talking with a NPC, and the NPC tells you they want to cast a spell to make it easier to convince you/influence you. Do you let them cast the spell?


Yep.  What's good for the Gander is what's good for the Goose.  Although adventurers may have an advantage on actually identifying a spell (e.g. be allowed to use the optional Xan rule), player (not PC) reactions in this case are perfectly reasonable to extend to NPCs.

----------


## Mastikator

> This is true, but _guidance_ does not apply.


Yes, you're right. Persuasion and deception checks won't get that bonus. There are a lot of other skills though, having a +1d4 on all 16/18 skills is still broken. Remember we're also talking about acrobatics checks to not fall down a ledge, athletics checks to bust open a door, thief's tools check to pick a lock, performance checks to dance. Everything.

----------


## stoutstien

> It just shouldn't be an ability.  Or if it is, it needs to be high level and limited.  Things like Guidance are why the default DCs math is too high.  And that's a problem, because it means you need a Cleric or go home.


Nah. Just rework to not mess with the base math. Like reaction to treat any d20 roll of X or lower as Y or only allow it to cancel disadvantage. Limit it to 1-2 a SR and it's a handy feature that doesn't effect the max value(s).

----------


## Tanarii

> Nah. Just rework to not mess with the base math. Like reaction to treat any d20 roll of X or lower as Y or only allow it to cancel disadvantage. Limit it to 1-2 a SR and it's a handy feature that doesn't effect the max value(s).


Limit it is the key.  It can actually be fairly powerful in that case.  Either as a spell or feature.

----------


## stoutstien

> Limit it is the key.  It can actually be fairly powerful in that case.  Either as a spell or feature.


True. Limits are easier to apply when it's not a spell(cantrip) and spellcasting is already bloated.

I personally am of the mind that divine magic should be completed separate from arcane other than very specific cases.

----------


## Tanarii

> True. Limits are easier to apply when it's not a spell(cantrip) and spellcasting is already bloated.
> 
> I personally am of the mind that divine magic should be completed separate from arcane other than very specific cases.


Really it's a case of do you want this (magical) limited thing to be available to multiple class spell lists, or with D&Done a shared class list for multiple classes, and do you want it to be _yoink_able by other class specials that _yoink_ spells?

Or is it (a magical) something that should be limited to the one class?

(They really need a shared non-magical resource system that uses the same logic.)

Example:
Greenflame and Booming Blade should never have been cantrip. They should have been a bladesinger class feature.

----------


## Sorinth

> Your NPCs must always be incredibly suspicious. Again, I agree with you, this makes sense *sometimes*, but not all the time. Not all NPCs are expected to know what a spell looks like. Not all NPCs are extremely suspicious.
> 
> Aside from making their own Arcana/Insight checks, they have no way of knowing what kind of influence you had, if any. Honestly, Id think they were more concerned with the other person thats *actively* attempting to intimidate/deceive/persuade/investigate/etc. them in the first place.


Not at all but casting a spell as part of a conversation is going to get a reaction just like drawing your sword will get a reaction.

----------


## animorte

> It just shouldn't be an ability.  Or if it is, it needs to be high level and limited.  Things like Guidance are why the default DCs math is too high.  And that's a problem, because it means you need a Cleric or go home.


I dont know if thats strictly the reason for higher DCs, just because Expert is a group now and the overlap of skill proficiency accessibility is more prominent. I can definitely let see this concern though.




> Any sane NPC is going to be suspicious of what unknown spell was just cast around them, if not outright hostile.
> 
> If recognizing a spell cast, or maybe even style of spell (divine or arcane), was possible PHB it might be different. If the DM allows any and all NPCs to use e Xan optional rule to identify spells being cast and they successfully identify it, it might be different.  But otherwise an NPC that _doesn't_ get suspicious is incredibly trusting.
> 
> And casting _Guidance_ in the middle of any kind of negotiation should be considered a hostile act, if successfully identified.


So basically what Im getting from multiple sources is that _every_ NPC (of sound mind) is always assuming and enacting hostility, by default.

In my experience, some NPCs sometimes are actually nice. Some you may have a history with. Some may not have any idea what any sort of spell-casting is supposed to look like.




> Not at all but casting a spell as part of a conversation is going to get a reaction just like drawing your sword will get a reaction.


One of those is obviously hostile, while the other is not. (Though, I agree, it _can_ be.)

Why, by default, should every single NPC automatically assume hostility when they happen to be near a spell being cast even if they have absolutely no idea what it is?

Maybe its just because Ive had little sleep, but this is coming across as a bit extreme.




> Remember we're also talking about acrobatics checks to not fall down a ledge, athletics checks to bust open a door, thief's tools check to pick a lock, performance checks to dance. Everything.


Absolutely. I would also like to take into account the limited range in the spells, and you still only have one reaction, so it cant apply to everybody all the time, especially oneself. I dont think its necessarily broken, but it is strong.

----------


## Psyren

> I do believe that is certainly a possibility that would occur sometimes, but definitely not so consistently that every NPC reacts this way.


The point is that it's not truly "Proficiency+ in _everything!_" as was mentioned. The scenarios in which its useful are indeed affected by it being a noticeable verbal spell, at-will or not. And that's putting aside that at low levels, proficiency alone doesn't matter nearly as much as ability scores and circumstance. Even if you could Guidance your way through a stealth challenge for instance, your cleric with 14 Dex and scale mail is still going to be a poor choice for scout. (Obviously the Druid and Ranger will fare much better, barring the first issue, but they're both supposed to be good if not great scouts so that's okay.)

Moreover, while it's definitely useful when used on yourself, using it on someone else is now much harder. If you want to try and guidance that rogue who is disarming a trap for example, now you'll need to be standing in the blast radius with them, with no guarantee that a 1d4 will even help. That will make the spell much less of a no-brainer than it is now.




> {Resistance is} functionally a +1d4 on all your saves


Once per round, and you can't use your reaction on anything else. That's useful - vastly more useful than the original - but has a tangible cost. That's really all these spells need.

----------


## animorte

> Moreover, while it's definitely useful when used on yourself, using it on someone else is now much harder. If you want to try and guidance that rogue who is disarming a trap for example, now you'll need to be standing in the blast radius with them, with no guarantee that a 1d4 will even help. That will make the spell much less of a no-brainer than it is now.
> 
> Once per round, and you can't use your reaction on anything else. That's useful - vastly more useful than the original - but has a tangible cost. That's really all these spells need.


And all of that is exactly why I dont think its too strong.

----------


## Jakinbandw

Also no more precasting guidance, then walking up to someone and making a deception check.

----------


## Unoriginal

> In my experience, some NPCs sometimes are actually nice.


That has nothing to do with being nice or not. Being nice doesn't stop you from getting hit by a Fireball or mind-controlled.




> Some you may have a history with.


I'll grant you that this can get you a pass. If you're a trusted person, they may not react in fear, but people are unlikely to not at least ask what you did once you're done.





> Some may not have any idea what any sort of spell-casting is supposed to look like


In most D&D worlds? Basically all sapient species know what a spell is supposed to look like. 

Even if they somehow have never witnessed magic or heard others talk about it, your interlocutor stopping talking with you to do a series of specific, deliberate sounds and movement is going to result in questions. And if you lie about it they may realize you are lying. 




> Why, by default, should every single NPC automatically assume hostility when they happen to be near a spell being cast even if they have absolutely no idea what it is?


Yes, if they don't think they know what the caster is doing.

Casting a spell without warning is the equivalent of pulling out a gun and waving it around.

----------


## Mastikator

> Absolutely. I would also like to take into account the limited range in the spells, and you still only have one reaction, so it cant apply to everybody all the time, especially oneself. I dont think its necessarily broken, but it is strong.


Even if you only ever use it on yourself and nobody else it's still overpowered.

Limiting it to only other creatures with range may help a bit though. But 10 feet is still long enough

----------


## Kane0

Guidance could have just been a feature that lets you take the Help action when you otherwise wouldnt be able to (such as by lacking the proficiency)

----------


## stoutstien

> Guidance could have just been a feature that lets you take the Help action when you otherwise wouldnt be able to (such as by lacking the proficiency)


I already use that for my 1/2+ caster bard homebrew.

----------


## animorte

> Casting a spell without warning is the equivalent of pulling out a gun and waving it around.


You have a lot of good points but I will never be able to agree with this as it continues to be put. Many spells can be helpful, many spells can be flashy, many spells can be silly, and many spells can be dangerous.

I continue to agree that it is the case *sometimes*, maybe even _more-often-than-not_, but I will never be convinced that it is _always_ perceived as so overwhelmingly aggressive as it is repeatedly being framed (waving a gun in somebodys face).

_Every_ NPC should not treat every instance of the possibility of a spell as if their life is in danger. Its that simple. Sure, some people might be suspicious of that weird thing you did, and some might not.

But Ive been alone on the top of my little hill multiple times before where others just seem to think the topic is black/white with absolutely no middle ground.

----------


## Kane0

> I already use that for my 1/2+ caster bard homebrew.


In addition to Bardic Inspiration?




> _Every_ NPC should not treat every instance of the possibility of a spell as if their life is in danger. Its that simple. Sure, some people might be suspicious of that weird thing you did, and some might not.
> 
> But Ive been alone on the top of my little hill multiple times before where others just seem to think the topic is black/white with absolutely no middle ground.


I hate the Xans spell ID rule, but Guidance still has V and S components to handle. In my theatre of the mind it would be something along the lines of the priest raising a hand and announcing 'Praise the sun!' or something similar.
In stealthy situations this is not going to help anyone, unless youre specifically doing it as a distraction.
In social situations it might be fine if the others acknowledge/respect the same deity and might even respond in kind, but you run the risk of someone figuring youre attempting to 'shift the balance of power' in the conversation and respond accordingly, or just getting annoyed by your interjection.
In exploration situations, no problem at all. Toss out your prayer as much as you want unless your party threatens to gag you.
In combat, the tradeoff isnt in the components but in the reaction, range and likelihood of an ability check coming up versus a save (resistance), opp attack, counterspell, etc.

----------


## Psyren

> Even if you only ever use it on yourself and nobody else it's still overpowered.


It's really not.




> You have a lot of good points but I will never be able to agree with this as it continues to be put. Many spells can be helpful, many spells can be flashy, many spells can be silly, and many spells can be dangerous.
> 
> I continue to agree that it is the case *sometimes*, maybe even _more-often-than-not_, but I will never be convinced that it is _always_ perceived as so overwhelmingly aggressive as it is repeatedly being framed (waving a gun in somebodys face).
> 
> _Every_ NPC should not treat every instance of the possibility of a spell as if their life is in danger. Its that simple. Sure, some people might be suspicious of that weird thing you did, and some might not.
> 
> But Ive been alone on the top of my little hill multiple times before where others just seem to think the topic is black/white with absolutely no middle ground.


I completely agree there are times you can get away with doing a guidance mid-convo, but the _player_ often won't know when those times are. That's all that's needed to curtail the problem they were seemingly trying to solve - constant guidance spam every few minutes at the table.

----------


## animorte

> I hate the Xans spell ID rule, but Guidance still has V and S components to handle. In my theatre of the mind it would be something along the lines of the priest raising a hand and announcing 'Praise the sun!' or something similar.


Thats a good example. Everybodys verbal and somatic components are expected to be different.




> In stealthy situations this is not going to help anyone, unless youre specifically doing it as a distraction.
> In social situations it might be fine if the others acknowledge/respect the same deity and might even respond in kind, but you run the risk of someone figuring youre attempting to 'shift the balance of power' in the conversation and respond accordingly, or just getting annoyed by your interjection.
> In exploration situations, no problem at all. Toss out your prayer as much as you want unless your party threatens to gag you.
> In combat, the tradeoff isnt in the components but in the reaction, range and likelihood of an ability check coming up versus a save (resistance), opp attack, counterspell, etc.


Good points, all. Thank you.




> I completely agree there are times you can get away with doing a guidance mid-convo, but the _player_ often won't know when those times are. That's all that's needed to curtail the problem they were seemingly trying to solve - constant guidance spam every few minutes at the table.


Thats a good point, and if its being abused or just downright annoying, theres nothing wrong with addressing it creatively, I think.

----------


## LudicSavant

1D&D Resistance is a powerful cantrip.  It would be powerful even if its range was self-only, let alone 10 feet.

You generally won't use it (and therefore your Reaction) unless you _already failed_ a saving throw by 4 or less.  At which point, it'll give a substantial chance of converting a failed save into a successful save as a Reaction (25% chance if you miss by 4, 50% chance if you miss by 3, 75% chance if you miss by 2, and 100% chance if you miss by 1).  And given how debilitating failed saves can be, that equation's often going to be well worth it.

It's only a slightly smaller saving throw bonus than the War Wizard 2 Reaction feature, and that one _was_ self-only _and_ prevented you from using leveled spells on your next turn.

Resistance has no such consideration.  It's basically just a boring auto-take option that buffs casters (and 1-level cleric dips) and makes you generically better than not having the option.  It might even be less interesting than Silvery Barbs.

----------


## Kane0

> 1D&D Resistance is a powerful cantrip.  It would be powerful even if its range was self-only, let alone 10 feet.
> 
> You generally won't use it (and therefore your Reaction) unless you _already failed_ a saving throw by 4 or less.  At which point, it'll give a substantial chance of converting a failed save into a successful save as a Reaction (25% chance if you miss by 4, 50% chance if you miss by 3, 75% chance if you miss by 2, and 100% chance if you miss by 1).  And given how debilitating failed saves can be, that equation's often going to be well worth it.
> 
> It's only a slightly smaller saving throw bonus than the War Wizard 2 Reaction feature, and that one _was_ self-only _and_ prevented you from using leveled spells on your next turn.
> 
> Resistance has no such consideration.  It's basically just a boring auto-take option that buffs casters (and 1-level cleric dips) and makes you generically better than not having the option.  It might even be less interesting than Silvery Barbs.


Perhaps if anyone with a shield could also use their reaction to add their shield's AC bonus to a Dex save

----------


## stoutstien

> In addition to Bardic Inspiration?


Closer to a modified version of it. This version of Bards make extensive use of the help action and can do so with any action (action, bonus action, reaction). They have limit per round but eventually they could just do a triple help if they wanted to. 
Each version has the opportunity to be enhanced by the bard  depending on subclass (acting similar to the printed version though flat bonus dice to D20s are practically removed. Some fun options exist like recycling spell slots)

For example one college can target an ally within 30 ft with a bonus action help. That ally in turn can target a different ally(5ft limit) with a bonus action help on their turn. This can chain to a growing number of targets as the bard levels up and later on get growing effects per link.

----------


## Psyren

You might not be able to use Resistance even if a suitable saving throw failure presents itself though - say, if you already used your reaction on an OA, or to counterspell something, or on Shield, or a readied action etc. I agree that this is a clear buff and more options are good, but I don't see it as a problem.

----------


## diplomancer

A spell to make something or someone more persuasive is literally what advertising is (and if you think I'm exaggerating, meditate for a while on the words "spell" and "glamour")... I wonder if some people here go about attacking billboards for "using subterfuge to influence their decisions".

----------


## Psyren

> A spell to make something or someone more persuasive is literally what advertising is (and if you think I'm exaggerating, meditate for a while on the words "spell" and "glamour")... I wonder if some people here go about attacking billboards for "using subterfuge to influence their decisions".


Most people don't attack billboards, but its reasonable to expect they'd react negatively if someone put a billboard right in front of their faces mid-conversation.

----------


## diplomancer

> Most people don't attack billboards, but its reasonable to expect they'd react negatively if someone put a billboard right in front of their faces mid-conversation.


And yet those car sellers who have good sales techniques still get better results than those who don't...

But my main point is: in a world with magic, Guidance, at least when properly identified as Guidance, should not be viewed with more suspicion than Expertise in Persuasion (or Bardic Inspiration, for that matter, to use an example even closer to advertising. Vanilla Bardic Inspiration is not magical at all).

----------


## sambojin

New Resistance and Guidance are strong. But they're also pretty common. It's not like it's just Clerics that can get them.

Rangers can. Druids can. There's a pretty good chance Paladins will be able to. Anyone that takes Magic Initiative (either Divine or Primal) can. Ardlings can. Wood Elves probably will be able to.

Then there's Expertise, Bardic Inspiration, Enhance Ability, Bless, Pally aura, and everything else.

While the DCs of skills are a bit weird, it's not like it's a one-class problem/ solution here. These cantrips are on 2-out-of-3 spell lists, and these characters can change their cantrips and spells each day. I think it's kind of assumed that there'll be some skill/ save enablers sprinkled throughout most parties in 1dnd if you want them to be.

(Having "stuff happen" is probably almost as common as the Help action. Guidance being cast, or a Bard Inspiring, is probably like two people with persuasion trying to talk you into something. However you'd react to two smooth talkers, one helping the other, is probably how you'd react to magical help (unless you personally or culturally disliked or didn't trust magic). Some people dislike con artists, some people just see it as per pressure, others like "going along with a plan". There may be a bit more anti-magic sentiment, but with how often it probably happens in DnD worlds, it's probably just looked at as super-peer-pressure or going from smooth talker to a bit of a con artist. And people deal with that kind of stuff irl and probably in dnd-life all the time without reacting violently. You might not trust them doing it again though, and start to suspect their motives for all kinds of stuff where you normally wouldn't have if there was no magic cast.
Then again, a party of murder-hobos did just turn up in town. They might be pretty suspicious of you anyway (or see you as saviours, or the king's helpers/ enforcers, or whatever)).

----------


## animorte

> "using subterfuge to influence their decisions".


Hilarious




> But my main point is: in a world with magic, Guidance, at least when properly identified as Guidance, should not be viewed with more suspicion than Expertise in Persuasion (or Bardic Inspiration, for that matter, to use an example even closer to advertising. Vanilla Bardic Inspiration is not magical at all).


This. Yes, all of which should similarly be recognized for what they are.

----------


## Kane0

Like an ad for Raid Shadow Legends in the middle of a youtube video. Imagine responding well to that

----------


## animorte

> Like an ad for Raid Shadow Legends in the middle of a youtube video. Imagine responding well to that


Definitely relatable. I imagine most people just roll their eyes by now.

----------


## Tanarii

> And yet those car sellers who have good sales techniques still get better results than those who don't...
> 
> But my main point is: in a world with magic, Guidance, at least when properly identified as Guidance, should not be viewed with more suspicion than Expertise in Persuasion (or Bardic Inspiration, for that matter, to use an example even closer to advertising. Vanilla Bardic Inspiration is not magical at all).


Considering how used car sellers and other such marketers are generally viewed, I feel that NPCs viewing any and all of the folks in game you're describing should be with distrust and suspicion is incredibly on point.  :Small Amused:

----------


## sambojin

If players overuse Guidance, I'd probably start using shopkeepers with assistants, both with pretty good charisma/ wisdom and persuasion/ deception and insight. Using the help action to sell junk at high prices/ haggle well.

"Why did you buy that Totally Genuine Sword of Awesome?"

"Well, they talked me into it. And it was only 250gp! Kills stuff dead they said! You've just got to stab things with it!"

(Sword is a totally normal sword with glitter paint on it and some cut glass baubles. Or maybe it is inlaid with gold and jewels? It might even be magical! Skills can be used against the player characters too, even with help actions for advantage, if you want to. They're just running a shop, this is what you do to run a successful one. Would they react violently to it, or just play along, is the question?
Haggling is a thing that's perfectly normal in many cultures and societies. You just lost the roll.

Rather than a +/- GP amount on the price for haggling poorly/well, it'd be more fun to do it as a trash/ normal/ masterwork/ magical thing, for that set price. It doesn't have to be a -1/ 0/ +1normal/ +1magical thing. Just other silly/ fun stuff for the DM, and the player, on very different abilities/ detriments, not necessarily ones that they can ever even know about (maybe with up and downsides. Not every attack roll, just 1/day or 1/week. Or social stuff. Sparkly swords are pretty awesome, or tacky, or a piece that is noticed by many (commoners or thieves or generals or soldiers or nobility or jesters. Society and your simple +1/-1 on how they view you. Stuff like that. Don't really add it to rolls, just it's a "how you're presenting yourself" thing on the DMs side))

----------


## OvisCaedo

I'm not sure it would really be fair to treat Guidance with hostility in negotiations; divine insight nudging someone towards the right words to use doesn't change whether or not those words are valid. It's a lot different than altering the other person's perception or mindset directly with magic. Though it's probably open to interpretation exactly how a reactive guidance is achieving its effect, huh?

that being said, while guidance specifically doesn't really red flag me, I'd probably agree that spellcasting would because of charm effects. Most people probably can't tell what spell you cast and might assume the worst!

----------


## Kane0

Well if it causes the NPC to raise their DC by 5 or more you were better off not casting it.

----------


## animorte

> that being said, while guidance specifically doesn't really red flag me, I'd probably agree that spellcasting would because of charm effects. Most people probably can't tell what spell you cast and might assume the worst!


Absolutely, just as easily as they may not recognize a spell being cast at all.



> Well if it causes the NPC to raise their DC by 5 or more you were better off not casting it.


While certainly possible, they might instead like the little blurb and flourish of mister-looks-trustworthy-religious-guy.

Yay, for a game with varying degrees of NPCs!

----------


## Mastikator

If you have to break the campaign/worldbuilding give commoners cantrips just to keep the players from breaking the game with a cantrip then perhaps the cantrip should not exist. Just a thought.

----------


## Segev

_Guidance_ should be pre-cast, as in 5.0 D&D, because it lets you use it in these situations. I don't know where Tanarii is seeing inflated DCs that he feels are inflated on the assumption that all ability checks will benefit from _guidance_, though. 

I do think the 5.1 design is good for _resistance,_ though. Unlike ability checks, you never can predict when you're about to make a save, except maybe when the barbarian is doing rogue duties by opening the doors and chests without checking for traps.

----------


## Mastikator

Resistance could have increased duration to 1 hour. It's still concentration but lets one character get a +1d4 on their next save. The character concentrating on resistance can't concentrate on another spell. Getting it on one save while also blocking concentration is perfectly fine on a cantrip.

----------


## Tanarii

> _Guidance_ should be pre-cast, as in 5.0 D&D, because it lets you use it in these situations. I don't know where Tanarii is seeing inflated DCs that he feels are inflated on the assumption that all ability checks will benefit from _guidance_, though.


PHB and DMG tables, where Easy is DC 10 and Medium is DC 15.

That's Easy = crap-shoot for ~ 4 out of 6 ability score's checks, and Medium = fail more often than not.

The system is set up so that you shouldn't even think about trying a check unless you know your DM ignores the guidelines, or it's one of your two best ability scores with proficiency, or you like gambling.

This is drastically different from e.g. attack rolls.  Or rather, all PCs have good attack rolls and will be using their best ability score + proficiency _anyway_.

----------


## Segev

> PHB and DMG tables, where Easy is DC 10 and Medium is DC 15.
> 
> That's Easy = crap-shoot for ~ 4 out of 6 ability score's checks, and Medium = fail more often than not.
> 
> The system is set up so that you shouldn't even think about trying a check unless you know your DM ignores the guidelines, or it's one of your two best ability scores with proficiency, or you like gambling.
> 
> This is drastically different from e.g. attack rolls.  Or rather, all PCs have good attack rolls and will be using their best ability score + proficiency _anyway_.


How reliable do you feel "easy" should be?

I have played characters who tried their luck at Charisma(Persuasion) checks with no proficiency and an 8 Charisma and succeeded. The thing about the "crap shoot" is that it goes both ways. With a ten ability score and no special training, an "easy" check has a fifty-five percent chance of success.

So, to repeat my question,  because it is a genuine question, how reliably should a character with (to borrow Psyren's phrasing) "no special talent nor skill" succeed at an "easy" check?

Remember, too, that a lot of things you should routinely succeed at, the DM shouldn't call for a roll. He should just let you succeed. Routinely.

----------


## Pex

> How reliable do you feel "easy" should be?
> 
> I have played characters who tried their luck at Charisma(Persuasion) checks with no proficiency and an 8 Charisma and succeeded. The thing about the "crap shoot" is that it goes both ways. With a ten ability score and no special training, an "easy" check has a fifty-five percent chance of success.
> 
> So, to repeat my question,  because it is a genuine question, how reliably should a character with (to borrow Psyren's phrasing) "no special talent nor skill" succeed at an "easy" check?
> 
> Remember, too, that a lot of things you should routinely succeed at, the DM shouldn't call for a roll. He should just let you succeed. Routinely.


If only the game designers saved everyone the trouble of this dilemma and just provided example DCs for various tasks.
 :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Psyren

> So, to repeat my question,  because it is a genuine question, how reliably should a character with (to borrow Psyren's phrasing) "no special talent nor skill" succeed at an "easy" check?


That label is from the perspective of an adventurer who does have one or both of those things. But I'm in favor of adjusting the labels in 1DnD if only so we can finally put this recurring dispute in the ground.

----------


## Tanarii

> How reliable do you feel "easy" should be?
> 
> I have played characters who tried their luck at Charisma(Persuasion) checks with no proficiency and an 8 Charisma and succeeded. The thing about the "crap shoot" is that it goes both ways. With a ten ability score and no special training, an "easy" check has a fifty-five percent chance of success.
> 
> So, to repeat my question,  because it is a genuine question, how reliably should a character with (to borrow Psyren's phrasing) "no special talent nor skill" succeed at an "easy" check?
> 
> Remember, too, that a lot of things you should routinely succeed at, the DM shouldn't call for a roll. He should just let you succeed. Routinely.


About 75% should be right for a meaningful check with a chance of failure that a no proficiency & ability score ability score ten character should find Easy.  The Default, Medium, a Coin flip work.  Keeping in mind that those terms are, per the DMG, supposed to represent difficulties for characters with no proficiency & ability score ability score ten.  

That would leave those who are mid-level with proficiency and a level appropriate ability score (+6 to +8) able to confidently approach Hard (DC 15) and even take a decent shot at Very Hard (DC 20) checks.

If there's no chance of failure or it's not meaningful, then the DM shouldn't call for a roll.  But going from "No roll" to a default of Medium DC 15 for most meaningful consequences checks with a chance of failure, or 70% failure rate using the baseline consideration, is ludicrous.

----------


## Segev

> If only the game designers saved everyone the trouble of this dilemma and just provided example DCs for various tasks.





> That label is from the perspective of an adventurer who does have one or both of those things. But I'm in favor of adjusting the labels in 1DnD if only so we can finally put this recurring dispute in the ground.


Believe it or not, this isn't where I'm going with it. My issue there is closing the loop on what "an adventurer" should expect to be "easy" or "medium" or "hard." Which is different from the question, here, which is whether a typical PC with a 10 in the relevant stat and no relevant proficiency should have a 55% chance of success on an "easy" task (without reference to what that task is). I'm actually comfortable with that, but it is a valid point to discuss.




> About 75% should be right for a meaningful check with a chance of failure that a no proficiency & ability score ability score ten character should find Easy.  The Default, Medium, a Coin flip work.  Keeping in mind that those terms are, per the DMG, supposed to represent difficulties for characters with no proficiency & ability score ability score ten.  
> 
> That would leave those who are mid-level with proficiency and a level appropriate ability score (+6 to +8) able to confidently approach Hard (DC 15) and even take a decent shot at Very Hard (DC 20) checks.
> 
> If there's no chance of failure or it's not meaningful, then the DM shouldn't call for a roll.  But going from "No roll" to a default of Medium DC 15 for most meaningful consequences checks with a chance of failure, or 70% failure rate using the baseline consideration, is ludicrous.


Sounds like you consider DC 5 to be "easy," where the writers of 5e termed that "very easy." Would that be a fair assessment of your feelings on the matter?

----------


## LudicSavant

The new versions of Resistance and Guidance are an unfortunate combination of strong and boring.  Meaning well be seeing an awful lot of the boring thing.

Its boring because theres very little depth with regards to the strategy of how or when to use it (compared to other abilities of this sort, even the really exceptionally poorly designed ones like Silvery Barbs), and because it really isnt adding any extra flavor dimension to the game  youre just sorta getting generically better at stuff youre already doing.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> The new versions of Resistance and Guidance are an unfortunate combination of strong and boring.  Meaning well be seeing an awful lot of the boring thing.
> 
> Its boring because theres very little depth with regards to the strategy of how or when to use it (compared to other abilities of this sort, even the really exceptionally poorly designed ones like Silvery Barbs), and because it really isnt adding any extra flavor dimension to the game  youre just sorta getting generically better at stuff youre already doing.


I agree with this. And its emblematic of the whole new approach. Boring but powerful. Generic pick this for big numbers without interesting interplay or limits.

----------


## stoutstien

> I agree with this. And its emblematic of the whole new approach. Boring but powerful. Generic pick this for big numbers without interesting interplay or limits.


Which is sad because WotC has never been good at the whole number side of things. 5e danced around that problem quite well by just pretending it matters lol.

----------


## Tanarii

> Sounds like you consider DC 5 to be "easy," where the writers of 5e termed that "very easy." Would that be a fair assessment of your feelings on the matter?


I consider that the default middle value to pick should be DC 10, not DC 15.

(7/11/15 would also be a good low/middle/high value to pick for most tasks)




> Believe it or not, this isn't where I'm going with it. My issue there is closing the loop on what "an adventurer" should expect to be "easy" or "medium" or "hard." Which is different from the question, here, which is whether a typical PC with a 10 in the relevant stat and no relevant proficiency should have a 55% chance of success on an "easy" task (without reference to what that task is). I'm actually comfortable with that, but it is a valid point to discuss


edit:  Oops, missed your point.  Yes, what = a medium task, and a medium task needing to be 50% base chance instead of 25% base chance  for "an adventurer" are different things.

----------


## Kane0

Running joke at my table is 'lets just say 13', which works equally well for setting DCs and rolls that fall off the table

----------


## Psyren

> Believe it or not, this isn't where I'm going with it. My issue there is closing the loop on what "an adventurer" should expect to be "easy" or "medium" or "hard."


Whichever adventuring challenges the DM thinks should get those labels. And if the group isn't having fun, they adjust.




> Which is different from the question, here, which is whether a typical PC with a 10 in the relevant stat and no relevant proficiency should have a 55% chance of success on an "easy" task (without reference to what that task is). I'm actually comfortable with that, but it is a valid point to discuss.


I'm fine either way, i.e. if DC 10 is "Easy" or "Moderate." If they decide to try the latter rather than sticking with the former I'm down.




> Sounds like you consider DC 5 to be "easy," where the writers of 5e termed that "very easy." Would that be a fair assessment of your feelings on the matter?


Not directed at me, but personally I see no point in a Very Easy category, especially when all it does is spawn these discussions ad nauseam.

----------


## Segev

I am not sure how a "very easy" category spawns "these discussions," though I do tend to agree that it should be rare for something to be DC 5 and still so interesting on success or failure as to warrant a roll.

I have generally found, as a player, that DC 10 is pretty common to be able to make "often enough" even only with a 50%, let alone a 55%, chance.

But no, it wouldn't due for something routine. I don't think anybody is saying it would, but I feel the need to be clear.

Given that "8 in the stat and no proficiency" is something that happens, though  I have made such rolls, myself  DC 5 isn't a meaningless one to have. To say it is is akin to suggesting that it is equally meaningless to have DC 15. You're as likely to succeed that as fail the DC 5 if you have 10 in the stat and no proficiency. Why is the chance to succeed so much more important to roll against than the same chance to fail?

So I guess I have talked myself into changing my position from paragraph two!

----------


## Unoriginal

> Given that "8 in the stat and no proficiency" is something that happens, though  I have made such rolls, myself  DC 5 isn't a meaningless one to have.


Indeed.

Unless I'm mistaken, someone with an 8 in the relevant stat and no proficiency will have a 25% chances of failing a DC 5 check, which turns into a 44% chances with disadvantage (and 18% with advantage).

1 chance of failing out of 4 before advantage/disadvantage is still significant, even if the same task would be an automatic success if someone with 14 in the relevant stat and their lvl 1 proficiency applying attempted it.

In other words, the DC 5 matters for any time a character who *isn't* good at the thing that is attempted.

----------


## Psyren

> I am not sure how a "very easy" category spawns "these discussions," though I do tend to agree that it should be rare for something to be DC 5 and still so interesting on success or failure as to warrant a roll.


If Easy was 5 then 10 would be Moderate, and people would stop endlessly complaining about someone average like a commoner having a 50-50 shot (or 55-45, w/e) at succeeding at something that's supposedly Easy, then having to be told that it's not from the perspective of average commoners, then it coming up again later forever. "Moderate" sounds "average" to most people so I can understand it being intuitive.

It might also stop WotC from concluding that DC 15 should be the default for every check, including stealth.




> Given that "8 in the stat and no proficiency" is something that happens, though  I have made such rolls, myself  DC 5 isn't a meaningless one to have. To say it is is akin to suggesting that it is equally meaningless to have DC 15. You're as likely to succeed that as fail the DC 5 if you have 10 in the stat and no proficiency. Why is the chance to succeed so much more important to roll against than the same chance to fail?


Even then you succeed on a 6. Can it come up sometimes, sure, but not nearly enough to justify these arguments imo.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Even then you succeed on a 6. Can it come up sometimes, sure, but not nearly enough to justify these arguments imo.


6+ on a d20 is 3 out of 4 times. Still 1 failure out of 4 tries.

----------


## Psyren

> 6+ on a d20 is 3 out of 4 times. Still 1 failure out of 4 tries.


Yes, and? If you have negative talent and no training, some incidence of failure should be expected. How often are you the one chosen by your group to roll for something where you have 8 stat and no proficiency, yet its so easy that not having those deficiencies would almost guarantee success?

----------


## Unoriginal

> Yes, and?


And that means that it's still something one has to take into account.




> If you have negative talent and no training, some incidence of failure should be expected. How often are you the one chosen by your group to roll for something where you have 8 stat and no proficiency, yet its so easy that not having those deficiencies would almost guarantee success?


Why are you assuming that PCs get "chosen by [their] group to roll for something"?

A PC often has to roll for things even if no one wants them to and no one planned for them to. Some of those rolls will be for things that this particular PC is bad at while a different one would auto-succeed.

A few examples: 

- A STR 8 Wizard getting a shelf pushed on them when fighting in a shoe, requiring a DC 5 STR check with Athleticism proficiency to lift it out of them.

- An INT 8 Barbarian is among the PCs impersonating mercenaries the camp commander is expecting to meet tonight, when the commander asks the Barbarian a question on a famous battle the mercenary they're pretending to be took part in, requiring a DC 5 INT check with History proficiency to recall enough info on said battle.

- A CHA 8 Monk is the only PC who can reach the local ruler on time and attempt to convince them they cannot let their bleeding ally inside the city's walls, as the ally is actually possessed by an entity who will destroy the city's magical defenses if willingly allowed in. It would require a DC 5 with Diplomacy proficiency, as the ruler is already finding it suspicious the ally would have escaped certain death without being allowed to by their enemies. 

Etc.

----------


## Psyren

> Why are you assuming that PCs get "chosen by [their] group to roll for something"?
> 
> A PC often has to roll for things even if no one wants them to and no one planned for them to. Some of those rolls will be for things that this particular PC is bad at while a different one would auto-succeed.
> 
> A few examples: 
> 
> - A STR 8 Wizard getting a shelf pushed on them when fighting in a shoe, requiring a DC 5 STR check with Athleticism proficiency to lift it out of them.
> 
> - An INT 8 Barbarian is among the PCs impersonating mercenaries the camp commander is expecting to meet tonight, when the commander asks the Barbarian a question on a famous battle the mercenary they're pretending to be took part in, requiring a DC 5 INT check with History proficiency to recall enough info on said battle.
> ...


I wouldn't make any of those DC 5 if they matter, so I stand by my opinion.

----------


## Tanarii

> Why are you assuming that PCs get "chosen by [their] group to roll for something"?
> 
> A PC often has to roll for things even if no one wants them to and no one planned for them to. Some of those rolls will be for things that this particular PC is bad at while a different one would auto-succeed.


Exactly.  The current values seem to presume that the DM will only call for checks where the best person in the group gets to roll for it.

That's far from a balanced universal resolution system for declared actions that have meaningful consequences for failure and a chance of failure.

If the best person can step up, they can accomplish more difficult things that a typical adventurer has almost no chance of succeeding at, and a solid chance of success of checks that would be roughly a coin flip for a typical adventurer.  That's great, and IMO would then be working as expected. 

DC 5-10 checks are great for things like maintaining balance (str athletics or dex acrobatics as situation calls for), con checks for environmental stressors, deducing or intuiting things when the party can't communicate easily and needs to act on that info, or Cha checks when someone specific needs to speak for themselves.  They can also be useful for group checks when the good people might carry the party but there are less skilled folks than those likely to mess up.

The key is remains as always: only roll for meaningful consequences, only roll if it wouldn't be automatic for anyone trying it, and IMO judge DC based typical adventurer with no prof and stat 10 ... unless they'd have no chance.  Then consider if DC 21+ is appropriate or it's automatic failure.

Or if you're calling for snap rolls for an individual without thinking things through, at least default to DC 10 not DC 15.

----------


## Pex

> Exactly.  The current values seem to presume that the DM will only call for checks where the best person in the group gets to roll for it.
> 
> That's far from a balanced universal resolution system for declared actions that have meaningful consequences for failure and a chance of failure.
> 
> If the best person can step up, they can accomplish more difficult things that a typical adventurer has almost no chance of succeeding at, and a solid chance of success of checks that would be roughly a coin flip for a typical adventurer.  That's great, and IMO would then be working as expected. 
> 
> DC 5-10 checks are great for things like maintaining balance (str athletics or dex acrobatics as situation calls for), con checks for environmental stressors, deducing or intuiting things when the party can't communicate easily and needs to act on that info, or Cha checks when someone specific needs to speak for themselves.  They can also be useful for group checks when the good people might carry the party but there are less skilled folks than those likely to mess up.
> 
> The key is remains as always: only roll for meaningful consequences, only roll if it wouldn't be automatic for anyone trying it, and IMO judge DC based typical adventurer with no prof and stat 10 ... unless they'd have no chance.  Then consider if DC 21+ is appropriate or it's automatic failure.
> ...


If only there were example DC tables to help DMs adjudicate such things, to see words on paper how setting up DCs would work.
 :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Unoriginal

> I wouldn't make any of those DC 5 if they matter, so I stand by my opinion.


Would you consider giving automatic success to a character who has +2 in the relevant stat mod and +2 from proficiency?

----------


## Tanarii

> If only there were example DC tables to help DMs adjudicate such things, to see words on paper how setting up DCs would work.


There is. In the PHB and DMG.  It's just too high.

----------


## Melil12

Hmmm I always viewed base DCs around 10 and then modified it upwards or downwards if the PCs RP or help eachother. 

So if a barbarian needed to roll an intelligence test I would start at 10, consider how likely the PC is to know this information and modify it. 

I dont think I ever did a DC lower than 8 or so though   never a dc 5

----------


## animorte

> Would you consider giving automatic success to a character who has +2 in the relevant stat mod and +2 from proficiency?


I think that makes perfect sense. I tested a concept (and mentioned it sometime recently) about increasing the rate of proficiency, 1 at level 1-3, 2 at 4-5, all the up to 10 at level 20.

The purpose being that you will consistently get better at what youre supposed to be better at, more clearly. Then auto-succeed if total ability mod + PB = DC.

----------


## Psyren

> Exactly.  The current values seem to presume that the DM will only call for checks where the best person in the group gets to roll for it.


That seems to be what the labels are based on at least. I agree that it can be misleading and that these arguments will never stop until they get bumped down a notch.




> Would you consider giving automatic success to a character who has +2 in the relevant stat mod and +2 from proficiency?


For a _DC 5_ check? 99% of the time I wouldn't even ask for a roll.

----------


## Segev

> Even then you succeed on a 6. Can it come up sometimes, sure, but not nearly enough to justify these arguments imo.


Do you also not permit rolls with DC 15, because the likelihood of success is just as bad as the likelihood of failure on the DC 5?




> I wouldn't make any of those DC 5 if they matter, so I stand by my opinion.


I would argue that the rolls do matter even at DC 5. Would you not make a DC 10 roll for a PC who has a +4 to the check for the same reason? Would you never call for a DC 15 roll if a PC had a +9?

It seems like strange decision-making to say DC 5 is something that should never be the DC for a roll "that matters," but DC 15 is totally okay for it.

----------


## Psyren

> Do you also not permit rolls with DC 15, because the likelihood of success is just as bad as the likelihood of failure on the DC 5?


Just as bad for who?

----------


## Segev

> Just as bad for who?


I am speaking of objective numbers. "Bad" may be the wrong term.

The chance of success on a DC 15 for somebody with an 8 stat and no proficiency is 25%. The chance of failure for the same person on a DC 5 check is also 25%. Why is DC 15 okay to call for, but not DC 5?

----------


## Psyren

> I am speaking of objective numbers. "Bad" may be the wrong term.
> 
> The chance of success on a DC 15 for somebody with an 8 stat and no proficiency is 25%. The chance of failure for the same person on a DC 5 check is also 25%. Why is DC 15 okay to call for, but not DC 5?


Where did I say I was okay calling for DC 15 checks for someone with negative talent and no proficiency? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said I'm _not_ in favor of 15 being the default, not one page ago.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Where did I say I was okay calling for DC 15 checks for someone with negative talent and no proficiency? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said I'm _not_ in favor of 15 being the default, not one page ago.


I'm confused. So if a PC with 8 in the relevant stat and no proficiency attempts something that is DC 15, you just go "it wouldn't be okay to call for a check" and just declare they fail?

----------


## Sorinth

> Do you also not permit rolls with DC 15, because the likelihood of success is just as bad as the likelihood of failure on the DC 5?
> 
> I would argue that the rolls do matter even at DC 5. Would you not make a DC 10 roll for a PC who has a +4 to the check for the same reason? Would you never call for a DC 15 roll if a PC had a +9?
> 
> It seems like strange decision-making to say DC 5 is something that should never be the DC for a roll "that matters," but DC 15 is totally okay for it.


Keep in mind you are ignoring the advice given in the books which state that it's not really worth rolling against DC 5 checks except in unusual circumstances.

----------


## Psyren

> I'm confused. So if a PC with 8 in the relevant stat and no proficiency attempts something that is DC 15, you just go "it wouldn't be okay to call for a check" and just declare they fail?


Spoilering this tangent because we're drifting back to well-worn territory instead of anything to do with the cleric playtest.

*Spoiler: Roll calling approach tangent*
Show

Probably, it depends on the check.

Generally speaking, if I'm calling for a check that is DC 15 or higher, the expectation would be that not everyone in the party is effectively an untalented commoner with an 8 in the relevant ability score and no proficiency; rather, those checks are likely designed for the character(s) with relevant talent/training to shine, especially at low levels.

For example, if I was for some reason running a party of 4 barbarians with 8 Int and no Arcana proficiency, I probably wouldn't have the entire adventure hinge on them passing even a Moderate check to decipher some arcane runes. Or if it did, I wouldn't waste time with rolls, I'd let them know that they probably need to go get help, or find another way to progress the plot instead.

----------


## Segev

> Spoilering this tangent because we're drifting back to well-worn territory instead of anything to do with the cleric playtest.
> 
> *Spoiler: Roll calling approach tangent*
> Show
> 
> Probably, it depends on the check.
> 
> Generally speaking, if I'm calling for a check that is DC 15 or higher, the expectation would be that not everyone in the party is effectively an untalented commoner with an 8 in the relevant ability score and no proficiency; rather, those checks are likely designed for the character(s) with relevant talent/training to shine, especially at low levels.
> 
> For example, if I was for some reason running a party of 4 barbarians with 8 Int and no Arcana proficiency, I probably wouldn't have the entire adventure hinge on them passing even a Moderate check to decipher some arcane runes. Or if it did, I wouldn't waste time with rolls, I'd let them know that they probably need to go get help, or find another way to progress the plot instead.


*Spoiler*
Show

I didn't say "everyone in the party." I said that some such characters exist. Is the only time that a roll is "meaningful" enough to make if "the entire adventure hinge on them passing" it? Because otherwise, I don't see what relevance that has to the discussion being had.


But you're right, this is drifting off topic, so I'll stop responding to it here.

Back on topic, _guidance_ is not considered in the design of 5.0's skill DCs. It is not assumed that everyone will have it. 5.1 _guidance_ as presented in this UA is... well, it's not as bad as the one in the prior UA. At least it isn't limited in (uses/day)/target. And I definitely get how some will find the fact that it's a reaction that doesn't use concentration is nice. But I fear it will make it even more likely that it's just treated as "always on" if you happen to have it, and it also reduces its utility as a party buff because now you have to be right there with the user of it when they do the thing, rather than being able to bless somebody with it before they go off to try something on their own. This is especially relevant to rogues, who are the most likely to be solo when they have a clutch roll they need to make.

Come to think of it, while I don't find 5.0 _resistance_ worth taking because the times you know in advance a save might be upcoming are so rare, it probably was designed with sending the rogue out to disarm traps in mind.

----------


## Psyren

> Back on topic, _guidance_ is not considered in the design of 5.0's skill DCs. It is not assumed that everyone will have it.


I agree with the latter but I'm not sure what basis you have for the former, did the designers say that anywhere? And even if the former was true for 5e, I'm not seeing what that has to do with 1DnD; given that they're redesigning both Guidance itself and the suggested DC system, they're clearly thinking about them both now.




> 5.1 _guidance_ as presented in this UA is... well, it's not as bad as the one in the prior UA. At least it isn't limited in (uses/day)/target. And I definitely get how some will find the fact that it's a reaction that doesn't use concentration is nice. But I fear it will make it even more likely that it's just treated as "always on" if you happen to have it, and it also reduces its utility as a party buff because now you have to be right there with the user of it when they do the thing, rather than being able to bless somebody with it before they go off to try something on their own. This is especially relevant to rogues, who are the most likely to be solo when they have a clutch roll they need to make.


There is an inherent contradiction here - you say 1DnD guidance will be treated as "always on", yet you also acknowledge that the buffer and buffee must be in physical proximity in order to employ it, meaning it _won't_ be always on. And even if the Rogue grabs it themselves, that has a reasonable opportunity cost associated.

----------


## Segev

> There is an inherent contradiction here - you say 1DnD guidance will be treated as "always on", yet you also acknowledge that the buffer and buffee must be in physical proximity in order to employ it, meaning it _won't_ be always on. And even if the Rogue grabs it themselves, that has a reasonable opportunity cost associated.


Sorry I was unclear. Unspoken context change, there. "Always on" was more me thinking in terms of "you don't have to drop concentration for it, nor even have any forethought into whether you cast it or not." It'll apply to skill checks that there's no reason to have expected them to come up, because it's reflexive, now. It will apply even when the druid who usually casts it is maintaining _pass without trace_ (making an enormous assumption that that won't be nerfed into the ground, of course; I never saw the spell used outside of 5e, and it only gets used now because of its enormous boost to stealth, in my experience). It may apply mid-combat to the rogue trying to hide while the cleric is maintaining _spirit guardians_. That's what I meant by "always on," though I totally understand why you took a broader interpretation of the phrase to mean "even when nobody is anywhere near the caster."

----------


## ZRN

> There is an inherent contradiction here - you say 1DnD guidance will be treated as "always on", yet you also acknowledge that the buffer and buffee must be in physical proximity in order to employ it, meaning it _won't_ be always on. And even if the Rogue grabs it themselves, that has a reasonable opportunity cost associated.


The rogue "opportunity cost" question reminds me of SCAGtrips - you could argue that the added rogue damage from Booming Blade is fine because it's balanced by the opportunity cost of spending a feat (or picking a race or subclass) to get those cantrips, but there's a separate issue that it's annoying that you're locked into that specific gish flavor if you want to optimize your damage.

Same issue here - wanting to be The Best at skills (which is supposed to be your class forte) means you have to grab essentially a multiclass feat to learn some priest spells? Feels weird. And completely avoidable.

----------


## Melil12

Next Subclass for rogue should be a Divine gish that gives them guidance :-)

----------


## Psyren

> Sorry I was unclear. Unspoken context change, there. "Always on" was more me thinking in terms of "you don't have to drop concentration for it, nor even have any forethought into whether you cast it or not." It'll apply to skill checks that there's no reason to have expected them to come up, because it's reflexive, now. It will apply even when the druid who usually casts it is maintaining _pass without trace_ (making an enormous assumption that that won't be nerfed into the ground, of course; I never saw the spell used outside of 5e, and it only gets used now because of its enormous boost to stealth, in my experience). It may apply mid-combat to the rogue trying to hide while the cleric is maintaining _spirit guardians_. That's what I meant by "always on," though I totally understand why you took a broader interpretation of the phrase to mean "even when nobody is anywhere near the caster."


It's definitely stronger now that it doesn't compete with your concentration - but again, I have no doubt that a lot of groups were forgetting that drawback in practice anyway, so getting rid of it makes sense.




> The rogue "opportunity cost" question reminds me of SCAGtrips - you could argue that the added rogue damage from Booming Blade is fine because it's balanced by the opportunity cost of spending a feat (or picking a race or subclass) to get those cantrips, but there's a separate issue that it's annoying that you're locked into that specific gish flavor if you want to optimize your damage.
> 
> Same issue here - wanting to be The Best at skills (which is supposed to be your class forte) means you have to grab essentially a multiclass feat to learn some priest spells? Feels weird. And completely avoidable.


Well sure - a Rogue who starts with Magic Initiate is going to have an edge that a rogue without that doesn't... but then so is a Rogue with Lucky, or a Rogue with Skilled, or a Rogue with Alert, or a Rogue with Squire of Solamnia etc. And I have no doubt we'll get even more cool options even before 1DnD launches.

----------


## sambojin

Ardling rogues, everywhere.....
Cat girls, dog boys, everywhere. Guidance'ing everything, controlling everything....
Arrrrggghhh!!!!!

Although, until we get an AT subclass, an Ardling or High Elf or Cloud Goliath Rogue with Magical Initiate does sub-in pretty well at lower levels for now. I actually hope they make them into half casters, with 1/3rd casters being a thing of the past.

----------


## ZRN

> Well sure - a Rogue who starts with Magic Initiate is going to have an edge that a rogue without that doesn't... but then so is a Rogue with Lucky, or a Rogue with Skilled, or a Rogue with Alert, or a Rogue with Squire of Solamnia etc. And I have no doubt we'll get even more cool options even before 1DnD launches.


In 5e, a level 17+ rogue with access to Booming Blade does between 3d8 and 7d8 extra damage every round; up that to 14d8 if he has Warcaster and gets an opportunity attack. That's a huge damage boost! You can argue that rogues aren't overpowered dealing that much extra damage, but my point is that there is no NON-magical way for a rogue to get near that much extra consistent damage out of a single feat, so if you want extra consistent damage you're "stuck" casting spells to get it. Same with guidance/resistance - if you want to juice your skills and saving throws you have to take some divine flavor along with it.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Also seriously nerf or just _remove_ guidance. Guidance gives as much as proficiency in every skill in T1, it also turns all of your proficiencies into expertises. It's basically a +2.5 on all skills. How is that not OP?


 I am so tired of the hate on _guidance_.  It doesn't pose problems at our tables, and never has.  Half the time players forget to use it, and sometimes when the it is used it is beneficial and everyone gets a grin out of it.   I had one Dm (MaxWilson) ask me to ensure that I always spoke a small blessing when I offered guidance to a fellow player ) and I did.  The deity I was aligned with had a relationship with stars and the sky, so my little blessing was something along the lines of "May the stars guide you in your endeavour" (I'll go and find it, I it's somewhere in a discord chat).  
Guidance is fine.  



> Resistance only costs your reaction. It's functionally a +1d4 on all your saves


 Or one of your allies if they are within range.   
Suggest that you rid of your dismissive "only" in that first sentence. 
Eating a reaction is still a resource eaten.  
Also: opportunity cost of another cantrip not selected.



> Also no more precasting guidance, then walking up to someone and making a deception check.


 Which is a bummer since that was the kind of thing that enabled / aided / folded in role play.  



> If you have to break the campaign/worldbuilding give commoners cantrips just to keep the players from breaking the game with a cantrip then perhaps the cantrip should not exist. Just a thought.


 But you don't have to break the game ... hyperbole is not a useful approach here. 



> _Guidance_ should be pre-cast, as in 5.0 D&D, because it lets you use it in these situations.


 Tend to agree.  



> I agree with this. And its emblematic of the whole new approach. Boring but powerful. Generic pick this for big numbers without interesting interplay or limits.


 It sure is smelling that way. 



> Running joke at my table is 'lets just say 13', which works equally well for setting DCs and rolls that fall off the table


 works fine. 



> Keep in mind you are ignoring the advice given in the books which state that it's not really worth rolling against DC 5 checks except in unusual circumstances.


 Who reads?

----------


## Gignere

> I am so tired of the hate on _guidance_.  It doesn't pose problems at our tables, and never has.  Half the time players forget to use it, and sometimes when the it is used it is beneficial and everyone gets a grin out of it.   I had one Dm (MaxWilson) ask me to ensure that I always spoke a small blessing when I offered guidance to a fellow player ) and I did.  The deity I was aligned with had a relationship with stars and the sky, so my little blessing was something along the lines of "May the stars guide you in your endeavour" (I'll go and find it, I it's somewhere in a discord chat).  
> Guidance is fine.  
>  Or one of your allies if they are within range.   
> Suggest that you rid of your dismissive "only" in that first sentence. 
> Eating a reaction is still a resource eaten.  
> Also: opportunity cost of another cantrip not selected.
>  Which is a bummer since that was the kind of thing that enabled / aided / folded in role play.  
>  But you don't have to break the game ... hyperbole is not a useful approach here. 
>  Tend to agree.  
> ...


Guidance is not fine if D&D insists that expertise is a powerful feature that a group of classes can be designed around it. Either expertise needs to be buffed or guidance will need some tuning down. 

Because a cantrip that is basically proficiency/expertise on every skill until nearly the end of t2 means expert groups major defining feature is crapola.

----------


## Psyren

> Guidance is not fine if D&D insists that expertise is a powerful feature that a group of classes can be designed around it. Either expertise needs to be buffed or guidance will need some tuning down. 
> 
> Because a cantrip that is basically proficiency/expertise on every skill until nearly the end of t2 means expert groups major defining feature is crapola.


It's not "every skill." Stopping to loudly chant while you're trying to hide, or in the middle of convincing someone to trust you, is unlikely to go well for you.

----------


## Kane0

> It's not "every skill." Stopping to loudly chant while you're trying to hide, or in the middle of convincing someone to trust you, is unlikely to go well for you.


He has a point though. Expertise is a 'defining feature' of the expert classes, but Guidance does like 75% or more of the same job and is pretty much an afterthought in the caster's repertoire.

----------


## Pex

> Yes, and? If you have negative talent and no training, some incidence of failure should be expected. How often are you the one chosen by your group to roll for something where you have 8 stat and no proficiency, yet its so easy that not having those deficiencies would almost guarantee success?


As often as the DM says so. When I DM the player who came up with the idea to warrant a check makes the roll. Everyone gets to participate in anything, not only the player with an 18 and proficient in that Thing. They have a harder chance of succeeding as expected for the 8 and not proficient, but they get the chance.

----------


## Marcloure

> [Casting guidance] in the middle of convincing someone to trust you, is unlikely to go well for you.


Never understood why people think casting guidance in a social encounter would be frowned upon. It's just asking god to give you a hand, it's not like your are fooling, enchanting, or deceiving the other part in any way (unless they see your god as an enemy).

----------


## Gignere

> Never understood why people think casting guidance in a social encounter would be frowned upon. It's just asking god to give you a hand, it's not like your are fooling, enchanting, or deceiving the other part in any way (unless they see your god as an enemy).


Yes the real life analog is when you see a priest speaking and he crosses himself and speaks a prayer in the middle of a conversation. Im an atheist and doesnt even find that odd nor offended by it.

----------


## Atranen

> Never understood why people think casting guidance in a social encounter would be frowned upon. It's just asking god to give you a hand, it's not like your are fooling, enchanting, or deceiving the other part in any way (unless they see your god as an enemy).


I've always thought it would be extremely frowned upon. It's...magic that's being used to influence and control other people. This is a world where magic is real, it's known, and it has an impact. It's not innocuous; it's clearly manipulative.

----------


## Psyren

> As often as the DM says so. When I DM the player who came up with the idea to warrant a check makes the roll. Everyone gets to participate in anything, not only the player with an 18 and proficient in that Thing. They have a harder chance of succeeding as expected for the 8 and not proficient, but they get the chance.


And if you have a -1 total modifier, +1d4 is hardly going to make you a savant even in low tiers.




> He has a point though. Expertise is a 'defining feature' of the expert classes, but Guidance does like 75% or more of the same job and is pretty much an afterthought in the caster's repertoire.


Experts _generally_ want to be good at sneaking and/or influence, the two situations where reaction guidance is likely to be least useful.




> Never understood why people think casting guidance in a social encounter would be frowned upon. It's just asking god to give you a hand, it's not like your are fooling, enchanting, or deceiving the other part in any way (unless they see your god as an enemy).


Most people won't know _what_ you're casting. And even if they do, that's all the more reason to be suspicious, because they can't know if you're trying to make yourself better at persuading them or deceiving them.

----------


## animorte

> I've always thought it would be extremely frowned upon. It's...magic that's being used to influence and control other people. This is a world where magic is real, it's known, and it has an impact. It's not innocuous; it's clearly manipulative.


In a world where magic is extremely common, I would hardly think everything would be extremely frowned upon and perceived as influence and control. In a world where magic is real and known, Im sure NPCs likely have witnessed some basic magic that is neither aggressive nor manipulative.




> Most people won't know _what_ you're casting. And even if they do, that's all the more reason to be suspicious, because they can't know if you're trying to make yourself better at persuading them or deceiving them.


Or making somebody smell bad, or improve the taste of your food, or lighting up an object.


There are just so many encounters that Ive used so many different spells in different ways that I find it hard to believe NPCs are overwhelmingly suspicious any time a spell might be cast near them, unless they are familiar enough with spells (more particularly ones used against them) to be as such.

The _friends_ cantrip specifically states that the target of the spell knows and becomes hostile Why specifically mention there if the NPC always knows and always becomes hostile no matter what the spell is?

----------


## Atranen

> In a world where magic is extremely common, I would hardly think everything would be extremely frowned upon and perceived as influence and control. In a world where magic is real and known, Im sure NPCs likely have witnessed some basic magic that is neither aggressive nor manipulative.


I think the opposite. There's no way to really tell, as magic does not exist. But we might analogize with mind affecting substances. If I have a meeting and serve alcohol to make my counterpart more amenable, it's no problem. But anything beyond that would be a major problem, and possibly criminal. Guidance could fall into either category. 




> There are just so many encounters that Ive used so many different spells in different ways that I find it hard to believe NPCs are overwhelmingly suspicious any time a spell might be cast near them, unless they are familiar enough with spells (more particularly ones used against them) to be as such.


If they ask me what the spell does, and I say 'it helps me persuade you I'm right', I would expect them to be upset. 




> The _friends_ cantrip specifically states that the target of the spell knows and becomes hostile Why specifically mention there if the NPC always knows and always becomes hostile no matter what the spell is?


I think 5e majorly lacks detail on the topic of using spells in social scenarios.

----------


## Psyren

> Or making somebody smell bad, or improve the taste of your food, or lighting up an object.


And you just have to do those things mid-conversation? That's not exactly going to endear you to the person you're trying to convince of something.

----------


## animorte

> I think the opposite. There's no way to really tell, as magic does not exist. But we might analogize with mind affecting substances. If I have a meeting and serve alcohol to make my counterpart more amenable, it's no problem. But anything beyond that would be a major problem, and possibly criminal. Guidance could fall into either category.


Aside from the trope of settling things over a drink being common, there is still an issue of those drinks being further tampered with such that there is no way of knowing until youre KOd.




> I think 5e majorly lacks detail on the topic of using spells in social scenarios.


Thats fair, but always assuming hostility should hardly be the default.




> If they ask me what the spell does, and I say 'it helps me persuade you I'm right', I would expect them to be upset.





> And you just have to do those things mid-conversation? That's not exactly going to endear you to the person you're trying to convince of something.


Again, with _guidance_ as a reaction, youre not reacting to yourself. You *are not* improving your own attempts to influence them.

Even after casting _guidance_ and the NPC asks, what was that? A logical and accurate response would easily be, offering encouragement or praying to our benefit. I would be willing to bet the NPC *already knows* you are partnered with the guy you literally just walked into his shop with.

*Bonus bit:* It just occurred to me that _guidance_ should instead be a class feature of the Experts that still requires concentration. That way it more accurately portrays the effect of guiding somebody elses actions through something (especially considering the fact you are more likely to have experience with random array of skills as an Expert).

----------


## Mastikator

TBH I think the Friends cantrip strongly support the argument that casting spells in social situations shouldn't automatically cause hostile reactions. Otherwise the spell's advantage would be canceled out by disadvantage. It spells out that they become hostile after the spell ends. Furthermore using guidance in a persuasion check isn't a hostile action, you're not trying to trick or threaten someone, you're trying to come up with better arguments or remember pertinent facts. It's the real world equivalent to whipping out your phone to do an internet search in a discussion as a fact checker. In my experience anyone who finds that annoying isn't using their persuasion check.

----------


## Sorinth

> Never understood why people think casting guidance in a social encounter would be frowned upon. It's just asking god to give you a hand, it's not like your are fooling, enchanting, or deceiving the other part in any way (unless they see your god as an enemy).


Well you could be asking your god to help deceive the other person.

----------


## Sorinth

> TBH I think the Friends cantrip strongly support the argument that casting spells in social situations shouldn't automatically cause hostile reactions. Otherwise the spell's advantage would be canceled out by disadvantage. It spells out that they become hostile after the spell ends. Furthermore using guidance in a persuasion check isn't a hostile action, you're not trying to trick or threaten someone, you're trying to come up with better arguments or remember pertinent facts. It's the real world equivalent to whipping out your phone to do an internet search in a discussion as a fact checker. In my experience anyone who finds that annoying isn't using their persuasion check.


Is asking what you just cast a hostile reaction? Because that's actually probably the more common response, and there's no good answer because it boils down to I'm using magic to convince you of something. And it's not like the NPC in question knows that you are using guidance, nor do they know it's persuasion and not deception check.

If whipping out your phone to help make a better argument involved an app that accessed the other persons private data to generate those "better" arguments then it would certainly be frowned upon.

----------


## stoutstien

IMO I think they realize how messed up their DC scaling is so they are making sure they introduce enough forms of roll adjustments to make it line up.

----------


## Mastikator

> Is asking what you just cast a hostile reaction? Because that's actually probably the more common response, and there's no good answer because it boils down to I'm using magic to convince you of something. And it's not like the NPC in question knows that you are using guidance, nor do they know it's persuasion and not deception check.
> *
> If whipping out your phone to help make a better argument involved an app that accessed the other persons private data to generate those "better" arguments then it would certainly be frowned upon.*


That's a pretty big stretch. There are other uses for looking up facts in discussions. For example any discussion about any non-private topic. I'm pretty sure that's a thing people do.

I'll give you an example, a real world example where looking up facts online actually helped me recently. A friend of mine was arguing that it's possible to send people to the sun in a rocket ship, if the people's live times could be extended (related to that quest in fallout new vegas). He thought it was a matter of time, because ghouls live longer. I looked up some orbital mechanics and fuel equations to prove him wrong. He changed his mind.

Guidance can be an equivalent to that. You're trying to make a persuasive argument, you're not trying to trick someone, you just want them to change their mind and make a rational decision based on facts, facts that they forgot or didn't know or didn't take into consideration. "_I'm casting guidance to help me remember the details better_", that's not a hostile or bad action. There's no reason someone should view it as hostile unless they're trying to trick you and you just made yourself a harder mark.

----------


## Sorinth

> That's a pretty big stretch. There are other uses for looking up facts in discussions. For example any discussion about any non-private topic. I'm pretty sure that's a thing people do.
> 
> I'll give you an example, a real world example where looking up facts online actually helped me recently. A friend of mine was arguing that it's possible to send people to the sun in a rocket ship, if the people's live times could be extended (related to that quest in fallout new vegas). He thought it was a matter of time, because ghouls live longer. I looked up some orbital mechanics and fuel equations to prove him wrong. He changed his mind.
> 
> Guidance can be an equivalent to that. You're trying to make a persuasive argument, you're not trying to trick someone, you just want them to change their mind and make a rational decision based on facts, facts that they forgot or didn't know or didn't take into consideration. "_I'm casting guidance to help me remember the details better_", that's not a hostile or bad action. There's no reason someone should view it as hostile unless they're trying to trick you and you just made yourself a harder mark.


Sadly facts generally don't work in convincing people.

Also I would point out that your example is one where Guidance isn't used on Persuasion check, it's used on an Intelligence check (Or you lied). EDIT: Also it wouldn't work like that anymore since it's a reaction.

----------


## Mastikator

> Sadly facts generally don't work in convincing people.
> 
> Also I would point out that your example is one where Guidance isn't used on Persuasion check, it's used on an Intelligence check (Or you lied). EDIT: Also it wouldn't work like that anymore since it's a reaction.


Yeah, a lot of times people will ignore facts that contradict their beliefs. I see it all the time.

----------


## SpanielBear

Actually Im kind of swayed by this, and Im going to come down on the side of being happy for guidance to be used in conversation. Because at the end of the day, its only a couple of points extra, you still have to be pretty convincing for those to push it over the edge. And its entirely reasonable that the thing that does the tipping over is, plus I have a god on my side.

----------


## Gignere

> Actually Im kind of swayed by this, and Im going to come down on the side of being happy for guidance to be used in conversation. Because at the end of the day, its only a couple of points extra, you still have to be pretty convincing for those to push it over the edge. And its entirely reasonable that the thing that does the tipping over is, plus I have a god on my side.


Wow we convinced one poster!  Anyway back to the other point, guidance is still ridiculously strong for a cantrip in t1 and t2, and merely strong in t3 and t4, relative to expertise and proficiency. 

Basically it allows the cleric and frankly anyone partied with the cleric to be as good as the expert classes in t1 and most of t2 in skills. Sure it might not apply 100% of the situations but it is common enough to be stepping all over the toes of the supposedly expert class group. Not one class but 3 classes.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

Guidance is not equivalent to expertise. 
ad4 averages 2.5, and it never increases.  By level 5 Expertise is an added +3.



> guidance is still _ridiculously_ strong for a cantrip in t1 and t2,


No. Hyperbole is not well used here.  Eldritch blast called and says hi.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## stoutstien

> Guidance is not equivalent to expertise. 
> ad4 averages 2.5, and it never increases.  By level 5 Expertise is an added +3.
> 
> No. Hyperbole is not well used here.  Eldritch blast called and says hi.


Damage in isolation is rarely, if ever, that impactful in TTRPGs. EB without multiple invocation investments isn't much better than other damage cantrips to begin with. It doesn't get any real teeth until T3 so the point guidance is power in T1-2 stands.

Guidance being worth 2.5 means it worth 1.5 ASIs but for every ability score besides it also stacks with said scores. In isolation that's not horrible but it's not in isolation. Both the current form and the play test version can be stacked with other modifiers using the mirrored action.

----------


## Sorinth

> Wow we convinced one poster!  Anyway back to the other point, guidance is still ridiculously strong for a cantrip in t1 and t2, and merely strong in t3 and t4, relative to expertise and proficiency. 
> 
> Basically it allows the cleric and frankly anyone partied with the cleric to be as good as the expert classes in t1 and most of t2 in skills. Sure it might not apply 100% of the situations but it is common enough to be stepping all over the toes of the supposedly expert class group. Not one class but 3 classes.


In terms of stepping on the toes of the expert classes, isn't helping allies with skill checks a natural aspect of a support class? In fact it's going to be the experts who are getting targeted by Guidance in the first place so it's not like it makes them irrelevant.

----------


## Mastikator

Anyone who wants to play a truly decked out expert is going to take magic initiate at level 1 to get access to guidance if they don't already have it. If they do, like a ranger, would be better off with lucky. To give themselves advantage, double proficiency, +1d4 and their ability score modifier in their chosen field. And if they happen to want to be super mega-op at the scholar skills then two levels of cleric is not a bad option too (along with some quadratically scaling healing/blasting).

----------


## Segev

> Guidance is not fine if D&D insists that expertise is a powerful feature that a group of classes can be designed around it. Either expertise needs to be buffed or guidance will need some tuning down. 
> 
> Because a cantrip that is basically proficiency/expertise on every skill until nearly the end of t2 means expert groups major defining feature is crapola.





> He has a point though. Expertise is a 'defining feature' of the expert classes, but Guidance does like 75% or more of the same job and is pretty much an afterthought in the caster's repertoire.


This is said as if Expertise didn't stack with _guidance_. At low tiers, where this is the biggest "problem," a character with (somehow) a 20 ability score and expertise has +7 to the check, which can be pretty darned good. A max-rolled _guidance_ buffs that to +11! That's amazing, especially at low tier! It also still has a 15% failure chance on a "moderately hard" task of DC 15. Note that this is after assuming maximum roll on _guidance_, not average.

Bounded accuracy is still not broken even under this "worst-case" scenario in tier 1. And the Expertise character, I assure you, isn't feeling "robbed" by having _guidance_ offered to boost his check.

----------


## Gignere

> This is said as if Expertise didn't stack with _guidance_. At low tiers, where this is the biggest "problem," a character with (somehow) a 20 ability score and expertise has +7 to the check, which can be pretty darned good. A max-rolled _guidance_ buffs that to +11! That's amazing, especially at low tier! It also still has a 15% failure chance on a "moderately hard" task of DC 15. Note that this is after assuming maximum roll on _guidance_, not average.
> 
> Bounded accuracy is still not broken even under this "worst-case" scenario in tier 1. And the Expertise character, I assure you, isn't feeling "robbed" by having _guidance_ offered to boost his check.


Yes it is good to have guidance on the expert, however guidance is good enough such that there may not be a compelling reason to have an expert in your party. 

Currently playing in a party without an expert class, and we are managing skill checks with guidance and help action. Literally just using guidance to replace the expert class group, maybe well start hurting at higher levels, currently level 4, but we are doing ok in the skill check department.

No one is clamoring we need a skill monkey at all.

----------


## Sorinth

> Yes it is good to have guidance on the expert, however guidance is good enough such that there may not be a compelling reason to have an expert in your party. 
> 
> Currently playing in a party without an expert class, and we are managing skill checks with guidance and help action. Literally just using guidance to replace the expert class group, maybe well start hurting at higher levels, currently level 4, but we are doing ok in the skill check department.
> 
> No one is clamoring we need a skill monkey at all.


Wasn't one of the design goals of 5e that you didn't have to have specific classes? So yeah you don't need a skill monkey on your team just like you don't need an arcane caster or a healer or any of the other class.

----------


## Segev

> Yes it is good to have guidance on the expert, however guidance is good enough such that there may not be a compelling reason to have an expert in your party. 
> 
> Currently playing in a party without an expert class, and we are managing skill checks with guidance and help action. Literally just using guidance to replace the expert class group, maybe well start hurting at higher levels, currently level 4, but we are doing ok in the skill check department.
> 
> No one is clamoring we need a skill monkey at all.


You'd find the same to be true, I wager, without _guidance_, as well. It isn't "replacing the expert." Bounded accuracy means that experts are not required. In theory, no class group is. Experts make certain things easier and more reliable, but nothing is guaranteed. I assure you that the bonus from _guidance_ is probably making the difference less often than you think it is. Not that it isn't helping and having an effect, but it's not going to turn "we need an expert!" into "meh, who needs experts?" The failure chances remain too high even when you combine the two for it to make experts redundant.

----------


## Gignere

> Wasn't one of the design goals of 5e that you didn't have to have specific classes? So yeah you don't need a skill monkey on your team just like you don't need an arcane caster or a healer or any of the other class.


Well in the games I played in when we didnt have a full arcane caster or healer we were all talking how we would love to have one and as soon as the first PC that bites it the rerolled PC would oftentimes be that full arcane caster or healer, because the lack of it is felt so badly by the whole group. 

However right now no one is missing the skill monkey, like literally no one in the party has said in one game gosh if we had a rogue it would be so much better.

----------


## Tanarii

> Never understood why people think casting guidance in a social encounter would be frowned upon. It's just asking god to give you a hand, it's not like your are fooling, enchanting, or deceiving the other part in any way (unless they see your god as an enemy).


Because casting a spell to better persuade someone is fooling, enchanting or deceiving them by magic.  

Even trying to use persuasion on someone _without_ Magic is likely to upset a large number of people.  Think about how people react to used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians and mechanics. Using magic to make yourself better at it should be universally frowned upon, if they know.

And if they don't know, you just cast an unknown spell in the middle of a conversation.  Of course they're going to be suspicious.   As another poster regularly says, that's the equivalent of pulling out a weapon and waving it around.




> No. Hyperbole is not well used here.  Eldritch blast called and says hi.


Its not hyperbole.  Eldritch Blast is ... okay in combat.
Guidance is incredible in non-combat.

----------


## animorte

> Using magic to make yourself better at it should be universally frowned upon, if they know.


I continue to disagree. It should not automatically 100% be frowned upon. Im going to point out, yet again, that they should be equally, if not more, suspicious of the person _actively_ trying to deceive/intimidate/ whatever them.




> As another poster regularly says, that's the equivalent of pulling out a weapon and waving it around.


This sentiment is ridiculous. Deity of choice, help my friend to talk better is hardly equivalent to something that could just end you instantly.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Its not hyperbole...{snip} Guidance is _incredible_ in non-combat.


 More hyperbole. Guidance does what it says it will do. And you forego another cantrip to take it.  I usually take it because I build my clerics to be support casters.  Explicitly. I am all about teamwork.  Teamwork and synergy _is_ the better approach.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> If they ask me what the spell does, and I say 'it helps me persuade you I'm right', I would expect them to be upset.


This wording makes it sound like you are affecting them with the spell. Guidance affects your ally's roll, not the DC. It would be more accurate and less upsetting to say 'it helps me (or my friend) present our case well.' 

Granted, the real-world timing on the new version of Guidance is weird, and effectively creates a retcon situation. Thematically the _character_ who cast Guidance realized the character making the check needed some guidance mid-way through the check, even though the _player_ whose character cast Guidance didn't realize it until fail/success was called.




> If whipping out your phone to help make a better argument involved an app that accessed the other persons private data to generate those "better" arguments then it would certainly be frowned upon.


I think a better analogy would be an app where you type in what you want to say and it gives you a more polished way to say it.




> This is said as if Expertise didn't stack with _guidance_. At low tiers, where this is the biggest "problem," a character with (somehow) a 20 ability score and expertise has +7 to the check, which can be pretty darned good. A max-rolled _guidance_ buffs that to +11! That's amazing, especially at low tier! It also still has a 15% failure chance on a "moderately hard" task of DC 15. Note that this is after assuming maximum roll on _guidance_, not average.
> 
> Bounded accuracy is still not broken even under this "worst-case" scenario in tier 1. And the Expertise character, I assure you, isn't feeling "robbed" by having _guidance_ offered to boost his check.


Agreed, the fact that Guidance can stack with Expertise is what makes me think it doesn't overshadow the Expert classes. Either is good, but both together is better.




> Well in the games I played in when we didnt have a full arcane caster or healer we were all talking how we would love to have one and as soon as the first PC that bites it the rerolled PC would oftentimes be that full arcane caster or healer, because the lack of it is felt so badly by the whole group. 
> 
> However right now no one is missing the skill monkey, like literally no one in the party has said in one game gosh if we had a rogue it would be so much better.


Weirdly, I just had the exact opposite happen in a campaign. We have a full arcane caster and cleric (me!), but we were missing the skill monkey and _desperately_ needed one. One of our players requested to write their character out of the campaign so they could make one.




> Because casting a spell to better persuade someone is fooling, enchanting or deceiving them by magic.  
> 
> Even trying to use persuasion on someone _without_ Magic is likely to upset a large number of people.  Think about how people react to used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians and mechanics. Using magic to make yourself better at it should be universally frowned upon, if they know.
> 
> And if they don't know, you just cast an unknown spell in the middle of a conversation.  Of course they're going to be suspicious.   As another poster regularly says, that's the equivalent of pulling out a weapon and waving it around.


I disagree that Guidance is fooling, enchanting or deceiving anybody by magic. If Guidance reduced the DC, I think you'd be right. But it doesn't. It increases your (or your ally's) roll. It presents your argument in a better light, akin to having good visual aids or an analogy that really makes your point clear.

People react poorly to used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians and mechanics because they have reputations of using Deception rather than Persuasion. People tend to have a much different reaction to motivational speakers, who also take steps to make themselves better at persuading people.

I suppose the 'unknown spell' point depends on your table. At mine, the verbal component would be something along the lines of '{insert deity here}, please provide guidance to {me/insert ally name here} during this conversation,' which would announce to everybody there that you're casting Guidance.

----------


## Waazraath

> I continue to disagree. It should not automatically 100% be frowned upon. Im going to point out, yet again, that they should be equally, if not more, suspicious of the person _actively_ trying to deceive/intimidate/ whatever them.
> 
> 
> This sentiment is ridiculous. Deity of choice, help my friend to talk better is hardly equivalent to something that could just end you instantly.


How does an NPC know when somebody starts casting if they are gonna call for a blessing to better convince you (which I agree with Tanarii that this is also something that will be frowned upon in for instance a negotiation or when haggling for a price), or is gonna try to change him in frog, or gonna cast fireball? And if the NPC doesn't know, how does he react?

----------


## Gignere

> Weirdly, I just had the exact opposite happen in a campaign. We have a full arcane caster and cleric (me!), but we were missing the skill monkey and _desperately_ needed one. One of our players requested to write their character out of the campaign so they could make one.
> .


What did you feel missed about the skill monkey? I am fascinated.

----------


## Marcloure

> How does an NPC know when somebody starts casting if they are gonna call for a blessing to better convince you (which I agree with Tanarii that this is also something that will be frowned upon in for instance a negotiation or when haggling for a price), or is gonna try to change him in frog, or gonna cast fireball? And if the NPC doesn't know, how does he react?


Why would anyone expect the holy man to cast fireball or turn them into a frog? If the king receives a cleric in his court, and the cleric calls their god to better convince the king, why would the king ill-judge that? Unless the cleric serves an evil god, there shouldn't be the expectation that the a prayer is meant to cause harm. Also, I'm not convinced of the idea that almost no one would understand magic in a standard D&D world. Even peasants in the Forgotten Realms know that clerics can heal and that their deity can help them achieve whatever, so not even peasants would look at them with prejudice because they cast a spell to soothe their tongue before a rite or mass.

----------


## Jakinbandw

> call for a blessing to better convince you (which I agree with Tanarii that this is also something that will be frowned upon in for instance a negotiation or when haggling for a price)


I'm not sure I agree here. There are many things that can help convince other people of things, dressing well, being clean, wearing perfume. How many of those are considered socially unacceptable? 

Likewise, is choosing to be polite considered bad or good? It is a persuasive technique. The idea of being hostile to people that are more persuasive means you should only deal with rude, unwashed people in rags. That doesn't sound realistic to me.

----------


## Segev

From a RPG-as-game perspective, a lot of players (GMs included) will tend to see any sort of mechanical way of influencing PCs or NPCs as "mind control," and thus obviously hostile. There are GMs for Exalted 2E who, in all seriousness, asserted that the only rational response to anybody trying to engage in discussion was to draw your sword and try to kill them before they could influence you, because they viewed even natural, conversational efforts to persuade as hostile mind control if it invoked mechanics in any way.

----------


## Psyren

> Again, with _guidance_ as a reaction, youre not reacting to yourself. You *are not* improving your own attempts to influence them.
> 
> Even after casting _guidance_ and the NPC asks, what was that? A logical and accurate response would easily be, offering encouragement or praying to our benefit. I would be willing to bet the NPC *already knows* you are partnered with the guy you literally just walked into his shop with.


If the DM rules that you can't react to your own failure, fine, but the posters I was responding to were saying that Guidance is analagous to proficiency in every skill and therefore OP - meaning that a non-expert/non-skillmonkey would use it to usurp those roles' spotlight themselves rather than as a buff to another party member who happens to be the face/scout.

----------


## Segev

> Again, with _guidance_ as a reaction, youre not reacting to yourself. You *are not* improving your own attempts to influence them.





> If the DM rules that you can't react to your own failure, fine, but the posters I was responding to were saying that Guidance is analagous to proficiency in every skill and therefore OP - meaning that a non-expert/non-skillmonkey would use it to usurp those roles' spotlight themselves rather than as a buff to another party member who happens to be the face/scout.


Yeah, er, animorte? Nothing in the RAW says you can't react to yourself and your own skill failures to cast _guidance_ with the 5.1 version of the spell.

----------


## Gignere

> If the DM rules that you can't react to your own failure, fine, but the posters I was responding to were saying that Guidance is analagous to proficiency in every skill and therefore OP - meaning that a non-expert/non-skillmonkey would use it to usurp those roles' spotlight themselves rather than as a buff to another party member who happens to be the face/scout.


Its more in the absence of a face/scout the caster with guidance can adequately perform that function without the party feeling they desire an expert class.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> What did you feel missed about the skill monkey? I am fascinated.


Our party included...

A Cleric (Trickery Domain)
A Wizard (Scribes)
An Artificer (Battle Smith)
A Ranger (Drakewarden)

None of us had Charisma over 10, and the only Charisma-based skill any of us had trained was my Deception. None of us were trained with Thieves' Tools, and the Steel Defender had the highest strength at 14. So any time we needed to talk our way out of something, or get past a locked door, we were in trouble. And we only managed Stealth on account of my ability to cast Pass Without Trace. Pretty much every session we had two or three instances of "so... who has the highest {insert check here}... nobody has better than +1?... oh Lord we're going to get into another fight that we could easily avoid, aren't we?".

Edit: Our Ranger changed into a Bard with proficiency with Thieves' Tools.

----------


## animorte

> And if the NPC doesn't know, how does he react?


Their first order of business would be a saving throw to not turn into a frog, they might suspect something is up at that point. If its a fireball, thats pretty obvious and they would likely know within a couple seconds at most.




> Yeah, er, animorte? Nothing in the RAW says you can't react to yourself and your own skill failures to cast _guidance_ with the 5.1 version of the spell.


Ok, so there might be no RAW supporting that, maybe? Ill have to go back and check. If were going on the idea that you take an action (for a skill), you typically arent allowed reactions on your own turn. That would certainly open up the order of events in an interesting way. But hey, if we find something that supports you _can_, by all means! Until then, it doesnt make any sense to me.

----------


## Segev

> If were going on the idea that you take an action (for a skill), you typically arent allowed reactions on your own turn.


The rules do not say anything about reactions being restricted to off-turn, nor by you having taken an action or bonus action on your turn. Reactions are renewed at the start of your turn; that's it. Use your reaction on your turn if you have one that is triggered on your turn and you want to.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

To follow up on this discussion about skill proficiencies: 
I dislike the gating of skill checks behind proficiencies. 
That is NOT RAW for D&D 5e, 
and I detest that they may go that way in D&Done.

----------


## Tanarii

> How does an NPC know when somebody starts casting if they are gonna call for a blessing to better convince you (which I agree with Tanarii that this is also something that will be frowned upon in for instance a negotiation or when haggling for a price), or is gonna try to change him in frog, or gonna cast fireball? And if the NPC doesn't know, how does he react?


Exactly.  It's not a prayer with intelligible words.  It's an unknown spell with mystic V and S components.

I mean, if divine spells were common language prayers for V components, it'd potentially be less of an issue.  There'd still be how they felt about the particular payer enhancing whatever it is the table decided +1d4 to social skill represented.  But at least that information would be known.

An unknown spell is an unknown spell. And a large number of unknown spells are detrimental to other creatures around the caster.

----------


## Psyren

> Ok, so there might be no RAW supporting that, maybe? Ill have to go back and check. If were going on the idea that you take an action (for a skill), you typically arent allowed reactions on your own turn. That would certainly open up the order of events in an interesting way. But hey, if we find something that supports you _can_, by all means! Until then, it doesnt make any sense to me.


You're thinking of 3.5/PF Readied actions I think. Normal Reactions have no such clause.

(Think about it logically - if your rule was true then it would be impossible to use Feather Fall/Slow Fall on your turn.)




> Its more in the absence of a face/scout the caster with guidance can adequately perform that function without the party feeling they desire an expert class.


But they can't, not necessarily anyway. The Scout usually wants to stay quiet, and the Face usually doesn't want to start casting spells mid-conversation, at least not openly.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> An unknown spell is an unknown spell. And a large number of unknown spells are detrimental to other creatures around the caster.


Yeah. And this, for me, is the kicker--_if they knew what it was_, most people wouldn't care (in my world). But not knowing what you're casting? Yeah, not a good thing. And lots of people can (and do) pretend to be holy folks, and there's really no way to check (at least trivially on the fly, which is what you'd need).

Casting a spell without prior negotiation and existing trust is like reaching into your pocket abruptly when pulled over by a cop. Sure, you _could_ be pulling out your wallet...

----------


## Kane0

Yes one of the oddities of the rules I dislike is the ability to use a reaction during your own turn.

----------


## animorte

> Exactly.  It's not a prayer with intelligible words.  It's an unknown spell with mystic V and S components.


There is nowhere that declares the verbal component of your spell needs to be some mythical tongue unfamiliar to anybody in earshot. It could be that just as easily as speaking common.




> The rules do not say anything about reactions being restricted to off-turn, nor by you having taken an action or bonus action on your turn. Reactions are renewed at the start of your turn; that's it. Use your reaction on your turn if you have one that is triggered on your turn and you want to.





> You're thinking of 3.5/PF Readied actions I think. Normal Reactions have no such clause.


That is probably exactly what Im doing. I can from 3.5e so youre probably right. My bad. But still this



> Yes one of the oddities of the rules I dislike is the ability to use a reaction during your own turn.


Its just sounds weird and we may have used it like that before, but I dont recall exactly.




> _if they knew what it was_, most people wouldn't care (in my world). But not knowing what you're casting? Yeah, not a good thing.


That first bit is all Ive been getting at the whole time. Some people may well recognize the spells and wont really care. Others wont know and they may become hostile. Even so, there are a few left that may not know what its supposed to look like whatsoever.




> Casting a spell without prior negotiation and existing trust is like reaching into your pocket abruptly when pulled over by a cop. Sure, you _could_ be pulling out your wallet...


This is the best statement Ive seen so far to justify instant hostility. Even then, its an individual trained specifically for this circumstance, not just a random NPC.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> There is nowhere that declares the verbal component of your spell needs to be some mythical tongue unfamiliar to anybody in earshot. It could be that just as easily as speaking common.


There is, actually. It's _mystic words, chanted with very specific sounds, pitch, resonance, and cadence_ (PHB). Which at least by dev intent, is intentionally _not_ a language. The verbal component is not regular words. If it was, it'd be much more recognizable than a 55% chance of success for a cantrip.




> That first bit is all Ive been getting at the whole time. Some people may well recognize the spells and wont really care. Others wont know and they may become hostile. Even so, there are a few left that may not know what its supposed to look like whatsoever.


The design seems to be that everyone knows you're casting a spell. Some very few might know what spell you're casting. But most of the time, the risks are huge. You may not get instant hostility, but you're likely to increase tensions. I'd normally put it as

* Anyone already disposed friendly to you will either not react OR will at most react in a way that gives you disadvantage[2].
* Anyone already disposed neutrally to you may (rarely) not react; otherwise they will likely become of unfriendly[1] disposition for that check AND might impose disadvantage.
* Anyone already disposed unfriendly to you will either become actually hostile OR will cap your result at DC 10 (Won't explicitly oppose but won't help) no matter what you roll.

That's assuming you do it when it actually matters (ie trying to convince someone to do something they weren't going to do already). but that's foundational--otherwise you wouldn't be making a check at all.

That can all be avoided if you explain what you're doing and provide enough for someone to trust you. Which is why those already disposed well toward you don't jump down your throat.




> This is the best statement Ive seen so far to justify instant hostility. Even then, its an individual trained specifically for this circumstance, not just a random NPC.


Note that this applies in other cases where there is any tension at all. Which are the only cases where a check is even warranted. And as I said, I generally wouldn't jump to outright hostility unless you were already in the "hands on weapons, nobody make a sudden move" case. But it would generally cause as much harm as good in social situations _no matter what spell you're casting_ (language barriers excepted, most of the time). 

[1] I'm distinguishing "unfriendly" as the lowest of the three dispositions from _outright hostile_ (ie weapons drawn/initiative rolled). A change in disposition caps what the check can mean--a result of 20 for a friendly person means "will take significant risk", but a DC 20 for an unfriendly person means "will only do something with no risk or cost".
[2] Such as if you're talking to someone who already distrusts magic, casters, or your message in particular

----------


## animorte

> There is, actually. It's _mystic words, chanted with very specific sounds, pitch, resonance, and cadence_ (PHB). Which at least by dev intent, is intentionally _not_ a language. The verbal component is not regular words. If it was, it'd be much more recognizable than a 55% chance of success for a cantrip.


This still doesnt declare it as another language entirely, or the absence thereof. I do understand the purpose for this is so that you dont accidentally cast a thing in regular conversation, which is where other spell components can play a part. I believe it is open enough that it _can_ be in common, especially considering the existence of other components (I.e. all prerequisites need to be met simultaneously in order to cast the spell).




> The design seems to be that everyone knows you're casting a spell.


I honestly cant help but disagree with this while still being in agreement to most of the rest you have to say. Maybe, Im just looking for a fight at that point. I do appreciate your open interpretation.

Ive said it several times now, I very much like the Influence Action in One because of how it organizes the basic foundation of interacting with NPCs.

----------


## Psyren

> Yes one of the oddities of the rules I dislike is the ability to use a reaction during your own turn.


What makes it an oddity? You could do that even in 3.5 (when they were called "immediate actions.")

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> This still doesnt declare it as another language entirely, or the absence thereof. I do understand the purpose for this is so that you dont accidentally cast a thing in regular conversation, which is where other spell components can play a part. I believe it is open enough that it _can_ be in common, especially considering the existence of other components (I.e. all prerequisites need to be met simultaneously in order to cast the spell).


It's been explicitly stated as such, although not in errata-level documents.

And it doesn't make sense that it _could_ be just a regular part of speech--when you have to work in _specific sounds, at specific intonations, cadences, pitches, and rhythms_, you can't do so in any meaningful way in normal conversation.

You can certainly say common things _around_ casting the spells, but the actual components themselves are not common (or any other normal language) words.




> I honestly cant help but disagree with this while still being in agreement to most of the rest you have to say. Maybe, Im just looking for a fight at that point. I do appreciate your open interpretation.
> 
> Ive said it several times now, I very much like the Influence Action in One because of how it organizes the basic foundation of interacting with NPCs.


If you don't rule it that way, then Subtle Spell is meaningless. Because anyone can hide their spellcasting whenever they want, no action or resource required.

----------


## ZRN

> If the DM rules that you can't react to your own failure, fine, but the posters I was responding to were saying that Guidance is analagous to proficiency in every skill and therefore OP - meaning that a non-expert/non-skillmonkey would use it to usurp those roles' spotlight themselves rather than as a buff to another party member who happens to be the face/scout.


It's worth remembering that not every design/balance problem is about inter-class balance. I think the new Guidance and Resistance are bad design because they're finicky to use but powerful enough that you'll do so anyway, making the whole game slower and more frustrating. Nothing to do with overall class balance or usurping roles.

----------


## Psyren

> This still doesnt declare it as another language entirely, or the absence thereof. I do understand the purpose for this is so that you dont accidentally cast a thing in regular conversation, which is where other spell components can play a part. I believe it is open enough that it _can_ be in common, especially considering the existence of other components (I.e. all prerequisites need to be met simultaneously in order to cast the spell).


By RAW, identifying a spell _"requires a quick mind and familiarity with the theory and practice of casting... {even} being able to cast spells doesn't by itself make you adept at deducing exactly what others are doing when they cast their spells."_ In other words, spellcasting is not just plain speech, otherwise it wouldn't require a check.




> It's worth remembering that not every design/balance problem is about inter-class balance. I think the new Guidance and Resistance are bad design because they're finicky to use but powerful enough that you'll do so anyway, making the whole game slower and more frustrating. Nothing to do with overall class balance or usurping roles.


I don't see them as "finicky" at all. You're within 10 ft of someone, they failed a check, add a d4 and see if they can succeed. Just because that may not be practical on a stealth mission or during a social encounter doesn't mean it's difficult to use.

----------


## animorte

> It's been explicitly stated as such, although not in errata-level documents.
> 
> And it doesn't make sense that it _could_ be just a regular part of speech--when you have to work in _specific sounds, at specific intonations, cadences, pitches, and rhythms_, you can't do so in any meaningful way in normal conversation.
> 
> You can certainly say common things _around_ casting the spells, but the actual components themselves are not common (or any other normal language) words.


Guess Ive been playing D&D wrong this whole time!  :Small Big Grin:  Weve always come up with interesting statements/phrases/words to accompany the casting of particular spells. Its pretty fun that way. Of course this _does_ keep into account the spells with only verbal components. Now that is a different thing entirely.




> If you don't rule it that way, then Subtle Spell is meaningless. Because anyone can hide their spellcasting whenever they want, no action or resource required.


Thats not what Im saying at all. I just imagine that every once in a while, there is the slight possibility of an NPC that isnt established with this knowledge. Ive certainly played a few NPCs (and even a couple PCs) that way. Theyre just fascinated with seeing this new thing called magic and learning the process of what it looks like and how many different effects are out there, sometimes learning the hard way that magic can be just as dangerous as it is exciting.




> By RAW, identifying a spell _"requires a quick mind and familiarity with the theory and practice of casting... {even} being able to cast spells doesn't by itself make you adept at deducing exactly what others are doing when they cast their spells."_ In other words, spellcasting is not just plain speech, otherwise it wouldn't require a check.


This is exactly why I think it could just as easily be both common or some _mythical sounds_. The weird sounds accompanied with whatever other components potentially stand out more than an uncommon phrase in a familiar language.

----------


## Psyren

> Guess Ive been playing D&D wrong this whole time. Weve always come up with interesting statements/phrases/words to accompany the casting of particular spells. Its pretty fun that way. Of course this _does_ keep into account the spells with only verbal components. Now that is a different thing entirely.


Accompanying your casting with fun sayings is fine. Disguising the fact that you're casting at all is not. You're essentially doing an end run around Subtle Spell for free.

----------


## animorte

> Accompanying your casting with fun sayings is fine. Disguising the fact that you're casting at all is not. You're essentially doing an end run around Subtle Spell for free.


I wasnt saying Im trying to do that. Subtle Spell is one of my favorites just for this purpose. The only thing Im trying to really establish is that not all NPCs should always know what a spell looks like and not all NPCs should be hostile to them by default.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Accompanying your casting with fun sayings is fine. Disguising the fact that you're casting at all is not. You're essentially doing an end run around Subtle Spell for free.


And now I'm agreeing with Psyren...what's this world coming to?

Seriously, if the component to _guidance_ is the phrase "Alakashamazor" intoned as "Ah la ka [neutral, followed by 0.1s pause] SHAM [intoned at a high C, neutral tone, loudly] ah [neutral, 0.2s pause] ZOR [said in a clear, falling tone]"

Player: Torm Guide your hand! Alakashamazor! (enunciated properly)

is fine. The latter is the component, the former is just words. Leave it out, nothing changes. Leave out the component and you don't have a spell.

Where:

Player: Torm Guide Your Hand

alone _isn't_ casting a spell. And "Ah la [whispered] Torm-ka guide-sham [whispered] your-ah [neutral] hand-zor [emphasis on hand]" isn't either, because the intonations and cadence are wrong.

You could, conceivably, concoct a more elaborate set of phrases around the component without altering it, disguising what parts are the component. But
a) that's really really hard
b) still going to sound like "dude is chanting magic words", which is a clear "yeah, he's probably casting (or pretending to cast) a magic spell" signal

----------


## Psyren

> I wasnt saying Im trying to do that. Subtle Spell is one of my favorites just for this purpose. The only thing Im trying to really establish is that not all NPCs should always know what a spell looks like and not all NPCs should be hostile to them by default.


I never said all NPCs will be hostile to casting by default. But the _players won't know_ which NPCs _are._ That's more than enough to help keep Guidance spam in check + make an Expert who doesn't need Guidance to be any good at what they do, valuable.

----------


## animorte

> And now I'm agreeing with Psyren...what's this world coming to?


Im glad to oblige unexpected unities!  :Small Tongue: 




> Seriously, if the component to _guidance_ is the phrase "Alakashamazor" intoned as "Ah la ka [neutral, followed by 0.1s pause] SHAM [intoned at a high C, neutral tone, loudly] ah [neutral, 0.2s pause] ZOR [said in a clear, falling tone]"
> 
> Player: Torm Guide your hand!


Serious question: Lets take the phrase, Torm Guide your hand! Is it inconceivable that this phrase could follow the exact same rules as, Alakashamazor and instead be the verbal component?

Example: "Torm [neutral, followed by 0.1s pause] GUIDE [intoned at a high C, neutral tone, loudly] your [neutral, 0.2s pause] HAND [said in a clear, falling tone]"

I would say the inflection and timing still requires such precision and practice that it would be equally difficult to produce accidentally and still easily come across as the casting of a spell.




> I never said all NPCs will be hostile to casting by default. But the _players won't know_ which NPCs _are._ That's more than enough to help keep Guidance spam in check + make an Expert who doesn't need Guidance to be any good at what they do, valuable.


This is fair. Yes, you havent been the primary concern for the extreme of all NPCs that Im arguing against.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Im glad to oblige unexpected unities! 
> 
> 
> Serious question: Lets take the phrase, Torm Guide your hand! Is it inconceivable that this phrase could follow the exact same rules as, Alakashamazor and instead be the verbal component?
> 
> Example: "Torm [neutral, followed by 0.1s pause] GUIDE [intoned at a high C, neutral tone, loudly] your [neutral, 0.2s pause] HAND [said in a clear, falling tone]"
> 
> I would say the inflection and timing still requires such precision and practice that it would be equally difficult to produce accidentally and still easily come across as the casting of a spell.
> 
> ...


Then every single person _must_ use that exact same phrasing (within small deviation). Because components are part of the _spell_, not part of the _caster_. And thus, within epsilon, must be similar (if not identical) wherever that same spell is used.

And we have explicit statements that verbal components don't sound like normal words and sound explicitly like _mystic words_.

Mystic words are not regular words. That's kinda inherent in the nature of _mystical_.

----------


## animorte

> Then every single person _must_ use that exact same phrasing (within small deviation). Because components are part of the _spell_, not part of the _caster_. And thus, within epsilon, must be similar (if not identical) wherever that same spell is used.
> 
> And we have explicit statements that verbal components don't sound like normal words and sound explicitly like _mystic words_.
> 
> Mystic words are not regular words. That's kinda inherent in the nature of _mystical_.


So, I finally pulled out my books and across the board, youre pretty much on point. It doesnt say at any point that it _cant_ be words, but thats not the important part. The finer points of the verbal component itself make very little difference as long as the prerequisite is able to be met. (Ill remember this, but Ive never knowingly tried to override game mechanics based on technicality there, honest!)

Ill go have a seat now. Thanks for your time!  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Segev

While I don't always treat it this way, I am fond of the notion that verbal components ARE language. Possibly translatable into your native speech, if not already there. 

"May Lathander bless you with clarity of speech and honesty of action," said while also making the mystical gesture of benediction sacred to that god, would seem a perfectly valid way to cast _guidance_, to me. It certainly isn't disguising that you're casting a spell. Those unfamiliar with it likely know the cleric is probably doing magic; he just invoked his god and made a gesture. They may deduce from the words what the cleric intends the spell to do. But they won't know exactly how it does it (e.g. by enhancing the mental and social faculties of the target so he simply does better in trying to communicate/persuade); they only know what was said of the goal. The roll to ID the spell gives all the particulars.

----------


## Tanarii

> Then every single person _must_ use that exact same phrasing (within small deviation). Because components are part of the _spell_, not part of the _caster_. And thus, within epsilon, must be similar (if not identical) wherever that same spell is used.


Nope. They can be different from caster to caster. They don't even always have to be always the same for a given caster, they might be different (for that given caster) based on something like the season or number of targets or range to target or whatever.

But ...




> And we have explicit statements that verbal components don't sound like normal words and sound explicitly like _mystic words_.
> 
> Mystic words are not regular words. That's kinda inherent in the nature of _mystical_.


Agreed. It's explicit they aren't just normal words.  

V components and S components, and even manipulating M components or Foci as part of casting a spell (being independent from and in addition to any S component), can't be mistaken for anything but being part of casting a spell.  Regardless of the individuality and variation from caster to caster or spell to spell or not.

Which is very meta oriented rules but whatever, given that's the case it has a fairly large impact on the way spells are usable and how they'd be viewed in world.

----------


## ZRN

> I don't see them as "finicky" at all. You're within 10 ft of someone, they failed a check, add a d4 and see if they can succeed. Just because that may not be practical on a stealth mission or during a social encounter doesn't mean it's difficult to use.


It's not difficult to use - it's simple to use, but because it (a) has unlimited uses and (b) often has no downside, you end up using it a LOT, which adds an extra 20 seconds of highly redundant spellcasting to almost every roll someone in the party makes outside of combat.

----------


## Pex

> Yeah. And this, for me, is the kicker--_if they knew what it was_, most people wouldn't care (in my world). But not knowing what you're casting? Yeah, not a good thing. And lots of people can (and do) pretend to be holy folks, and there's really no way to check (at least trivially on the fly, which is what you'd need).
> 
> Casting a spell without prior negotiation and existing trust is like reaching into your pocket abruptly when pulled over by a cop. Sure, you _could_ be pulling out your wallet...


Verbal component: "With god as my witness."
Somatic component: Cross yourself with whatever is appropriate to look like your holy symbol.

Guidance cast in normal conversation.
 :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Jakinbandw

Honestly, the simplest way to make clear what is going on, is to give spells special effects. When a cleric casts bless, Holy Light flows into the target of their bless. I know the rules don't say this, but every dnd video game does it like this and it works.

Though this would weaken the strength of spells like suggestion when in groups which may or may not be a thing the players want.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Verbal component: "With god as my witness."
> Somatic component: Cross yourself with whatever is appropriate to look like your holy symbol.
> 
> Guidance cast in normal conversation.


And with that, the universe goes back to normal after all those unnatural instances of agreement.




> Honestly, the simplest way to make clear what is going on, is to give spells special effects. When a cleric casts bless, Holy Light flows into the target of their bless. I know the rules don't say this, but every dnd video game does it like this and it works.
> 
> Though thos would weaken the strength of spells like suggestion when in groups which may or may not be a thing the players want.


Personally, I institute a setting-based rule that everyone is innately sensitive to spell casting that has at least one component. Kinda a limited, always on _detect spell casting_ effect. That is, it's just flat out impossible to hide spell casting if it has components and the other person is "close" (a distance which depends on the level of the spell, but minimum 60') and has line of sight _unless_ there's something special going on (like you're in the middle of a massive magical storm, a pitched magical battle, etc where there's just too much (magical) noise).

This is binary--you get "someone over there is casting a spell", not "that particular person there is casting <spell> at <target>". And no amount of fake-out will work--wave your wand all you want, but until you're actually casting a spell, it doesn't matter.

Subtle spell (and anything that removes components like Innate Spellcasting) dampens that so you don't "feel it happening". Thus, the trigger for _counterspell_ is actually perceptible without any ambiguity--it doesn't depend on if you can see/hear the components, can't hide them under a coat or mumble them. Has components and is within 60' + line of sight? Trigger fires.

----------


## Psyren

> It's not difficult to use - it's simple to use, but because it (a) has unlimited uses and (b) often has no downside, you end up using it a LOT, which adds an extra 20 seconds of highly redundant spellcasting to almost every roll someone in the party makes outside of combat.


It takes your table 20 seconds to cast every Guidance, seriously?

----------


## Segev

> V components and S components, and even manipulating M components or Foci as part of casting a spell (being independent from and in addition to any S component), can't be mistaken for anything but being part of casting a spell.  Regardless of the individuality and variation from caster to caster or spell to spell or not.
> 
> Which is very meta oriented rules but whatever, given that's the case it has a fairly large impact on the way spells are usable and how they'd be viewed in world.


Easiest way to make sure V components are obviously magical is to have the caster's voice gain reverb. Or a similar sound-altering effect that makes them obviously not be using a natural voice. If their voice echoes like He-Man's whenever they start casting a spell, it doesn't matter how innocuous the component words sound normally, it's obvious that his [suggestion] is more than just the word.

----------


## LudicSavant

If it were up to me, I would have just killed the whole "recast infinitely" debate by giving stuff like Guidance a really long duration.  But it would still carry just one charge, still take Concentration, and still have to be pre-cast on whoever's gonna use it.  None of this concentration-free reaction after seeing the roll fail business.  _Especially_ not for Resistance.

----------


## Pex

> If it were up to me, I would have just killed the whole "recast infinitely" debate by giving stuff like Guidance a really long duration.  But it would still carry just one charge, still take Concentration, and still have to be pre-cast on whoever's gonna use it.  None of this concentration-free reaction after seeing the roll fail business.  _Especially_ not for Resistance.


In other words, leave the spell alone as it works in 5E.

----------


## Kane0

> What makes it an oddity? You could do that even in 3.5 (when they were called "immediate actions.")


Because 5e likes to employ natural language, and reactions are... reactions. To react; in response to external stimuli. By choosing to do something on your turn, you are not reacting, you are acting. This is warped a little bit when one of your actions leads to an event which triggers a reaction, and that grey area is where the rule fits in.
The new ardling for example has the option of gliding with wings using their reaction. If that ardling leaps from a cliff to sail safely to the ground below they use their reaction during their turn to do so (plus arguably also the jump action, but that is another matter). I'd rather it just be rolled into movement when performed during your turn and leave reactions for the turns of creatures other than yourself. Thats mechanically the role of a reaction, providing you the ability to perform an action during someone elses turn. If they were supposed to be for your own turn, well we have actions AND bonus actions for that.

----------


## Psyren

Reactions are in response to stimuli. Stimuli can occur on your turn just like they can occur off-turn (e.g. falling.)

----------


## Kane0

By choosing to do something on your turn, you are not reacting, you are acting. This is warped a little bit when one of your actions leads to an event which triggers a reaction, and that grey area is where the rule fits in.
The new ardling for example has the option of gliding with wings using their reaction. If that ardling leaps from a cliff to sail safely to the ground below they use their reaction during their turn to do so (plus arguably also the jump action, but that is another matter). I'd rather it just be rolled into movement when performed during your turn and leave reactions for the turns of creatures other than yourself. Thats mechanically the role of a reaction, providing you the ability to perform an action during someone elses turn. If they were supposed to be for your own turn, well we have actions AND bonus actions for that.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> By choosing to do something on your turn, you are not reacting, you are acting. This is warped a little bit when one of your actions leads to an event which triggers a reaction, and that grey area is where the rule fits in.
> The new ardling for example has the option of gliding with wings using their reaction. If that ardling leaps from a cliff to sail safely to the ground below they use their reaction during their turn to do so (plus arguably also the jump action, but that is another matter). I'd rather it just be rolled into movement when performed during your turn and leave reactions for the turns of creatures other than yourself. Thats mechanically the role of a reaction, providing you the ability to perform an action during someone elses turn. If they were supposed to be for your own turn, well we have actions AND bonus actions for that.


I agree in principle, but don't feel particularly strong about it.

----------


## Kane0

> I agree in principle, but don't feel particularly strong about it.


It really only bothers me when the same character abuses it to counterspell a counterspell while casting their original spell or somesuch.

----------


## LudicSavant

> In other words, leave the spell alone as it works in 5E.


With the exception of the duration, pretty much.

----------


## Psyren

> It really only bothers me when the same character abuses it to counterspell a counterspell while casting their original spell or somesuch.


Then it sounds like counterspell (or its trigger) should be modified rather than reactions themselves.

----------


## Kane0

> Then it sounds like counterspell (or its trigger) should be modified rather than reactions themselves.


Counterspell, Silvery Barbs, Soul Cage, 5.1 Guidance; not so sure about Feather Fall, Shield, Absorb Elements and 5.1 Resistance. My first thought is just have them be bonus action cast time during your turn and reaction as normal otherwise.

----------


## Sorinth

> It's not difficult to use - it's simple to use, but because it (a) has unlimited uses and (b) often has no downside, you end up using it a LOT, which adds an extra 20 seconds of highly redundant spellcasting to almost every roll someone in the party makes outside of combat.


Doesn't the new rules help in this case? The 10ft range and only on failure should mean less casting of the spell compared to previous version where it would be called for before every single check.

Right off the bat roughly half the skill checks you won't have anyone cast Guidance because the check succeeded in the first place.

----------


## animorte

> While I don't always treat it this way, I am fond of the notion that verbal components ARE language. Possibly translatable into your native speech, if not already there
> 
> The roll to ID the spell gives all the particulars.


This is exactly what I think.




> I agree in principle, but don't feel particularly strong about it.


Thats good enough for me!  :Small Tongue: 




> Doesn't the new rules help in this case? The 10ft range and only on failure should mean less casting of the spell compared to previous version where it would be called for before every single check.
> 
> Right off the bat roughly half the skill checks you won't have anyone cast Guidance because the check succeeded in the first place.


Going to throw a strong agreement right on these facts, give or take a little percentage.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Reactions are in response to stimuli. Stimuli can occur on your turn just like they can occur off-turn (e.g. falling.)


Example: _feather fall._  :Small Smile: 



> It really only bothers me when the same character abuses it to counterspell a counterspell while casting their original spell or somesuch.


 That's the edge case that gets an outsized amount of discussion, but I have rarely seen this in play. (And IIRC only once in a game with Phoenix when we were battling multiple casters)

----------


## Rafaelfras

So, seeing this discussion about spell casting I would like to bring an example that I think it would be very helpful for the discussion. There is a recent anime called bastard!! It's an adaptation of an 80's manga and feature a wizard as the main character. Now the anime itself isn't important but what I really liked about it is that it has actual wizards casting actual spells not just people throwing super powers at each other or at maximum shouting fireball.
Netflix released a nice compilation of spells that goes from subtle to flashy 



*Disclaimer the author is a great fan of heavy metal so most spells use names and references of rock bands

----------


## ZRN

> Doesn't the new rules help in this case? The 10ft range and only on failure should mean less casting of the spell compared to previous version where it would be called for before every single check.
> 
> Right off the bat roughly half the skill checks you won't have anyone cast Guidance because the check succeeded in the first place.


It's  an improvement in that sense, but you're still talking about what will probably be the most-cast spell in any game where it's present by like an order of magnitude (other than maybe Eldritch Blast and our new friend Resistance).

Like I said, I dislike Hunter's Mark for similar reasons, but at least I understand what that spell's trying to accomplish narratively (a ranger is a hunter with a mystical level of focus on their prey). Guidance and Resistance apply so broadly you can't even say that. A cleric is... good at magically helping people do... everything? Even for a cantrip I'd rather have something bigger and rarer, like they attempted awkwardly in the previous playtest, rather than encourage the cleric to hover 5 feet away from everyone at all times to add a dinky bonus whenever they roll a d20.

----------


## ZRN

> So, seeing this discussion about spell casting I would like to bring an example that I think it would be very helpful for the discussion. There is a recent anime called bastard!! It's an adaptation of an 80's manga and feature a wizard as the main character. Now the anime itself isn't important but what I really liked about it is that it has actual wizards casting actual spells not just people throwing super powers at each other or at maximum shouting fireball.
> Netflix released a nice compilation of spells that goes from subtle to flashy 
> https://youtu.be/VKDluEq3zmg
> 
> *Disclaimer the author is a great fan of heavy metal so most spells use names and references of rock bands


Darkness beyond twilight, crimson beyond blood that flows...

----------


## Atranen

> Like I said, I dislike Hunter's Mark for similar reasons, but at least I understand what that spell's trying to accomplish narratively (a ranger is a hunter with a mystical level of focus on their prey). Guidance and Resistance apply so broadly you can't even say that. A cleric is... good at magically helping people do... everything? Even for a cantrip I'd rather have something bigger and rarer, like they attempted awkwardly in the previous playtest, rather than encourage the cleric to hover 5 feet away from everyone at all times to add a dinky bonus whenever they roll a d20.


Yep. It was always a dumb cantrip, now it's worse. I wish they would just axe it, or if they must, restrict it until it's thematic (perhaps based on domain).

----------


## Segev

> Yep. It was always a dumb cantrip, now it's worse. I wish they would just axe it, or if they must, restrict it until it's thematic (perhaps based on domain).


Pff. People praying for guidance before doing something is totally realistic. People seeking blessings from their religious leaders also happens all the time. _Guidance_ is just a little bit of divine aid to your own work.

----------


## Atranen

> Pff. People praying for guidance before doing something is totally realistic. People seeking blessings from their religious leaders also happens all the time. _Guidance_ is just a little bit of divine aid to your own work.


To your own, and everyone else's, without clear rules on what specific tasks it can apply to and when (persuading someone? ongoing tasks that take longer than a minute?)

It's awkward and unclear at the table.

----------


## Segev

> To your own, and everyone else's, without clear rules on what specific tasks it can apply to and when (persuading someone? ongoing tasks that take longer than a minute?)
> 
> It's awkward and unclear at the table.


I am not sure what you mean. "To your own, and everyone else's" seems like a sentence fragment to me.

And the rules are clear as to what tasks it can apply to and when. In 5.0, anything you try while the spell is active (and then the spell ends) which calls for an ability check. In 5.1, any time the caster notices you doing something and you fail at it. While the latter is a little _weird_, since he calls out the blessing when he knows you would fail without it, but it can make you succeed so you never visibly failed, it isn't unclear how it works in the rules, nor to what it applies.

----------


## Atranen

> I am not sure what you mean. "To your own, and everyone else's" seems like a sentence fragment to me.


I was finishing the thought in your post ("to your own work"). 




> And the rules are clear as to what tasks it can apply to and when. In 5.0, anything you try while the spell is active (and then the spell ends) which calls for an ability check. In 5.1, any time the caster notices you doing something and you fail at it. While the latter is a little _weird_, since he calls out the blessing when he knows you would fail without it, but it can make you succeed so you never visibly failed, it isn't unclear how it works in the rules, nor to what it applies.


If I speak for someone with 10 minutes attempting to persuade them, when do I roll the check? 

If I cast it on someone in a social situation, how will others react?

EDIT: The main problem with guidance for me is that it's not *interesting*. In most cases, it isn't a choice to cast, it's just something you do. And then it raises the sorts of issues I refer to above.

----------


## ZRN

> Pff. People praying for guidance before doing something is totally realistic. People seeking blessings from their religious leaders also happens all the time. _Guidance_ is just a little bit of divine aid to your own work.


"Realistically," a priest muttering Hail Marys ten feet away from you doesn't make you 12.5% better at everything, so I feel like realism isn't an effective guidepost here. I will say that constantly actively stnading close praying over everyone in the party whenever they attempt something doesn't match up to my specific vision of what a cleric looks and feels like but I understand that opinions differ.

I'm talking about what makes the game least annoying, mechanically, to play. One of the smartest things 5e did (over 3.x AND over 4e) was get rid of the million piddly +1 and +2 bonuses to everything; these two cantrips reverse that progress by adding a little annoying bonus to almost everything that you have to specifically remember to trigger whenever you want it.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> EDIT: The main problem with guidance for me is that it's not *interesting*. In most cases, it isn't a choice to cast, it's just something you do. And then it raises the sorts of issues I refer to above.


This, for me, is the main point. Guidance in the OneD&D version, isn't interesting. It's a non-choice: if you have it, do it. In the 5.0 version[1], it at least carries a cost (well, 2 costs)--it has to be pre-cast (so timing matters) AND it's concentration, which is a limited resource.

[1] I've not had issues with the 5.0 version being spammed.

----------


## Segev

> I was finishing the thought in your post ("to your own work").


Ah. Yes, somebody seeking a prayer from his religious leader - priest, shaman, bishop, pastor, whatever - expects that blessing will help them.




> If I speak for someone with 10 minutes attempting to persuade them, when do I roll the check?


Only a problem with the 5.1 version, which is another reason I like the 5.0 one better. You don't have to know IC when you're making the check, just OOC that you want to apply that bonus when you make the check.




> If I cast it on someone in a social situation, how will others react?


The spell really isn't responsible for telling you that. One of the problems with _friends_ in 5e is that it tries to.




> EDIT: The main problem with guidance for me is that it's not *interesting*. In most cases, it isn't a choice to cast, it's just something you do. And then it raises the sorts of issues I refer to above.


It's interesting in that it requires the concentration of the caster, at least in 5.0, as far as "why to cast/not cast it" goes. It's also potentially interesting in terms of on WHOM to use it, if multiple people have to make checks at once.




> "Realistically," a priest muttering Hail Marys ten feet away from you doesn't make you 12.5% better at everything, so I feel like realism isn't an effective guidepost here. I will say that constantly actively stnading close praying over everyone in the party whenever they attempt something doesn't match up to my specific vision of what a cleric looks and feels like but I understand that opinions differ.


Well, again, that's a problem with the proposed 5.1 _guidance_. The 5.0 version would have you bless somebody before they go off to do a thing.

In D&D, divine magic does more obvious things, and still tries to emulate the feel of real-world prayers and blessings. (I am not besmirching nor promoting real-world beliefs, here, just noting that D&D is pulling on particular cultural motifs, and one of those motifs DOES make _guidance_ make sense as presented. Your analogy doesn't work, precisely because comparing real-world effects of this particular kind of thing to D&D effects of it would have actually supports that the D&D effects would be more overtly magically notable, in exactly the kind of sense that 12.5% more effectiveness would be!




> I'm talking about what makes the game least annoying, mechanically, to play. One of the smartest things 5e did (over 3.x AND over 4e) was get rid of the million piddly +1 and +2 bonuses to everything; these two cantrips reverse that progress by adding a little annoying bonus to almost everything that you have to specifically remember to trigger whenever you want it.


They hardly "reverse that progress" when they're not something that goes into a laundry list of stackables, which was the actual "problem," if problem it was. By this logic, we should do away with proficiency, expertise, and stat modifiers, too, and just roll d20s without modifiers for everything.  :Small Yuk:

----------


## Psyren

Not everything has to be "interesting" in a vacuum; sometimes the interest comes from the difference in gamefeel when you have the straightforward option and when you don't. For example, _Feather Fall_ isn't particularly interesting either, when it matters you will pretty much always choose to cast it. But if you don't, or can't, you will absolutely feel a clear difference in play - whether you're falling from a height voluntarily or not.

----------


## Atranen

> The spell really isn't responsible for telling you that. One of the problems with _friends_ in 5e is that it tries to.


I don't think it ought to legislate in all cases; but it ought to provide more, uh, guidance, as to how it interacts. The long debate a few pages ago shows that. When something is 1) very widely used and 2) unclear as to how it works, that's a problem. 




> It's interesting in that it requires the concentration of the caster, at least in 5.0, as far as "why to cast/not cast it" goes. It's also potentially interesting in terms of on WHOM to use it, if multiple people have to make checks at once.


In my experience, this is rarely interesting; it's a 'yes/no' switch. Although there are some fun interactions; you may be forced to cast guidance prior to an important meeting to demonstrate you aren't concentrating on anything else  :Small Smile: 





> Not everything has to be "interesting" in a vacuum; sometimes the interest comes from the difference in gamefeel when you have the straightforward option and when you don't. For example, _Feather Fall_ isn't particularly interesting either, when it matters you will pretty much always choose to cast it. But if you don't, or can't, you will absolutely feel a clear difference in play - whether you're falling from a height voluntarily or not.


Not equivalent, because in the Feather Fall case there *is* an interesting choice--do I spend one of my limited spell slots on Feather Fall, or do I not? Guidance is so widely applicable, and competing with cantrips that are much less so, such that it always makes sense to prepare it.

----------


## Psyren

> Not equivalent, because in the Feather Fall case there *is* an interesting choice--do I spend one of my limited spell slots on Feather Fall, or do I not? Guidance is so widely applicable, and competing with cantrips that are much less so, such that it always makes sense to prepare it.


At low levels I agree, but as you advance those low level slots become less valuable and you might as well save them for a fall.

The larger point though, is that what you consider "uninteresting" only applies to your preferences. Our group has no issues with finding Guidance too straightforward or boring.

----------


## Segev

> I don't think it ought to legislate in all cases; but it ought to provide more, uh, guidance, as to how it interacts. The long debate a few pages ago shows that. When something is 1) very widely used and 2) unclear as to how it works, that's a problem.


At that point, it's less of "the spell's" job and more of "the social pillar discussion section in the DMG's" job. MAYBE the "spellcasting section's" job if it really wants to cover how people tend to view, react to, and understand spellcasting.




> In my experience, this is rarely interesting; it's a 'yes/no' switch. Although there are some fun interactions; you may be forced to cast guidance prior to an important meeting to demonstrate you aren't concentrating on anything else


I assure you, the choice has come up as an interesting - in the same sense that any other decision with meaningful limits and consequences is "interesting" - a few times in games I've played. Do you cast _guidance_ on the party member with the lowest or the highest stealth? Do you cast it instead of _pass without trace?_ (Answer: no, but it's a limit on _guidance_)

----------


## OvisCaedo

This discussion has really brought to mind just how... utterly nonsensical social checks tend to _be_ to begin with. Maybe it just really depends on exactly how the group plays; if you're dictating abstract actions, conversations being random chance can fit. Most groups I've played with or seen tend to have players want to actually come up with their character's dialogue, though! And then... whether or not the words they chose or arguments they made were actually the correct ones or not is potentially random? You can gate a roll in either direction (your argument was bad, you don't get a roll), but then that just feels like the DM is already making the judgment call on whether or not it should work before doing the roll, and then... leaving it to chance anyhow? This isn't even a 5e complaint, really, I tend to feel this way about "social" skills in almost every system. I'm sure that's not something everyone agrees on, though.

The other person's reaction aside, what even IS happening if you reaction-cast guidance to a failed diplomacy check? The words they spoke retroactively became slightly more likely to be the ones the other side would like to hear? I guess it's not even just diplomacy, in this case, this guidance in general is... reacting to someone failing at a task to make them retroactively succeed? Are you actually praying for them mid-task because you sensed they were screwing it up and juice them at the last second??

----------


## Tanarii

It's not random chance.  The general rule is DM decides if a roll is necessary if they aren't sure if something should succeed or not.  If they're sure one way or the other, they don't call for a roll.

----------


## Rafaelfras

> Darkness beyond twilight, crimson beyond blood that flows...

----------


## Psyren

> The other person's reaction aside, what even IS happening if you reaction-cast guidance to a failed diplomacy check? The words they spoke retroactively became slightly more likely to be the ones the other side would like to hear? I guess it's not even just diplomacy, in this case, this guidance in general is... reacting to someone failing at a task to make them retroactively succeed? Are you actually praying for them mid-task because you sensed they were screwing it up and juice them at the last second??


I'd say you can tell when they're about to make a faux pas or something and react. Much like with Shield you can tell when you're about to be hit by something, or with Counterspell you can tell when a harmful spell's energy is about to coalesce etsc. I definitely think all of these "reaction to prevent the thing that triggered the reaction" effects should be based on sight though, Being able to hield against something you can't see never really made sense to me.

----------


## Atranen

> At low levels I agree, but as you advance those low level slots become less valuable and you might as well save them for a fall.
> 
> The larger point though, is that what you consider "uninteresting" only applies to your preferences. Our group has no issues with finding Guidance too straightforward or boring.


Prepared spells, not slots; maybe for wizards it becomes close to a class feature, but for sorcerers I don't think it ever does. 

I'm glad you find it interesting. I'm not saying you ought to find otherwise; different groups have different experiences. 




> At that point, it's less of "the spell's" job and more of "the social pillar discussion section in the DMG's" job. MAYBE the "spellcasting section's" job if it really wants to cover how people tend to view, react to, and understand spellcasting.
> 
> I assure you, the choice has come up as an interesting - in the same sense that any other decision with meaningful limits and consequences is "interesting" - a few times in games I've played. Do you cast _guidance_ on the party member with the lowest or the highest stealth? Do you cast it instead of _pass without trace?_ (Answer: no, but it's a limit on _guidance_)


Sure, it could be fixed by more discussion elsewhere in the manual. But because that doesn't exist, the spell doesn't work well at the table. 

I think it can prompt interesting choices from time to time. But most of the time, it isn't one.

----------


## Psyren

> I'm glad you find it interesting. I'm not saying you ought to find otherwise; different groups have different experiences.


Not denying that; I suppose we'll see what they do. If they keep Guidance, even with additional changes, it will at least suggest that more groups see value in it than not. 

For me, the range limit and reaction cost can indeed provide interesting choices. The party is climbing a cliff face and two of them fail their checks and slip - which one do you attempt to save with Guidance? The rogue is disarming a trap, do you stay within 10 ft of him in case it makes a difference, or do you hang back in case he fails so badly that Guidance won't make a difference, keeping you out of the blast radius?

----------


## Atranen

> For me, the range limit and reaction cost can indeed provide interesting choices. The party is climbing a cliff face and two of them fail their checks and slip - which one do you attempt to save with Guidance? The rogue is disarming a trap, do you stay within 10 ft of him in case it makes a difference, or do you hang back in case he fails so badly that Guidance won't make a difference, keeping you out of the blast radius?


Probably the one who rolled closest to the DC. 

This kind of "the cleric hangs around whoever is doing stuff to help"...even if it is an interesting choice, it falls flat narratively.

----------


## Psyren

> Probably the one who rolled closest to the DC.


On the surface that seems like a good answer, but what if the guy who didn't can more easily survive the fall? Say the Barbarian rolled higher than the Rogue, but has double their HP? Or the Monk rolled closer, but they have Slow Fall available?




> This kind of "the cleric hangs around whoever is doing stuff to help"...even if it is an interesting choice, it falls flat narratively.


I don't understand how, the narrative is right there in the spell. Priests "praying over people" in close proximity to them is a pretty common trope.

----------


## Atranen

> On the surface that seems like a good answer, but what if the guy who didn't can more easily survive the fall? Say the Barbarian rolled higher than the Rogue, but has double their HP? Or the Monk rolled closer, but they have Slow Fall available?


Sure, in this pretty niche case there may be a decision to make. Although I think you'd pick the one with less hp, because the damage wouldn't roll past 0 and there'd be fewer points to heal. 




> I don't understand how, the narrative is right there in the spell. Priests "praying over people" in close proximity to them is a pretty common trope.


Priests hovering around people to yell out spells as soon as something looks like it's going bad is not a trope I'm familiar with.

----------


## animorte

> Priests hovering around people to yell out spells as soon as something looks like it's going bad is not a trope I'm familiar with.


I view it more like the priest standing nearby and chanting something Ive the course of perhaps 6 seconds, at most.

----------


## Tanarii

> I view it more like the priest standing nearby and chanting something Ive the course of perhaps 6 seconds, at most.


Thinking about it in terms of a 6 second round, I'd say ...

A reaction is going to be a single word and/or gesture spell.  1 second at most, typically a LOT less to work in time.

A bonus action might be a few words and/or one or two gestures.  2 seconds at most.

An action might take most of a round.  Could be a sentence and/or a short set of gestures.  Up to 4 seconds.

(Shorten amount of time for S gestures by time required to access and manipulate M components or foci. V could overlap with S and/or M.)

----------


## Psyren

> Thinking about it in terms of a 6 second round, I'd say ...
> 
> A reaction is going to be a single word and/or gesture spell.  1 second at most, typically a LOT less to work in time.
> 
> A bonus action might be a few words and/or one or two gestures.  2 seconds at most.
> 
> An action might take most of a round.  Could be a sentence and/or a short set of gestures.  Up to 4 seconds.
> 
> (Shorten amount of time for S gestures by time required to access and manipulate M components or foci. V could overlap with S and/or M.)


Even if the Guidance spell itself takes a second, if you want to you can be standing there chanting, praying, cajoling, or whatever else via combat banter the whole time until then.

----------


## ZRN

> At low levels I agree, but as you advance those low level slots become less valuable and you might as well save them for a fall.
> 
> The larger point though, is that what you consider "uninteresting" only applies to your preferences. Our group has no issues with finding Guidance too straightforward or boring.


Yes, it is of course subjective what is interesting in play. Provisos: (1) it looks like there are sufficient Problems with Guidance that they want to revise it for the playtest, and (2) I'm guessing (could be wrong) that your group hasn't extensively tested the new version, which obviously differs a lot from the printed version.

More broadly, while this is a subjective question, I'd say there's a basic 5e design principle at play, which is that added mechanical complexity/rolls/etc. should be for things that matter to the story. "Featherfall" isn't a mechanically interesting choice at high levels but it's always a cool story beat. "Guidance" just slows things down, and for what? To remind everyone that the cleric is still there, helping? (The playtest version is even worse than the old version here, because the cleric saying a quick prayer over the rogue before he tries to pick a lock makes a lot more sense that the cleric just hovering and saying "Wait, no, Pelor help him out!" when the rogue screws up.)

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> ... the cleric saying a quick prayer over the rogue before he tries to pick a lock makes a lot more sense that the cleric just hovering and saying "Wait, no, Pelor help him out!" when the rogue screws up.


Yes, that's kind of where I am coming from.

----------


## Psyren

> Yes, it is of course subjective what is interesting in play. Provisos: (1) it looks like there are sufficient Problems with Guidance that they want to revise it for the playtest, and (2) I'm guessing (could be wrong) that your group hasn't extensively tested the new version, which obviously differs a lot from the printed version.


I haven't "extensively tested" the new version - which came out two weeks ago - no  :Small Confused: 

What I _have_ done however, is played for years with the original, and I can tell you that at _most_ of the tables I've played at, people were practically using it as a reaction anyway. ("I'll pick the lock." "Oh, Guidance!" "I'll jump and grab the rope... uh-oh..." "Guidance!" etc.) So for me, changing the design to match player behavior makes perfect sense.




> More broadly, while this is a subjective question, I'd say there's a basic 5e design principle at play, which is that added mechanical complexity/rolls/etc. should be for things that matter to the story. "Featherfall" isn't a mechanically interesting choice at high levels but it's always a cool story beat. "Guidance" just slows things down, and for what? To remind everyone that the cleric is still there, helping? (The playtest version is even worse than the old version here, because the cleric saying a quick prayer over the rogue before he tries to pick a lock makes a lot more sense that the cleric just hovering and saying "Wait, no, Pelor help him out!" when the rogue screws up.)


I still don't see how rolling a d4 "slows things down" to such a degree at your table. Do you keep the dice out of reach maybe? Does someone playing a bard slow things to a crawl too?  :Small Confused: 

Yes, rolling an extra die will always take _a bit_ more time than not rolling one, but guess what, rolling dice is fun. That's a valid upside to adding a few seconds to a check.

As for the cleric/ranger/druid "hovering" - it's no different than if they were over there doing the Help action. In fact, now you can do both - while concentrating on something else, even.

----------


## Catullus64

> The other person's reaction aside, what even IS happening if you reaction-cast guidance to a failed diplomacy check? The words they spoke retroactively became slightly more likely to be the ones the other side would like to hear? I guess it's not even just diplomacy, in this case, this guidance in general is... reacting to someone failing at a task to make them retroactively succeed? Are you actually praying for them mid-task because you sensed they were screwing it up and juice them at the last second??


Failure-based reactions like _Shield_ and nouveau-_Guidance_ are, to me, retroactive only at the table, not in the narrative. For _Shield_, you the player may only be taking the reaction because the enemy hits, but your character is reacting in advance of the hit, which would otherwise have connected.

Similar reasoning makes reaction-based Guidance and Resistance more palatable: Your character's prayers and divine favor are retroactively decided to have interceded in this instance. I have no idea if this is how the devs think of it (smart money is they didn't), but it doesn't need to cause headaches for the GM if you imagine it thusly. 

5e has had a recurring design principle which says that using a feature, only to have it prove to have made no difference or to have been wasted, is bad. It's why save-or-die effects are mostly gone, save-or-suck has been massively dialed back, many damage-boosting features are chosen when the attack hits rather than when the attack is made, and defensive reactions generally trigger after the enemy hits/your save is failed. Bringing Guidance and Resistance in line with that principle isn't the craziest thing.

I was very bitterly against the new design of these two spells at first, but I actually find them easier to roleplay with/narrate in their new form than in the old ones, which frequently meant disrupting the action to have the Cleric lay hands on people every time they needed to tie their bootlaces. From my limited playtesting with them, they still get spammed like before, but that spamming is now less disruptive.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> What I _have_ done however, is played for years with the original, and I can tell you that at _most_ of the tables I've played at, people were practically using it as a reaction anyway. ("I'll pick the lock." "Oh, Guidance!" "I'll jump and grab the rope... uh-oh..." "Guidance!" etc.) So for me, changing the design to match player behavior makes perfect sense.


  Just because you jump off of a bridge does not mean that I have to.   :Small Tongue: 

Mind you, I've seen it run both ways by various DMs - guidance afterthoughts by players who were not paying attention - and I've come down on this as DM. Once the action is declared and the roll is made, post hoc guidance does not get cast.  

Mind you I have a small bias this way: my clerics and warlocks (tome) who have guidance offer it up with some frequency when I notice that something important is about to be attempted.  I Pay Attention to the other players as a habit.  

Players who habitually do not pay attention I do not make excuses for: more than once players have heard from me "if you'd have been paying attention to {player X} you'd have know that they just ... " 
Part of group play is to listen to and pay attention to the other players.  {separate rant on that topic not indulged in}  



> I still don't see how rolling a d4 "slows things down" to such a degree at your table.


 It doesn't if the players pay attention, in my experience.

----------


## Psyren

> Mind you, I've seen it run both ways by various DMs - guidance afterthoughts by players who were not paying attention - and I've come down on this as DM. Once the action is declared and the roll is made, post hoc guidance does not get cast.  
> 
> Mind you I have a small bias this way: my clerics and warlocks (tome) who have guidance offer it up with some frequency when I notice that something important is about to be attempted.  I Pay Attention to the other players as a habit.  
> 
> Players who habitually do not pay attention I do not make excuses for: more than once players have heard from me "if you'd have been paying attention to {player X} you'd have know that they just ... " 
> Part of group play is to listen to and pay attention to the other players.  {separate rant on that topic not indulged in}


Sure, I'm not saying the tables I'm at were right to allow reactive guidance in the past. All I'm saying is I can understand why WotC considered this change worthwhile.  




> It doesn't if the players pay attention, in my experience.


In my experience, I have some of the most ADHD players known to man (myself included) and we can still declare a spell and reach our dice fairly quickly. I don't see reactive Guidance as a big deal, nor do I think it slows down play regardless of "attention."

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> In my experience, I have some of the most ADHD players known to man (myself included) and we can still declare a spell and reach our dice fairly quickly. I don't see reactive Guidance as a big deal, nor do I think it slows down play regardless of "attention."


 As I've noted elsewhere, this particular change to guidance and resistance, in terms of at the table play, will likely work out well enough.

----------


## animorte

> I still don't see how rolling a d4 "slows things down" to such a degree at your table. Do you keep the dice out of reach maybe? Does someone playing a bard slow things to a crawl too?


I imagine it would be similar to attempting most spells with a range limit.

*PC:* Am i close enough to hit the bad guy with my 60 ft. range spell attack?

*DM:* Umm lets see. The bad guy looks _just_ within range.

Thats what Im assuming where some of the time is going (+ grab and roll dice) as you cant typically move as part of that same casting reaction. Am I close enough to react with my _guidance_ spell?

Even if that does take 10+ seconds, I seriously cant see it being a problem as its only used to assist a failure anyway. I doubt people are failing so much that guidance will be used nearly as much as it is now (which is literally every roll if the party has it.)

----------


## Psyren

> I imagine it would be similar to attempting most spells with a range limit.
> 
> *PC:* Am i close enough to hit the bad guy with my 60 ft. range spell attack?
> 
> *DM:* Umm lets see. The bad guy looks _just_ within range.
> 
> Thats what Im assuming where some of the time is going (+ grab and roll dice) as you cant typically move as part of that same casting reaction. Am I close enough to react with my _guidance_ spell?


You generally want to know where the party is standing in relation to one another in every scene already though. I don't see that as adding any appreciable amount of cognitive load or time. You can even establish a rule such that, unless it doesn't make any sense, you assume the cleric sidles up to within range of whoever is about to make a meaningful check. (And if it's multiple folks about to make that check, the cleric now has a meaningful choice of their own.)




> Even if that does take 10+ seconds, I seriously cant see it being a problem as its only used to assist a failure anyway. I doubt people are failing so much that guidance will be used nearly as much as it is now (which is literally every roll if the party has it.)


Indeed.

----------


## HolyAvenger7

> Thoughts in order
> I like the cleric holy order stuff, they decoupled proficiency from subclass which is good. They are not balanced against each other but oh well. Blessed strikes come online earlier and has both options which is good but why did they remove scaling? 
> 
> Ardlings are straight up descendant from a celestial animal now? HOW DID THEY MAKE ARDLINGS WORSE!?
> 
> WHY ARE GOLIATHS A CORE RACE AND NOT AASIMAR!? Also this is entirely personal and petty but I hate Goliaths due to a bad experience with a player that used them exclusively and made the most obnoxious 4 Int Barbarian in history so I cant be fair to them.


I totally agree!

----------


## Azuresun

> There are GMs for Exalted 2E who, in all seriousness, asserted that the only rational response to anybody trying to engage in discussion was to draw your sword and try to kill them before they could influence you, because they viewed even natural, conversational efforts to persuade as hostile mind control if it invoked mechanics in any way.


In fairness, they were pretty much right. The social rules in that game were so breakable and OP that facing a social-focused character was even more "lethal" than fighting with giant swords. Forcing the game to move into combat time where social attacks didn't work was the most reliable way not to be turned into the zombified puppet of anyone who was sufficiently pretty.

----------


## Psyren

> From a RPG-as-game perspective, a lot of players (GMs included) will tend to see any sort of mechanical way of influencing PCs or NPCs as "mind control," and thus obviously hostile. There are GMs for Exalted 2E who, in all seriousness, asserted that the only rational response to anybody trying to engage in discussion was to draw your sword and try to kill them before they could influence you, because they viewed even natural, conversational efforts to persuade as hostile mind control if it invoked mechanics in any way.





> In fairness, they were pretty much right. The social rules in that game were so breakable and OP that facing a social-focused character was even more "lethal" than fighting with giant swords. Forcing the game to move into combat time where social attacks didn't work was the most reliable way not to be turned into the zombified puppet of anyone who was sufficiently pretty.


I don't know why but I find this hilarious  :Small Big Grin: 

=====

Going back to the Cleric for a second - for Divine Spark's exponential scaling, one proposal I saw was to keep the PB/LR uses per day, but make it so the damage and healing scale with cleric level (e.g. 2d8+cleric level). That would make it remain useful as a dip (1 level gets you up to 12d8 "free" healing in a day) while rewarding clerics who actually have most of their levels in cleric by letting the total package scale closer to as intended.

----------


## animorte

Looks like the survey has dropped, folks.

----------


## T.G. Oskar

> Looks like the survey has dropped, folks.


Yup, and already filled it.

Question: do any of you who finished the survey had issues with the "Next" option while evaluating the new races _species_ opening a new tab? Not sure if it's just me. That said; it has a weird question regarding r..._species_ where it specifies your preference between Type/Subtype, Species or "Kind". That question left me baffled.

Otherwise, it was pretty short. Expressed my ardent disgust for Ardlings, that they should feel shame out of nerfing Spiritual Weapon, and that Jump as an action makes no sense. I did suggest something about the lines of making Channel Divinity and the Dragonborn's Breath Weapon PB uses per day, recharge 1 per short rest. I understand why they decided to make the change; after all - how many battles you fight on a single session before going on a long rest, other than a dungeon? (The usual suggestion is "triple the number of uses you get to account for short rests", which if you think about it, _is_ the direction they're moving in.) However, it doesn't account for when you're in a dungeon, where the possibility for short rests increases almost exponentially. I feel this strikes a balance between large single fights and smaller, multiple fights.

----------


## Lyracian

> Looks like the survey has dropped, folks.


Completed.




> Going back to the Cleric for a second - for Divine Spark's exponential scaling, one proposal I saw was to keep the PB/LR uses per day, but make it so the damage and healing scale with cleric level (e.g. 2d8+cleric level). That would make it remain useful as a dip (1 level gets you up to 12d8 "free" healing in a day) while rewarding clerics who actually have most of their levels in cleric by letting the total package scale closer to as intended.


That is almost exactly what I put in the Survey.  Went with 2d6+Cleric Level.




> Expressed my ardent disgust for Ardlings, that they should feel shame out of nerfing Spiritual Weapon, and that Jump as an action makes no sense.


More stuff I agree with.




> Question: do any of you who finished the survey had issues with the "Next" option while evaluating the new races _species_ opening a new tab? Not sure if it's just me. That said; it has a weird question regarding r..._species_ where it specifies your preference between Type/Subtype, Species or "Kind". That question left me baffled.


No...

----------


## Spacehamster

Wow subclass at 3, wish they had given all classes their sub at 1 instead, that way you could truly diversify how the class normally works without it being weird, say a subclass gives Fighter unarmored defense, when at 1 its natural but at 3 he fights in armor 1-2 then decides to go naked at 3.

Just makes whatever they get at 1 minor- medium impact and give a bigger subclass feature at 3 if wanting to not make everyone go dip insane.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

Survey completed. I got on board the 2d6+level suggestion and tossed it in. 
Panned ardling. 
Panned the nerf to banishment.
Suggested making the level 9 holy orders better reflect the initial choice.

----------


## Envyus

Ardlings are cool on their current form.

----------


## Atranen

I just did the survey as well. Ran out of space for some of the suggestions on the cleric...but I think I got my point across about clerics needing to feel unique based on their deity from level 1.

----------


## Kane0

Awesome, submitted

----------


## Hael

> Question: do any of you who finished the survey had issues with the "Next" option while evaluating the new races _species_ opening a new tab? Not sure if it's just me. That said; it has a weird question regarding r..._species_ where it specifies your preference between Type/Subtype, Species or "Kind". That question left me baffled..


I admit to losing my temper with that one.  One would think they would have improved their survey questions and methodology by now (I know undergraduates that produce more scientifically useful survey formats).  This after repeated Snafus over the past few years!

Anyway, I was already testy about the rest of the survey and state of the game, so that unfortunately sent me off the edge a little.  I hope they read the rest of my responses.

More generally my confidence is steadily deteriorating...

----------


## Ninja Dragon

I'm confused about how the prepared spells system works. it says you can replace "any spell" in a long rest. Does that mean one spell per rest, or any number of spells? I feel like DnD usually employs better wording than that.

----------


## Mastikator

> I'm confused about how the prepared spells system works. it says you can replace "any spell" in a long rest. Does that mean one spell per rest, or any number of spells? I feel like DnD usually employs better wording than that.


I think it means you can replace any and every spell every long rest. Including cantrips.

-

On a different note, I kinda prefer kind over species. Species is too scientific for a fantasy game.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Species is too scientific for a fantasy game.


I never understood that point of view, personally. "Species" isn't any more scientific than "races" or plenty of other words D&D uses regularly, nor is it some kind of modern word.

Heck, D&D has used "Species" as half of a book's title 19 years ago and I don't think anyone objected to that.

----------


## Mastikator

> I never understood that point of view, personally. "Species" isn't any more scientific than "races" or plenty of other words D&D uses regularly, nor is it some kind of modern word.
> 
> Heck, D&D has used "Species" as half of a book's title 19 years ago and I don't think anyone objected to that.


I'm not super opposed to species, I think it's better than race. (Arguably orcs, humans and elves may be different races, since they can produce viable offspring without magical shenanigans)

However "kind" is better still. "Kind" fits well with Aristotelian physics (fire = an element) and imperial units to give that medieval *feel*.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I never understood that point of view, personally. "Species" isn't any more scientific than "races" or plenty of other words D&D uses regularly, nor is it some kind of modern word.
> 
> Heck, D&D has used "Species" as half of a book's title 19 years ago and I don't think anyone objected to that.


Replacing "race" with "species" isn't really even on my (long) list of "things I don't like about new!WotC. It's aggressively...neutral to me. I think I like "heritage" or "lineage" a little better than either, but will probably keep using "race" out of habit and laziness.

----------


## Psyren

> I never understood that point of view, personally. "Species" isn't any more scientific than "races" or plenty of other words D&D uses regularly, nor is it some kind of modern word.
> 
> Heck, D&D has used "Species" as half of a book's title 19 years ago and I don't think anyone objected to that.


I think the fact that it was primarily a monster book made the difference there. It's not too much of a stretch to see Illithids, Slaadi and Harpies as being different species.

But it's still not as archaic or medieval a word as "ancestry," "kindred" or "lineage" - and I for one think that kind of feeling is important to evoke.

----------


## Segev

> I think the fact that it was primarily a monster book made the difference there. It's not too much of a stretch to see Illithids, Slaadi and Harpies as being different species.
> 
> But it's still not as archaic or medieval a word as "ancestry," "kindred" or "lineage" - and I for one think that kind of feeling is important to evoke.


I agree, but WotC apparently doesn't. Not just for this choice, but for a lot of choices where the feel of things is thrown out the window for various reasons. 

Honestly, "race" probably was not inappropriate, considering how many could interbreed. Of course, we can chalk that up to magic and ignore the meaning of "species" entirely when we remember that dragons can breed with anything. As can outsiders, which are about as explicitly non-genetic creatures as you can get without actually bringing genetics into it. 

But yes, I agree that "race," "ancestry," "kindred," "lineage," or even "[x]-blooded" or "bloodline" or the like would be more fitting than "species." "He has elven blood," is a very common way of phrasing the concept, and "the keep will only open for those of dwarven blood," is another common type of fantasy trope (where "elf" and "dwarf" can be replaced with other bloodlines as needed).

----------


## Psyren

> I agree, but WotC apparently doesn't.


While they certainly appear to agree that "race" needs to go, they clearly haven't settled on "species" yet either, otherwise it would be a done deal rather than their announcement saying they're "playtesting the new term." So this is the time for us to provide feedback. About the only thing we can guarantee is that they won't be going back to race.




> Honestly, "race" probably was not inappropriate, considering how many could interbreed. Of course, we can chalk that up to magic and ignore the meaning of "species" entirely when we remember that dragons can breed with anything. As can outsiders, which are about as explicitly non-genetic creatures as you can get without actually bringing genetics into it.


Speaking personally, my objections to "species" are purely aesthetic - both the word itself and derivatives such as its adjective form. Its relative accuracy from a biotechnical perspective is at the bottom of my priority list.




> But yes, I agree that "race," "ancestry," "kindred," "lineage," or even "[x]-blooded" or "bloodline" or the like would be more fitting than "species." "He has elven blood," is a very common way of phrasing the concept, and "the keep will only open for those of dwarven blood," is another common type of fantasy trope (where "elf" and "dwarf" can be replaced with other bloodlines as needed).


The issue I have with "[x]-blooded" is that that designation usually functions as an almost "meta-race" in some cases. Kinda like how "elf-blooded can mean you're a High Elf or Wood Elf or Sea Elf or Drow or any Half-Elf varietal, and "dwarf-blooded" can mean both a Dwarf and a Duergar etc.

----------


## Kane0

I went with kind. Subtype sounded too tied to the mechanics and species too scientific.

Edit: ironically, i've been using x-blooded as a descriptor in my games based literally on the color of blood humanoids have, as an indicator of ability to interbreed and common roots

----------


## noce

I don't know if anyone said it already, but to me the new Ardling race species seems like a way to encompass all the animal themed ones, expecially from previous editions.
For example, 3.5 had Kenku, Hadozee, Lizardfolk, Catfolk, Darfellan, Goatfolk, Kuo-Toa, Raptoran, Marrulurk and these are just the most famous ones.
Obviously, some of those had particular perks, and some will probably be presented as their own in 5.5e (Kenku for example definitely will). But for most of them, a single species of small and medium beastlike beings makes sense.

----------


## Snowbluff

> I don't know if anyone said it already, but to me the new Ardling race species seems like a way to encompass all the animal themed ones, expecially from previous editions.
> For example, 3.5 had Kenku, Hadozee, Lizardfolk, Catfolk, Darfellan, Goatfolk, Kuo-Toa, Raptoran, Marrulurk and these are just the most famous ones.
> Obviously, some of those had particular perks, and some will probably be presented as their own in 5.5e (Kenku for example definitely will). But for most of them, a single species of small and medium beastlike beings makes sense.


Indeed. A lot of animal race options are in 5e as well. I just think it's a bit short sighted to try and compress the animal people down to a single one, especially since editions invariably grow and expand their options afterwards. Maybe they just want to make it a core option, but I feel like this is like in The Office when they try to make everyone's birthday that month into the same day.

----------


## Segev

> Indeed. A lot of animal race options are in 5e as well. I just think it's a bit short sighted to try and compress the animal people down to a single one, especially since editions invariably grow and expand their options afterwards. Maybe they just want to make it a core option, but I feel like this is like in The Office when they try to make everyone's birthday that month into the same day.


Nonsense! The creativity enabled by making any animal-person species available with the exact same stats is far greater than when you were limited to specific animal-people by the stats actually having to be made custom for each species thereof! Now you're not limited to any particular kind of animal, and you can play whatever one you want! Yuan-ti and kuo-toa and kenku and lamia and centaurs and literally any other animal-person creature type is now a PCable option! And they all have exactly the same underlying mechanics, so no creative concepts are punished by having to be less-suited than if you chose a different animal-type for your PC, nor will any animals be besmirched by having any indication that statistical differences exist between them and other animal-people with different animal bases!

----------


## noce

> Indeed. A lot of animal race options are in 5e as well. I just think it's a bit short sighted to try and compress the animal people down to a single one, especially since editions invariably grow and expand their options afterwards. Maybe they just want to make it a core option, but I feel like this is like in The Office when they try to make everyone's birthday that month into the same day.


Well, they could always add an animal ancestry to an already well defined frame (divine cantrip + perception). If for example they want to introduce turtles, armadillos and the like then they just have to add the Shelled animal ancestry, or Tusked animal ancestry for elephants and boars, and so on.
There's room for expansion within a single furry race without the need to publish a brand new race each time you hear from your community that they want to play penguins.

----------


## Psyren

> I don't know if anyone said it already, but to me the new Ardling race species seems like a way to encompass all the animal themed ones, expecially from previous editions.
> For example, 3.5 had Kenku, Hadozee, Lizardfolk, Catfolk, Darfellan, Goatfolk, Kuo-Toa, Raptoran, Marrulurk and these are just the most famous ones.
> Obviously, some of those had particular perks, and some will probably be presented as their own in 5.5e (Kenku for example definitely will). But for most of them, a single species of small and medium beastlike beings makes sense.





> Indeed. A lot of animal race options are in 5e as well. I just think it's a bit short sighted to try and compress the animal people down to a single one, especially since editions invariably grow and expand their options afterwards. Maybe they just want to make it a core option, but I feel like this is like in The Office when they try to make everyone's birthday that month into the same day.


I don't think the existence of the ardling will keep them from making Darfellans or Lupins or Formians etc in the future if they want to. What it will do however is (a) save them a lot of design time/give them breathing room by having a plausible catch-all for those concepts in the meantime, and (b) desensitize the presence of animal themed races in the major settings so DMs (and any NPCs they roleplay as) can be used to the idea.

Personally what I want is something unifying ardlings a bit more. I'd like there to be an easy way to distinguish a cat-headed Ardling from a Tabaxi, or a bull-headed Ardling from a Minotaur. Or more generally, just a ready way to tell that two different-subtyped Ardlings in a party are both Ardlings.

----------


## Kane0

Yeah consolidation was my first impression, so there is an 'animal person' in the core book while getting maximum milage from it. Fits next to 'dragon person', 'giant person', 'demon person' and so on.




> Personally what I want is something unifying ardlings a bit more. I'd like there to be an easy way to distinguish a cat-headed Ardling from a Tabaxi, or a bull-headed Ardling from a Minotaur. Or more generally, just a ready way to tell that two different-subtyped Ardlings in a party are both Ardlings.


Yes some race-wide characteristics, mannerisms, etc. Like ecology notes of some kind...

----------


## Psyren

> Yes some race-wide characteristics, mannerisms, etc. Like ecology notes of some kind...


I don't need set mannerisms personally, just something aesthetic. Maybe all their eyes glow a certain color or range of colors, or they get a halo when they use their racial cantrip or something.

----------


## Segev

> Personally what I want is something unifying ardlings a bit more. I'd like there to be an easy way to distinguish a cat-headed Ardling from a Tabaxi, or a bull-headed Ardling from a Minotaur. Or more generally, just a ready way to tell that two different-subtyped Ardlings in a party are both Ardlings.


But why would you want to limit the creativity of somebody who wanted to play a cat-Ardling by constraining him to different stats than a bull-Ardling? Such things make it so that the cat-Ardling is less good at certain things than the bull-Ardling would be, and makes it so that the cat-Ardling thus isn't as capable in certain classes and builds, which would stifle the creativity of players who think to play a cat-Ardling doing those things!

And to have Tabaxi be different from cat-Ardlings is definitely a flaw in the design that needs correcting. It limits people to viewing cat-people as "Tabaxi" type cats, and limits the design of Tabaxi player characters to things that actually make use of Tabaxi traits, rather than things that clash with them. This further limits creativity and freedom of players to play something against type, by making them actually have mechanical consequences for the choice!

----------


## Psyren

Segev, I'm not going to bother reading the constant walls of blue text, it hurts my eyes on top of everything else.

----------


## Schwann145

We're starting down the road towards the Greendale Human Being. Oof.

----------


## ZRN

> Wow subclass at 3, wish they had given all classes their sub at 1 instead, that way you could truly diversify how the class normally works without it being weird, say a subclass gives Fighter unarmored defense, when at 1 its natural but at 3 he fights in armor 1-2 then decides to go naked at 3.
> 
> Just makes whatever they get at 1 minor- medium impact and give a bigger subclass feature at 3 if wanting to not make everyone go dip insane.


I think the intent is that each class should have a distinct identity that's defined by what they get at level 1 and (to a lesser extent) 2, and if you're trying to make a subclass that redefines major parts of that identity you're Doing It Wrong. We'll see how that works out with the sorcerer, where major parts of the class identity are defined by the subclass (which is why they currently get it at 1).

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Ardlings are cool on their current form.


 Ardlings are hot garbage. 




> I went with kind.


 Yep.

----------


## Xihirli

When I first heard that Goliaths can teleport now I thought that was stupid power creep, but now that I see they have a bunch of giant subraces I think thats actually pretty cool.

Doesnt quite fit in with what I typically do, which is have Goliaths at the bottom of the Ordning and rumors that Dwarves might have originally been "cave giants" beneath that, but thats a sacrifice I might make, assuming 5.5 ends up overall better.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Doesnt quite fit in with what I typically do, which is have Goliaths at the bottom of the Ordning and rumors that Dwarves might have originally been "cave giants" beneath that, but thats a sacrifice I might make, assuming 5.5 ends up overall better.


That's similar to what I ended up doing, but a bit different.

For me, jazuu (goliaths, roughly, renamed and reworked to avoid copyright issues) are the base species for both giants and giant-kin. Giants are jazuu that have been _transformed_, rewritten by ancient runic magics. If the one receiving the gift isn't strong enough, however, they either die or become one of the debased giant-kin (ogres, trolls, etc)[1]. It's why many jazuu cultures are competitive and perfectionist--becoming a true giant is considered one of the highest-status states possible. And only the best get the chance. The Ordning (although I don't call it that) is actually the hierarchy of rewriting, and giants can progress up the ladder. The first, dangerous steps make you a hill giant, ordered to VALUE WORK[2]. 

Later you get CREATE BEAUTY (stone giants), 
DEFEND KIN (frost giants), 
COMMAND UNLIVING ELEMENTS (fire giants),
COMMAND KIN (Cloud giants)
And finally
COMMAND EVERYTHING (in principle this would make you a titan, the ancestor of the jazuu and wielder of true rune magic...but everyone's failed to get there. Instead you get a storm giant, which are rare).

*Spoiler: The entire runic block, translated*
Show


**START PHYSICAL BLOCK**
GROW IN STRENGTH, SIZE # failure here results in an ogre or ettin. Big, strong, dumb. 
LIVE FOR LONG DURATION # failure here tends to be fatal
HUNGER BE SATISFIED # failure here results in a troll. Big, strong, long-lived, always hungry.
BECOME # success here results in an ettin
**END PHYSICAL BLOCK**

**START IMPERATIVES BLOCK**
VALUE WORK
BECOME # hill giants
CREATE BEAUTY
BECOME # Stone giants end here
DEFEND KIN
BECOME # Frost giants end here
**END IMPERATIVES BLOCK**

**START RULING BLOCK**
COMMAND UNLIVING ELEMENTS
BECOME # Fire giants
COMMAND KIN
BECOME # Cloud Giants
COMMAND EVERYTHING
BECOME # no one has succeeded in this stage since the Titans. Storm giants came close and are seriously powerful, but seriously rare
**END RULING BLOCK**



The jazuu used to be the race known as the titans, but hubris, war with the ancestors of the dragons, and the interference of demon-like entities conspired to break them, making true rune magic impossible.

Dwarves? They (or really their ancestors) were once titans as well. But part of that hubris involved powering up an artifact. Which the dominant titans did by draining the runic power (and ability to transform) out of the "lesser" ones of their race. Creating the dwarves.

[1] Which, unlike true giants, are fertile and breed true. A cosmic irony. Giant-kin vastly outnumber true giants.
[2] my setting is _quite_ different as far as psychology. My hill giants, for the most part, are relatively simple-minded laborers. Yes, they eat tremendously[3]. But they also don't have any issues with working--in fact they tend to value it. Individuals are individual, however--you do find the indolent ones, especially outside of the mixed jazuu/giant cultures.
[3] Even though they don't need too--that "HUNGER BE SATISFIED" block means that a true giant is powered by their runes, drawing on the essential nature of the elements and creation itself. Most giants do eat some, but mostly for taste. For reference, dragons have something similar, minus the whole runic rewriting thing. They're powered/"fed" by their hoards. Stealing from a dragon makes it _starve_. Hence why they get so...irritated when people do so.

----------


## Psyren

> When I first heard that Goliaths can teleport now I thought that was stupid power creep, but now that I see they have a bunch of giant subraces I think thats actually pretty cool.
> 
> Doesnt quite fit in with what I typically do, which is have Goliaths at the bottom of the Ordning and rumors that Dwarves might have originally been "cave giants" beneath that, but thats a sacrifice I might make, assuming 5.5 ends up overall better.


*Cloud goliaths* can teleport - and cloud giants can too.




> I think the intent is that each class should have a distinct identity that's defined by what they get at level 1 and (to a lesser extent) 2, and if you're trying to make a subclass that redefines major parts of that identity you're Doing It Wrong. We'll see how that works out with the sorcerer, where major parts of the class identity are defined by the subclass (which is why they currently get it at 1).


Given that all sorcerers have a common spell list, I'm not against them having common powers at 1 and 2 either. I'll reserve judgment until I see what they do, but I don't think it's impossible to do subclass at 3 well.

----------


## Kane0

Would be cool if sorcerers picked one spell list of their choice to use, but i have slim hopes of something like that happening. Maybe bloodline determines list you access, but if it kicks in at 3 that wont be happening either.

----------


## Arkhios

Ardlings are [insert insult/praise here].

To be entirely honest, I have nothing against them, even though it feels weird to add a completely new species to a book that's supposed to update/replace the current player's handbook (and then some) of the current edition.

And before anyone continues on their sermon about OneD&D being an Xth edition OTHER THAN 5th; Stop right there. I don't care.

----------


## animorte

Been looking over it and play-testing some more. Finally filled out the survey. I expressed plenty little nit-pick things that I wont mention here, a few bigger ones as well.

*1.* I fully support all subclass progression being standardized, but it might help some people if the fluffy flavor text supported the reasons _why_ a Cleric waits to receive their domain within the game. (I understand it.)

*2.* Im rather indifferent toward them, but Ardlings improved significantly over the first draft we were presented. At least the abilities actually make more sense. Also, if theyre going for that bestial vibe, it should absolutely be Primal Magic instead of Divine (then adjust flavor text accordingly).

*3.* This is dumb. Stop randomly limiting spells to only affect a creature once per long rest (or short). Thats precisely what spell slots are for. Let people use the **** out of them if they want to.

*4.* Spiritual Weapon is fine. Yes, I know it uses concentration, but when you upcast it, the damage scales twice as well as it used to. I mentioned that this was a decent example of what I hope to see when they make changes. If youre going to nerf something that is already okd try, give it something back somewhere else (within reason). Balance.

----------


## Arkhios

> Been looking over it and play-testing some more. Finally filled out the survey. I expressed plenty little nit-pick things that I wont mention here, a few bigger ones as well.
> 
> *1.* I fully support all subclass progression being standardized, but it might help some people if the fluffy flavor text supported the reasons _why_ a Cleric waits to receive their donation within the game. (I understand it.)
> 
> *2.* Im rather indifferent toward them, but Ardlings improved significantly over the first draft we were presented. At least the abilities actually make more sense. Also, if theyre going for that bestial vibe, it should absolutely be Primal Magic instead of Divine (then adjust flavor text accordingly).
> 
> *3.* This is dumb. Stop randomly limiting spells to only affect a creature once per long rest (or short). Thats precisely what spell slots are for. Let people use the **** out of them if they want to.
> 
> *4.* Spiritual Weapon is fine. Yes, I know it uses concentration, but when you upcast it, the damage scales twice as well as it used to. I mentioned that this was a decent example of what I hope to see when they make changes. If youre going to nerf something that is already okd try, give it something back somewhere else (within reason). Balance.


Fully agreed on all the four points!

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Ardlings are [insert insult/praise here].


 If tieflings are to be core, then aasimar are to be core. Symmetry.  You don't need multiple kinds of tieflings, let the players selection of the spell/ability make their tiefling uniquely theirs.  Same with aasimar. 

Ardlings are, to put it as kindly as I can, bloat.  You should not put bloat into core.

----------


## Willie the Duck

> To be entirely honest, I have nothing against them, even though it feels weird to add a completely new species to a book that's supposed to update/replace the current player's handbook (and then some) of the current edition.


That's what I mentioned in the survey. Nearly every other time a new race(/species/kind) became super-prevalent in the game (drow, tieflings, dragonborn, minotaurs, goblins as pcs), it was because it was introduced in an adventure or splatbook or adjacent media (Warhammer or WoW or Pathfinder, etc.) and then swelled in popularity sufficient that future writing started to account for them outside of the place they were introduced. Ardlings are a Cousin Oliver - something forced on the audience without their buy-in but with the hope that they will take to them. Occasionally it works*, but, well, there's a lot on that list that don't. For that reason, I don't think it matters overly whether the implementation of Ardlings is good or bad**, I still don't think it will catch on.
*Kitty Pride in the _X-Men_, Frank in _It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia_, Ernie on _My Three Sons_ for those old enough to have watched that, maybe Lola Bunny for Looney Tunes
**honestly, neither version we've seen is wildly better or worse than other 'generic-anthro' attempts D&D has made like 1e's Hengeyokai or 3e's 'anthropomorphic ______' from _Savage Species_

----------


## Snowbluff

> Well, they could always add an animal ancestry to an already well defined frame (divine cantrip + perception). If for example they want to introduce turtles, armadillos and the like then they just have to add the Shelled animal ancestry, or Tusked animal ancestry for elephants and boars, and so on.
> There's room for expansion within a single furry race without the need to publish a brand new race each time you hear from your community that they want to play penguins.





> I don't think the existence of the ardling will keep them from making Darfellans or Lupins or Formians etc in the future if they want to. What it will do however is (a) save them a lot of design time/give them breathing room by having a plausible catch-all for those concepts in the meantime, and (b) desensitize the presence of animal themed races in the major settings so DMs (and any NPCs they roleplay as) can be used to the idea.



I suppose I should have pointed out that if a penguin is a suitable race for a DM's  setting, they're perfectly able to include the fluff for playing one. 


On top of that, a lot of these options do already exist, if the rules are primarily meant to be backwards compatible. I'll say earlier, the only real benefit would be adding it to core, but at the same time both Dragonborn and Tiefling did have a lot of history and popularity beforehand that easily justified their addition. Personally, I don't care outside of the implication GM's shouldn't be doing the fluff for one off options, but I feel like there would have been less tension over adding Tabaxi to core.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Ardlings are a Cousin Oliver - something forced on the audience without their buy-in but with the hope that they will take to them.


 That's a well presented take, and far more charitable than mine. +1.  :Small Smile:

----------


## Psyren

> If tieflings are to be core, then aasimar are to be core. Symmetry.  You don't need multiple kinds of tieflings, let the players selection of the spell/ability make their tiefling uniquely theirs.  Same with aasimar. 
> 
> Ardlings are, to put it as kindly as I can, bloat.  You should not put bloat into core.


Aasimar being core has two problems though:

The first problem is their ability to fly at level 1. I theorized previously that flight at level 1 is not something WotC wants in core, and the newly-proposed Dragonborn (having to wait until 5th level for their flight to come online) are a strong indication that I was right about that. Now, they _could_ change Aasimar so that the flight option is only accessible at 5th like that of the new Dragonborn - however that would require them to update Aasimar yet _again_, which would fly in the face of the backwards compatibility promise for those folks who recently bought MPMM, on top of being the _fourth_ redesign of Aasimar since 5e began.

The second problem is that core Aasimar wouldn't fill what I presume to be the main gap they're trying to fill with Ardlings - namely, the lack of a generalized animal-themed race in D&D. Putting Aasimar in core would leave them still needing to design a race that fills that niche. I find it very plausible that the ability to be a dog-man / boar-man / snake-man / rhino-man is likely going to be a clear selling point for the new edition for people outside the hobby, younger generations especially, and further evolve D&D beyond its Tolkien roots. In other words, putting Aasimar in core would still leave them wanting to design a race like ardlings anyway, or else be left wanting to design a dozen more animal-themed races like Tabaxi and Kenku.




> On top of that, a lot of these options do already exist, if the rules are primarily meant to be backwards compatible. I'll say earlier, the only real benefit would be adding it to core, but at the same time both Dragonborn and Tiefling did have a lot of history and popularity beforehand that easily justified their addition. Personally, I don't care outside of the implication GM's shouldn't be doing the fluff for one off options, but I feel like there would have been less tension over adding Tabaxi to core.


Tabaxi being core would satisfy the folks who want to be cats, but I suspect WotC's impetus is broader than that.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Aasimar being core has two problems though:
> 
> The first problem is their ability to fly at level 1.


Then get rid of Tieflings (in core). Make Aasimar and Tiefling both splat material. And here's why {1} 
Add Genasi to core.  :Small Big Grin:  (Yeah, I know, it's my hobby horse and I am gonna ride it. Genasi don't get enough love). Again, the metaphysics of D&D (air/earth/fire/water) and the Djinn/Genie being tied to all 4 (Efreet, Dao, Marid, Djinn) makes this fit core better than either of them.    



> animal-themed race in D&D. Putting Aasimar in core would leave them still needing to design a race that fills that niche.


Is not core, it is splat. That isn't needed in core. See PHB.  The "need" for an animal themed race is imaginary - it's a force feed -as Willie articulated so well in his Cousin Oliver observation.

{1} They got rid of half elf, and half orc (which is fine by me) so get rid of half demon and half angel. Granted, that does leave Genasi hanging out to dry, but dragonborn are half human half dragon and they get the nod, so lean into the genies. 

Thematic consistency: as you can see, WotC hasn't got it.

----------


## Tanarii

> Then get rid of Tieflings (in core). Make Aasimar and Tiefling both splat material.


Dragonborn too. 

Splats can be:
Peoples of the Planes. (Tiefling, Aasimar, Genasi)
Peoples of the Dragons.  (Dragonborn, dragon-headed kobolds)
Peoples of War (Orcs, Goblinoids, dog-headed kobolds, etc)

----------


## Psyren

> Then get rid of Tieflings (in core). Make Aasimar and Tiefling both splat material.


Why? Tieflings can't fly either.




> Add Genasi to core.


I'm not opposed to that either personally, though given that core is getting two other new additions they probably wouldn't want to add 4 more on top of that.




> The "need" for an animal themed race is imaginary - it's a force feed


I didn't say it was "needed"; I called it a selling point. Lots of "imaginary" things sell.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> Why? Tieflings can't fly either.


Tieflings and Aasimar are thematic opposites, so it makes sense to release them together. Either both as core or both in the same splat book.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Tieflings and Aasimar are thematic opposites, so it makes sense to release them together. Either both as core or both in the same splat book.


I agree with this. Tieflings and aasimar play off of each other nicely and have thematic resonance (fiend-touched vs angel-touched). With genasi forming the third point of a triad--those whose ancestry traces back to one of the three "groupings" of planes: Lower, Upper, and Inner.

Ardlings feel like an attempt to check all the "niche audience" boxes without actually making something that thematically coheres, even with itself. It's another example of "throw a bunch of abilities in a blender" design. And overlap/steal design space from lots of other races--tabaxi, kenku/aarokocra (having these be separate was a mistake, and kenku's curse is obnoxious), shifters, tortles, basically all the "anthropomorphic animal" races, of which there are plenty and to spare already. We don't need another "generic animal race" race. Especially one that's just a grab bag of random crap.

----------


## Tanarii

Generic animal-headed race would be fine, just call them beastfolk and give them something in common before subrace specific variances.  No need for upper planes influences when there is already a concept for that.

----------


## Psyren

> Tieflings and Aasimar are thematic opposites, so it makes sense to release them together. Either both as core or both in the same splat book.


There's no rule that says they have to be, or that Aasimar can be the only counterpart to Tieflings. And again, thematics aside, Aasimar would have mechanical issues in core.




> Generic animal-headed race would be fine, just call them beastfolk and give them something in common before subrace specific variances.  No need for upper planes influences when there is already a concept for that.


The planar influence explains that variation though. I suppose they could be feywild origin, but we already have a dozen of those

----------


## animorte

> Fully agreed on all the four points!


Much appreciated! _*Validation for the day: Success!*_

Ive said it before. I wouldnt be surprised if Ardling was probably added to replace all of the other non-core, beast-like playable races species.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> And again, thematics aside, Aasimar would have mechanical issues in core.


Aasimar _as currently written_ would. But they're changing lots of other things much more meaningful than "can fly".

----------


## GooeyChewie

> There's no rule that says they have to be, or that Aasimar can be the only counterpart to Tieflings. And again, thematics aside, Aasimar would have mechanical issues in core.


I wasn't meaning to imply that any such rule existed. WotC isn't required to ensure that any two species come out in the same book. At the same time, if we _don't_ put thematics aside, it does make sense to pair up thematic opposites like Aasimar and Tieflings. If one has mechanics which don't lend themselves to being a core species, they could easily both be in a splat book.

Alternatively, WotC could modify Aasimar so that they no long have mechanical issues in core. Or they could decide that flight at level 1 isn't that big of a deal. They've avoided having level 1 flight in core so far, but there's no rule that says they have to avoid it in the future. (Then again, there's literally no rules that say they _have_ to do anything, so I don't find "there's no rule" arguments compelling in the first place.)

----------


## Segev

I would like to venture to state that, if flight at level 5 isn't a problem, flight at level 1 isn't a problem, either, provided that it comes at sufficient opportunity cost.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I wasn't meaning to imply that any such rule existed. WotC isn't required to ensure that any two species come out in the same book. At the same time, if we _don't_ put thematics aside, it does make sense to pair up thematic opposites like Aasimar and Tieflings. If one has mechanics which don't lend themselves to being a core species, they could easily both be in a splat book.
> 
> Alternatively, WotC could modify Aasimar so that they no long have mechanical issues in core. Or they could decide that flight at level 1 isn't that big of a deal. They've avoided having level 1 flight in core so far, but there's no rule that says they have to avoid it in the future. (Then again, there's literally no rules that say they _have_ to do anything, so I don't find "there's no rule" arguments compelling in the first place.)


I agree with all of this.

To go further, I think they should be _way_ more selective about what goes into core. Especially for species. "Core" is a strong statement of expectations--that players should, if not expressly restricted, expect to have all the core options present. That means that the core options have to be a combination of generic enough to fit into most settings without issue and specific enough to be, well, interesting. In general, the default should be "not core" in most cases. Yes, that includes tieflings, assimar, dragonborn, _even various variants of elves._

My "ideal" core species set is something like
* Humans. The default of the default.
* Dwarves. So ingrained at this point.
* _Generic_ elves. Not high/wood, just...elves. Pointy-eared, slightly-magical folks.
* _maybe_ _one_ "small" species. Halflings _or_ gnomes (and I know which one I'd pick).
* _maybe_ goliaths. A "big" species to contrast with the "small" species.

That's it. No particular variants or other such things.

In fact, if "core" were just the basic rules and everything else was optional splat material, I think the game would be much more sensible.

----------


## Psyren

> I wasn't meaning to imply that any such rule existed. WotC isn't required to ensure that any two species come out in the same book. At the same time, if we _don't_ put thematics aside, it does make sense to pair up thematic opposites like Aasimar and Tieflings. If one has mechanics which don't lend themselves to being a core species, they could easily both be in a splat book.
> 
> Alternatively, WotC could modify Aasimar so that they no long have mechanical issues in core. Or they could decide that flight at level 1 isn't that big of a deal. They've avoided having level 1 flight in core so far, but there's no rule that says they have to avoid it in the future. (Then again, there's literally no rules that say they _have_ to do anything, so I don't find "there's no rule" arguments compelling in the first place.)


My point with the "rule" comment is that Aasimar are seen as Tieflings' thematic opposites because they've been repeatedly juxtaposed in the past, a tradition that got broken in 4e anyway. There's no fundamental/inalienable reason for them to keep doing that beyond tradition.




> Aasimar _as currently written_ would. But they're changing lots of other things much more meaningful than "can fly".


I know and I addressed that. They likely won't be removing features from any of the MPMM races for a long while, because if they do then that will oppose their backwards compatibility goals (see the 1DD Orc being identical to its MPMM version, and the 1DD Goliath being the MPMM Goliath Plus, rather than having anything taken away.)

----------


## Pex

> Aasimar being core has two problems though:
> 
> The first problem is their ability to fly at level 1. I theorized previously that flight at level 1 is not something WotC wants in core, and the newly-proposed Dragonborn (having to wait until 5th level for their flight to come online) are a strong indication that I was right about that. Now, they _could_ change Aasimar so that the flight option is only accessible at 5th like that of the new Dragonborn - however that would require them to update Aasimar yet _again_, which would fly in the face of the backwards compatibility promise for those folks who recently bought MPMM, on top of being the _fourth_ redesign of Aasimar since 5e began.
> 
> The second problem is that core Aasimar wouldn't fill what I presume to be the main gap they're trying to fill with Ardlings - namely, the lack of a generalized animal-themed race in D&D. Putting Aasimar in core would leave them still needing to design a race that fills that niche. I find it very plausible that the ability to be a dog-man / boar-man / snake-man / rhino-man is likely going to be a clear selling point for the new edition for people outside the hobby, younger generations especially, and further evolve D&D beyond its Tolkien roots. In other words, putting Aasimar in core would still leave them wanting to design a race like ardlings anyway, or else be left wanting to design a dozen more animal-themed races like Tabaxi and Kenku.
> 
> 
> 
> Tabaxi being core would satisfy the folks who want to be cats, but I suspect WotC's impetus is broader than that.


The players who really really want to play Tabaxi or Kenku won't be satisfied with Ardling to be a catperson or birdperson. It was never about the animal but the game mechanics. For Tabaxi it was about speed and Kenku they were so into the language barrier shtick. Ardlings are for furries.

----------


## Psyren

> The players who really really want to play Tabaxi or Kenku won't be satisfied with Ardling to be a catperson or birdperson. It was never about the animal but the game mechanics. For Tabaxi it was about speed and Kenku they were so into the language barrier shtick. Ardlings are for furries.


Tabaxi and Kenku aren't going anywhere. Not every race in the game needs to be core.

----------


## Snowbluff

> The players who really really want to play Tabaxi or Kenku won't be satisfied with Ardling to be a catperson or birdperson. It was never about the animal but the game mechanics. For Tabaxi it was about speed and Kenku they were so into the language barrier shtick. Ardlings are for furries.



DEJA VU! 
I have been in this place before
higher on the street 
and I know its my time to go!


All kidding aside, I do think it could be either way. Tabaxi definitely were potentially favored by people who wanted to be cats. I don't think the furry options needs to monopolize the higher planes option, however.

----------


## Kane0

> My "ideal" core species set is something like
> * Humans. The default of the default.
> * Dwarves. So ingrained at this point.
> * _Generic_ elves. Not high/wood, just...elves. Pointy-eared, slightly-magical folks.
> * _maybe_ _one_ "small" species. Halflings _or_ gnomes (and I know which one I'd pick).
> * _maybe_ goliaths. A "big" species to contrast with the "small" species.


Hmmm.

My corebook would have the 'redbloods': Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Goliath

Then in the great race splatbook you add in:
Redbloods: Gnome, Gith, custom halfbreed
Bluebloods: Dragonborn, Kobold, Lizardfolk
Greenbloods: Goblinoid, Orcish, Ardling (beast-kin)
Planetouched: Aasimar, Genasi, Tieflings
Special cases: Changeling, Warforged, Dhampir, Shifter

----------


## Arkhios

> If tieflings are to be core, then aasimar are to be core. Symmetry.  You don't need multiple kinds of tieflings, let the players selection of the spell/ability make their tiefling uniquely theirs.  Same with aasimar. 
> 
> Ardlings are, to put it as kindly as I can, bloat.  You should not put bloat into core.


There are, in player's handbook alone, 9 races species, and 13 backgrounds (or, if we're to include their variants for backgrounds or sub-whatever (races, species, whatever you want to call them), then the same numbers are 15 races species and 19 backgrounds).

Calling out for symmetry for races is hardly reasonable. If symmetry was intended, why are the options asymmetrically _at odds_?

----------


## Kane0

> There are 13 classes, 9 races species, and 13 backgrounds (not including their variants or sub whatever (races species, classes, what have you) in players handbook alone.
> 
> Calling out for symmetry is hardly reasonable. If symmetry was intended, why are the options asymmetrically _at odds_?


Rule of threes?

----------


## GooeyChewie

> My point with the "rule" comment is that Aasimar are seen as Tieflings' thematic opposites because they've been repeatedly juxtaposed in the past, a tradition that got broken in 4e anyway. There's no fundamental/inalienable reason for them to keep doing that beyond tradition.


It's the other way around. Aasimar and Tieflings have been repeatedly juxtaposed in the past _because_ they are thematic opposites. One is celestial-themed while the other is fiend-themed. Personally I think theme and tradition are good reasons to juxtapose these two races by making sure that they appear in the same book. I'm not saying WotC _has_ to do it that way, or that I think they _will_ do it that way, only that its enough for me (and others) to think the overall One D&D product would be better if they did do it that way.




> I know and I addressed that. They likely won't be removing features from any of the MPMM races for a long while, because if they do then that will oppose their backwards compatibility goals (see the 1DD Orc being identical to its MPMM version, and the 1DD Goliath being the MPMM Goliath Plus, rather than having anything taken away.)


But we're okay with new Dragonborns that oppose backwards compatibility with Fizban's? WotC has been pretty inconsistent (to put it politely) in regards to how they approach backwards compatibility. I don't expect it to amount to much other than being able to run OD&D characters in existing 5e officially published adventures/campaigns.

----------


## Psyren

> It's the other way around. Aasimar and Tieflings have been repeatedly juxtaposed in the past _because_ they are thematic opposites. One is celestial-themed while the other is fiend-themed. Personally I think theme and tradition are good reasons to juxtapose these two races by making sure that they appear in the same book. I'm not saying WotC _has_ to do it that way, or that I think they _will_ do it that way, only that its enough for me (and others) to think the overall One D&D product would be better if they did do it that way.


Sure, celestial and fiendish are opposites, but you can have other celestial and fiendish races besides Tieflings and Aasimar though. Back in 3.5, Dragon Compendium introduced the Diabolus race for example, and I don't recall everyone raising a stink back then. Similarly, Book of Vile Darkness introduced the Vashar and the Jerren - while borderline cartoonish in their presentation, they showed that Tieflings have never been the be-all and end-all of this idea, so I don't see why Aasimar have to be either. Ardlings are fine.




> But we're okay with new Dragonborns that oppose backwards compatibility with Fizban's?


Yes? A new core book including new Dragonborn is a given. The ones in Fizbans were variants at best (and even outright stated to be such, FToD pg. 9).

----------


## False God

I still don't understand why Ardling aren't an Aasimar subrace.  Like, they're half-breed celestials...but they have animal heads.  Sounds like a subrace to me.

It also strikes me as a bit odd because when I think "good/evil aligned creatures with animal heads" I think Baphomet a heck of a lot faster than Guardinals.  Which is so say I'd actually have a lot less objection to Ardlings is they were evil/demon-themed than good/celestial themed.

And at the end of the day, there are still a dozen better options for animal people, like can we have Hengeyokai please?  

Really this all just strikes me as a "we need to make things we can copyright!" move, which rubs me all sorts of wrong.

----------


## Psyren

> Really this all just strikes me as a "we need to make things we can copyright!" move, which rubs me all sorts of wrong.


I think it's a safe bet every race they put in the PHB will be in the SRD just like they always have been, so I'm not buying the "copyright" notion.

----------


## False God

> I think it's a safe bet every race they put in the PHB will be in the SRD just like they always have been, so I'm not buying the "copyright" notion.


Tieflings are in the SRD, but are also explicitly WOTC copyright under their new look since 4E.

While you can certainly make D&D material with stuff in the SRD, you cannot, for example, write your own fantasy novel that includes tieflings, but you certainly can do so with elves, orcs, dwarves and their various half-breeds, as well as "half demon" or "demon blooded" characters, you just can't use the word and design of "tieflings".

The older design of "a human with a tail and horns" wasn't something they could copyright.  The same is true for Aasimar.  A "human with golden hair and nice skin" isn't something they can copyright.

*Please note I'm not going to argue copyright/trademark nitpicking, ya'll know what I mean.

----------


## GooeyChewie

> Sure, celestial and fiendish are opposites, but you can have other celestial and fiendish races besides Tieflings and Aasimar though. Back in 3.5, Dragon Compendium introduced the Diabolus race for example, and I don't recall everyone raising a stink back then. Similarly, Book of Vile Darkness introduced the Vashar and the Jerren - while borderline cartoonish in their presentation, they showed that Tieflings have never been the be-all and end-all of this idea, so I don't see why Aasimar have to be either. Ardlings are fine.


I think we've gotten topics cross here. I wasn't saying anything at all about Ardlings. All I was saying is that as thematic opposites, it would make sense for WotC to have Tieflings and Aasimar presented at the same time. And if Aasimar needs to be pushed to a splat book, I'm perfectly good with Tiefling getting pushed to the same splat book. (And if you really want Vashar and/or Jerren, maybe they belong in the same splat book? I'm not super-familiar with them.)





> Yes? A new core book including new Dragonborn is a given. The ones in Fizbans were variants at best (and even outright stated to be such, FToD pg. 9).


I don't see why new Dragonborn would be a given and Aasimar would not be a given? Or why it's okay to overwrite recent Dragonborn variants but not recent Aasimar variants? But whatever. I'm not clamoring for Aasimar to be a core race. I'm more pointing out that the notion of backwards-compatibility has not been particularly well-defined.

----------


## Psyren

> I think we've gotten topics cross here. I wasn't saying anything at all about Ardlings. All I was saying is that as thematic opposites, it would make sense for WotC to have Tieflings and Aasimar presented at the same time. And if Aasimar needs to be pushed to a splat book, I'm perfectly good with Tiefling getting pushed to the same splat book. (And if you really want Vashar and/or Jerren, maybe they belong in the same splat book? I'm not super-familiar with them.)


What I'm saying is that Tieflings and Aasimar being (polar) opposites that need to be in the same book is entirely artificial and not endemic to either species.




> I don't see why new Dragonborn would be a given and Aasimar would not be a given? Or why it's okay to overwrite recent Dragonborn variants but not recent Aasimar variants?


There are no Aasimar "variants." There is just the one race, that has been updated a few times in the editions lifetime, and them choosing to leave it alone is reasonable.

----------


## sambojin

I like the aasimar/ tiefling polar opposites in background ancestry, but I quite like aardlings as well. I actually wouldn't mind if their were still exalted/ idyllic/ heavenly aardlings either. Just extra subraces for them. Maybe with a blurb that they can also be infernal or fey'ish aardlings in their backstory, to cover every niche.

Having 3-6 subraces of each core race can only be a good thing. I like how they did elves. I like how they did goliaths (although they could be balanced a little better). I like how they did dragonborn in this UA.

I don't like how they did dwarves in the original UA (the tremor-sense is a great idea, having only 1 type of dwarf isn't). But aardlings and tieflings are fine, with aardlings actually being the more interesting of the two, due to interesting interactions with class mechanics. So we just need aasimar and we're set.

Having two species with divine or infernal (or even fey'ish) origins tends to flesh the world out better, rather than thin it down. Makes it easier on players and DMs to make their worlds come alive, where it's not so all-or-nothing on "yeah, an angel bonked my mum, so now I'm here all celestial'y like butchering bad(?)guys" or "but I'm a good tiefling(!?), with a long-winded backstory to explain why". Shades of grey and gold and blood-red in between is never a bad thing for world building.

(Remember how I like aasimar? They do tend to fit into the 3.5e pally "super-good" mould for character building a little too much imo. Sometimes you need that. Sometimes you can subvert that. Sometimes you can use that as a basis for reflection or characterisation. But having another vaguely divine/ infernal/ something species doesn't take away from that. If anything, it shows the differences and breadth of species and backstories and reasons for adventuring, making an aasimar's more unique in the flavour-pot, not less)

((I also think that including aasimar, aardlings that are divine/ fey/ infernal, and tieflings in core 1dnd's PHB would also give a really good reason on the "not all dwarves are underground masters"/ "not all orcs are evil" kind of thing. Showing shades of grey in between even the "higher/ lower/ side powers" and their background and reasons and outlook makes it a very nice building block for all the other races/ species/ subs-of-them to be whatever the player wants them to be as well, appropriate to the setting or their own RP wishes. While it should be mentioned explicitly, showing a range of things in between what are normally polar opposites, makes for a good range for every other species as well))

----------

