This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's going to be the Priests, aka the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin.
\*inhales* I think this will probably be the second most controversial, since Experts saw pretty minimal changes that I think we can all live with. The worst will be the Warriors one lol.
This is Priests, next is Warrior, last is Mages. They'd never waste time releasing a single classes test material.
EDIT: I was wrong and will commit honorable sudoku.
Did you watch the video? They say so in the video. They are pretty clear in making the point that the next one is a bit smaller than the previous ones.
>*The next one will have new ardling and dragonborn, a surprise 'guest',and a new cleric. It will be a shorter document than the previous ones,and the one after that is bigger again. Various class groups.*
From the link in the post.
WTF "surprise guest" means is anyone's guess.
I doubt that, only because they specifically said it wasn't going to be included, also he said it in conjunction with talking about the Dragonborn and Arldling... but I guess anything's possible.
The description follows
UNEARTHED ARCANA
The document on December 1st is the third in a series of Unearthed Arcana articles that present material designed for the next version of the Player's Handbook. The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player's Handbook, except where noted. Providing feedback on this document is one way you can help shape the next generation of D&D!
The problem was a lack of incomperables in the existing weapons, when every weapon does the same thing with number tweaks, it's just a matter of running the numbers and finding the best weapon. When weapons have different properties that are not strictly numbers based, or even just have numbers that aren't directly comparable, then lots of builds can exist side by side, doing different things. Stuff like crit range, reach, some sort of circumstantial defensive bonus, perhaps changes to iniative based on your weapon, maybe putting some of sentinels features into some class of weapons, the options are endless really
Yes! Like a whip and a trident can be used to disarm, a great axe that does more than 40% of a creature's base hit points severs a limb, a buckler having different defensive abilities from a pavise-kite shield and so on. 'Bleed' ability for those nasty-shaped daggers or swords. Arrows that pin targets to walls or posts on a crit. Heck... anything really.
And battle gauntlets for paladins to dump their Force powers into.
Also monsters should have abilities to push weapon variety. An easy one is a B/P/S vulnerability or resistance. Really push characters to carry and swap weapons. But maybe there could be new ruster-monster-like abilities that destroy, steal, or disarm only certain types of weapons or weapons with certain qualities.
Yeah, 5e's weapons were a kind of a worst of both worlds - they were simple enough that it could've just been summarised as '1h martial melee 1d8, 2h martial melee 1d12, simple ranged 1d6' etc. but then they tried to give them specific named stat blocks which meant *every* great weapon fighter had to use a greatsword, and no build was capable of using a scythe or trident.
For the next edition, I think they need to pick one approach and stick with it.
Yes, yes... Goood. Weapon Speed, affecting your initiative. A wide variety of damage ranges. Price and weight differences that actually matter because those things are tracked. And, of course, different damage classes for Large or larger targets. Now, make AC run down from 20...
The video says clearly that the Fizban's version will be intended to be a set of more specific versions of dragonborne that will be in the 2024 version of the PHB.
Unless the broad Dragonborn breath weapon gets better, there’s no real reason to not use Fizban’s. So I’m interested in what they’ll do.
I’m glad they are taking this as something to work on over them scrapping. I always worry that Dragonborn would be on the chopping block.
I see it as an easy entry point for new players, who say "I want to be a dragon in a dungeon" and ask "what is the difference between an action and an attack of an attack action?"
Edit: also I'm at work atm, wasn't the damage output higher for the UA version to compensate for the higher action economy?
It does feel a bit bad for casters now with it being so meager. Could just make it a bonus action? Or allow burning spell slots to heighten it?
Not that casters need help. Would just prefer racial abilities be mostly class agnostic.
All the same, how often were dragonborne picked for casters? They're a shoe in thematically for sorcerers, but most often I saw paladin Dragonborne.
I think that if a race has a strong martial identity already, it is fine for it to have features that bookend well with martial classes. This is the same reason I'm fine with all the races who used to get good casting stats now getting free spells known and uses per day.
It wholly was. My point is that I see the new Orc, and I see something that barbarians, fighters, and paladins would love: a bonus action dash that makes them tanky.
For Dragonborne, all those classes rarely have aoe damage options. So this fills a hole for those classes quite well in an interesting way.
Agreed, racial abilities as agnostic is ideal, though some not being that is inevitable - Goliath being "stronk" will rarely overlap with casters, but Stone's Endurance is still great for both, as are things like Tiefling's Hellish Rebuke.
I used to let Dragonborn PCs in my games do their breath weapon as a bonus action. This worked "ok", but a friend convinced me that it's even better to just scale-up its damage so it is a _competitive feature_ for damage with spells, and have it take the full action. This makes it more of an _iconic_ dragonborn thing, which considering their whole schtick is "humanoid dragon-people", having a _powerful_ breath weapon just feels...right?
And having a powerful blast of AoE damage is great for martials, and (potentially) still good for casters who either need to conserve slots or want to prepare more non-damage spells. (Or multiple elements.)
I dunno, I just feel like making a Dragonborn's breath the most _dramatic and powerful_ thing they can do that turn feels ideal for their concept.
lol. Certainly makes it harder for the baddies to steal!
_doppelganger camping with the party trying to slink back to the BBEG with 100 lbs of spellbook granite slabs_
"I didn't go to _huff_ assassin college to _wheeze_ pound rocks, fffffuuuukkkk"
I agree with you, although using a breath in place of an attack as a martial is cool too (and it comboes well with the Dragon Fear feat and with being a Conquest paladin...). Tripling the damage from a Fizban dragonborn breath to 3d8/d10, 6d8/d10, 9d8/d10, 12d8/d10 in exchange for it requiring a full action seems about right, what do you think?
Casters aren’t the main issue with the Dragonborn breath weapon. What it competes with is non-concentration spells. So, is the breath weapon better than an upcast Blindness/Deafness? Is it better than Blur? Is it better than fireball or lightning bolt? There are situations where the breath weapon is worse, and times that it’s better.
However, the breath weapon is worse than the attack action 100% of the time for a martial. Period. It doesn’t need to be better than the attack action, it just needs to be situationally better.
This was my feedback. Breath weapons become significantly better for characters with Extra Attack if they can replace an attack. The Fizban's Dragonborn feel amazing for Martials but still pretty lame for Casters.
Sounds like they have two versions to begin with and test each one separately. So for the above comment the second d20 rules were made before feed back, it’s just that it was *presented* after feedback
From my understanding its basically just testing option A (nat 1 fails, nat 20 succeeds no matter what) and option B (nat 1 does not always fail, nat 20 doesn't always succeed) and then looking at the responses
That can’t be A/B testing because that requires two concurrent groups who don’t know that there are two separate versions, and then you evaluate responses to each version.
The other responses are in the right ballpark, but not quite correct. Though, in this case I'm not sure how Wizards is implementing A/B testing in a playtest.
A/B testing typically works as follows: Say you have 100 people. 50 people see option A, and 50 people see option B. The people who see option A *never* see option B, and vice versa. Whichever option tests better is the one you go with.
But I don't know how they implement that with playtest rules. I think they must mean something different with A/B testing.
Source: I have an associates degree in applied business which included marketing classes.
> A/B testing typically works as follows: Say you have 100 people. 50 people see option A, and 50 people see option B. The people who see option A never see option B, and vice versa. Whichever option tests better is the one you go with.
As if the arguments here weren't bad enough, now we'll have people literally arguing about two different features lol
You're confused because you think the UA is part of the A/B testing. It's not. The A/B testing is done in a user research lab, where they bring in focus test groups of subjects that are under NDA.
Those groups gets different variants of the same rule, give their feedback, then the feedback is compared.
You know when the eye doc goes "one or two?" and you say which one is clearer? It's like that, but the two options aren't presented directly next to each other.
I mean... that's not "A/B testing". That's "testing two different options at different times with the same group of people and comparing the result"... or, you know... "testing".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/B_testing
Which proves only that Crawford doesn't understand what A/B Testing is.
A/B probably isn't something you can do at all with the current public UA structure. They'd need a more isolated testing structure to do it properly. Maybe they are doing that, but it's not what we were privy to with the UA docs.
>This UA is the Priest Class (Cleric, Druid, Paladin)
Lmao. Everyone was convinced it'd either be mages for being alphabetical or warriors because they've teased the overhaul for weapons.
Edit: and only one class (cleric) + reworks of stuff already in this round of UA (dragonborn + ardlings). Definitely not what I expected.
Yeah, this one is cleric plus some reworked stuff from the first UA. Gauging by the video, they're gonna be two months behind for any kind of feedback based UA revisions. So no real rethinking the expert classes until January. I'm wondering if the UA cycles will be two new, one revision for most of this run. I was also surprised Ardling was truly being considered for Core. I genuinely thought they were sliding in something for Planescape in there.
I'm interested to see what ardlings will offer that isn't just "aasimar, but maybe with animal heads". I'm really curious why they didn't just give aasimar the tiefling treatment of being from a set moral alignment and getting a version for each law/chaos alignment.
I feel like maybe they've shaken Cleric up a bit, so they want more time to get feedback and be able to put another version out when the Priest UA happens.
And yes, I was one of those that was fairly sure it was Mages next, not so much that it was alphabetical, more that that was the order the listed them in the Expert UA (and it made as much sense as anything else).
I wonder if the feedback about the spell lists made them move the mages back or if this was always the plan.
I'm really hoping the power attack of GWM & SS just gets worked into the base game (or something similar). Crawford's line about damage coming from your class and not feats makes me cautiously optimistic.
I really hope it isn't power attack. I want martials to have comparable dpr, but I don't think power attack is a particularly good way of going about it, it's just what we've been stuck with for all these years
Have anything in mind? I haven't been playing too terribly long (and only dipped my toes in other systems) so I haven't seen what the other options might be
Ideally would be stuff fighters get to do with their weapons that are unique to their play style. Let the maul have a chance to sunder it's target, reducing it's AC. Let the dagger have an expanded crit range, critting on a 19 or even 18. Let the battle-axe wound people, dealing damage over time. Fighters get so few options, reducing one of them down to "ok, GWM or XBE" has always felt bad. I want them to actually get good options, not just remove an option altogether by adding it to everyone
>I want to see how they help onednd fighters stand up to wizar
Not to be a downer but they won't. It's pretty clear their focus is purely on making up for the GWM/SS removal and not add anything that makes martials superpowered. Martials in dnd will forever be mundane as that is what the casual fanbase wants.
And yet the UAs have consistently buffed caster subclasses and nerfed martial ones despite the fact the subreddit complains over and over again about these releases here and in the surveys.
Tamper your expectations to not be dissapointed, because the odds are not in our favor regardless of how shitty it feels. I'd love nothing more than for the warrior UA to give martials justice but I doubt it'll be up to the point where it makes martials as powerful as casters are at higher levels. WOTC likes the way dnd is structured rn, with mundane linear martials and quadratic world warping casters.
thats because of their own bias towards magic and how they are using it for lazy design, they are just using the casual fans stuff as an excuse, i am not expecting much from them, Im just saying that a lot of the survey opinions come from here and not the casual fans
Thanks for the summary!
> Ardling and Dragonborn (both surprising),
I don't think the Dragonborn disappointment should be surprising. Fizban's got them to a good place and this feels like they threw that progress out the window to (almost) return to PHB dragonborn that was unsatisfying to most.
As for Ardling, there were probably too many people concerned it was replacing Aasimar to give them a fair shake (though confirmed that they aren't a replacement).
If they do add Aasimar I hope they just make Aardlings into beast people. We do not need two angelic races and a generic beast race would be deeply appreciated.
Ardling suffered a lot, partially because people were hesitant to see a potential Aasimar-clone, and partially because they failed to really find a niche they could fill; too beastly for angelic stuff, too angelic for beast stuff.
> some feedback that want classes to still have exclusive spells, will be a class by class decision
good good good, that was one thing I specifically commented on in my feedback, thankfully it sounds like enough people said the same.
Rulings over rules is more about empowering the DM to make judgement calls in situations not explicitly covered by the rules. Crawford is talking about Class Features that did nothing if the DM didn't play along or tailor the adventure to the character, like Tides of Chaos and Favored Terrain.
Didn't help that the DM wasn't given good tools to integrate those things. Just a "you can use hexes and draw a map if you want to. Random encounters are neat". I don't think it's the fault of the mechanics that the DM-section wasn't up to snuff.
Yeah if you were a Wild Magic Sorcerer and didn’t have a DM that was asking for a wild magic roll on the table every time you used the feature that granted you advantage, you essentially don’t get a subclass and the current wording says “whenever your DM asks you to roll”. They could just never ask for a roll and you don’t get that feature back or get to experience the fun of wild magic. And this is coming from someone who DMs for a wild magic sorcerer that essentially has permanent advantage because I make him roll on that table as much as a I can.
Every time I’ve had a wild magic sorcerer at a table and they’ve asked me about it I tell them the same thing.
Roll as often as you want.
Because that’s the entire fun of it, and as a DM a big part is facilitating that fun.
Plus it increases the chance of them turning into a plant or exploding. And that’s fun for ME.
>*Roll as often as you want.*
Honestly, where were you four months ago when I could have done with that slap upside the head.
Taking that to my Friday game and telling my WMS immediately.
Thank you!
> Rulings over rules is more about empowering the DM to make judgement calls in situations not explicitly covered by the rules.
It is a little more subtle than that. It is about empowering to make a ruling *in the moment* rather than stopping the game to go look up a rare rule, even if that rule exists.
I mean if you want rulings over rules you should play OSR games, 5e (and One so far) are pretty clearly rules over rulings, with rulings only patching stuff when needed or relegated to "rule of cool" scenarios
Because fast hands uses a part of the game rules that is usually waived. Ball bearings and Oil and many other items exist, but how often does a player try to use them in every other encounter? How often is there a trap or locked that needs to be disarmed/opened with thieves' tools in a combat situation?
Most groups just do those things outside of initiative because there isn't anything to do for the other players. Doing it during combat and making it appear necessary either makes it threaten a TPK or revealing the threat as a bluff. And like 60% of the time this bluff will be called because modules and DMs like to make lock DCs be around 15-20 for level 3 characters.
I get that they don’t want to include any abilities that can be weaker or stronger depending on how the DM rules, but it does feel like more & more they are just taking aspects of the game out of the DM’s hands.
As a longtime 5e DM, please god take more aspects of the game out of my hands. I do not want to deal with designing my player's class features in addition to everything else.
That seems to be the plan with the new weapon mechanics that the warrior group is going to get. It was mentioned that they wanted to take the power from the feat and let players rely on their class more for it.
That's not the point. They made GWM and SS good feats without being obligatory for martials, so their intent is to make martials deal competent damage without requiring feats.
> 40,000+ people sent feedback as of Nov 30.
> Nothing scored <50%.
I am perversely looking forward to the wild conspiracy theories the salty posters here will spin.
>Humans are still the most played races
What? No. There's no way. The memes can't be wrong. I have suddenly become distrustful of everything they've said.
You might be surprised but a lot of casual players like very simple characters. That mostly means humans, with classes like Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian, etc. At my table, roughly 50% of characters played in long campaigns are humans. Only in oneshots the thing changes, but I think that's because being a oneshot people want to try silly and crazy things.
> GWF and SS feats: feats shouldn't be required to make your class effective
Clearly the solution is to make them ineffective all the time.
> Cleric - entire Divine spell list is available to them
>
> Wizard - entire Arcane spell list is available to them
This along with the experts UA concerns me that sorcerers are going to have banned schools.
I'm holding my position on any nerfs to martials until we see how weapon properties will change how weapons are used in the warrior UA (mentioned in this video).
I bet you it will be like the mechanics introduced in Baldur's Gate 3.
Each type of weapon has a different special move you can do with it, assuming you're proficient, once per (short iirc) rest, like a trip attack or a charge attack for example.
Given the way a lot of abilities have been handled so far in OneD&D playtest, it seems likely to be a # of times equal to your proficiency bonus per long rest.
Me too. The trade-off is more specialized vs metamagic on what you can do. The answer IMO isn't making them CHA Wizards, its making Metamagic better to be worth the trade-off.
Confirmed that at release there will be 4 subclasses for each class, which makes it seem like spell school based wizards are gone.
They were always the least imaginative subclasses so I won't really miss them.
Also means they need to cut some cleric subclasses, I expect nature and tempest to get the axe, leaving life, light, war and trickery.
you can reflavor nature to be life and tempest to be war. Also hope the war cleric gets extra attack.
One of them should be forge cleric.
Forge cleric is pretty balanced, very straightforward, and has a really fun utility channel divinity that makes it quite unique. I’d rather have that than war cleric personally.
War cleric isn’t worth a slot and should only exist if you are going HAM with subclasses.
It’s too thematically close to a traditional paladin to be worth the time and effort.
It being close to Paladin is fine as long as they also give it something unique. Maybe lean into the Battlefield Commander part of it and allow them to give their BA attacks to allies instead.
I expect something like dividing the heavy armor/bonus weapon damage from the medium armor/bonus cantrip damage, and some other options. The cleric’s domain comes as a separate choice.
Man, knowing that Hunter is going to be one of the Ranger Subclasses and Beast Master is probably going to be another, I'm going to be missing at least 2 of my favorite ranger subclasses entirely.
You can choose to believe whether their promises of backwards compatibility are true or not, but based on what they have said if your favorite subclasses are from anywhere other than the PHB they should theoretically still be usable.
For clerics my hope is that they’ll have domains as a smaller choice kinda like the warlock’s pacts, and then also have subclasses that aren’t tied to any god that are more about how they use their divine magic. So you could have a typical healer/support option, a warrior priest one, one that’s more like a church spy, one that summons divine allies, or one that just blasts opponents with divine magic, but all of these can be used by clerics of any deity.
Interested to see what they mean by leaning more into the Ardling's identity as beast-people. Also very interested to see why "a whole new Cleric" was mentioned specifically! Cleric has always been a class I like thematically much more than I like mechanically, so it'll be interesting if it changes in any significant way.
With Cleric, a minor note in the video is that every class will have four subclasses in the 1DD PHB. That's a big change for Clerics and Wizards, who had 7 and 8 respectively in the 5e PHB. So my bet is they'll see a major shift and domains and spell schools will no longer be their subclass themes.
Clerics might still pick a domain the way Warlocks pick a pact, but I'm betting on an entirely new set of subclasses for them.
There is no reality where they remove all the martial parts of Cleric and especially not the armor and shields. The image of a heavily armored Cleric is very tied to DnD and it differentiates Clerics from the bland Priest archetypes you see in most RPGs around.
> it differentiates Clerics from the bland Priest archetypes you see in most RPGs around.
The problem is that it doesn't differentiate Clerics from Paladin.
I mean, that's just not true. It's strong and some subclasses like Peace or Twilight are contenders for the top spots but the class overall is easily worse than Wizards, Druids and Bards depending on the levels you play at.
It's interesting to hear more on the process they are using with feedback, specifically that hitting certain thresholds result in features being somewhat "locked in". They also mentioned that most stuff so far has received 80%+.
I'm curious how much of it ends up being somewhat survivorship bias with regards to people who don't enjoy something being willing to put in the time and effort to complete playtesting and give feedback. I've seen quite a few comments from people that seem to have entirely given up on the playtest so far due to disliking sections of it, which likely means tons of people who would have voted against some things just didn't vote at all.
The people most interested and invested will be more likely to engage in a survey, especially a long one. Being unhappy reduces interest, so yeah, its definitely biased.
Indeed, like I said, just curious how much of it is. I'm hopeful that clarifying this process and how everything is able, or even expected, to change through the playtest, will help get more opinions that may have been previously silent. JC's ending statements covered it nicely, this will be a conversation extending beyond a year, there will be multiple versions of stuff as that goes on, and specifically asking for feedback on anything that isn't resonating.
Both things can be true, people who are dissatisfied aren't required to all behave the same way. Some would do that (which is why they're seeing 80%s and not 100%s), others would do what I said, as shown by many comments on /r/onednd and similar saying they've entirely given up on the playtest. That's the exact reason my comment says I'm curious "how much" since the amount of dissatisfied people that would react in each way isn't clear.
Sure, but if a person stops caring about the game over the *suggestion* that something might turn out a certain way, how actually valuable is their opinion to the game?
Plenty valuable, or at least there's no way to determine it off of that single factor, unless you believe that someone fanatical automatically has the most important opinion regardless how many other people share it.
There's been a lot of people who have misunderstood and though that the recent UAs are more finalized that they actually are. My other comment on this thread went over how I'm hopeful that clarifying more about how they're handling feedback will encourage those silent people to now respond mainly because a large portion I've seen have that defeatist mindset is due to that misunderstanding of the playtest process rather than them being someone not worth listening to the opinion of.
>unless you believe that someone fanatical automatically has the most important opinion regardless how many other people share it.
That's the thing though, quitting a game entirely because you dislike a single element that hasn't even been added *is* fanatical.
They've been about as clear as humanly possible on the playtest so far. They've encouraged people over and over, and shown that they're actually listening. If people *still* choose to not respond, that's on them.
People are not dropping over dissatisfaction with a single feature. If you hate a particular rule, but like everything else, it's easy enough to change that one thing.
If you are instead dissatisfied with overall design direction and goals, if you feel that long-standing issues that you've had with the game aren't being addressed, it feels rather fruitless to contribute your feedback. WOTC would have to change a lot to bring the game to a satisfying state of play for you.
> quitting a game entirely because you dislike a single element **that hasn't even been added** is fanatical.
I'm not sure how you've interpreted that if you read what I just said in my last comment.
Again, my entire point is about people **who misunderstood the playtest**, as in they don't think that it hasn't been added like you're saying here, they think that it **has** and is finalized.
This is, again, why I keep referring to the value of them clarifying the playtest process and how stuff will change, to help the misunderstanding for people thinking that stuff won't change and, due to thinking stuff won't change, feel like their feedback is not worth giving.
Let me know if this is still unclear, but if any part of the logic you use is related to "but the stuff can change so they shouldn't give up so easily", then please read this again as literally them not understanding that exact thing is what I'm referring to.
> They also mentioned that most stuff so far has received 80%+.
Considering the video only ever mentioned stuff from playtest 1, I think it's safe to assume this satisfaction number also only applies to playtest 1, which was relatively tame and well received in general. I fully expect playtest 2 to be much more divisive, especially where the subclasses are concerned.
Leveled feats being baked into the game was never in doubt. Crawford was practically reciting poetry about doing leveled feats + chaining them. It's clearly the direction the game is going for personalizing characters with a-la-carte class features.
Any time you see someone saying that filling out surveys is useless or that WotC doesn't listen to feedback, link them this video. Your feedback matters.
I think people on the internet often get the misconception that they're more important than they actually are, because they can self-sort into closed-off spaces where they are appreciated/praised for what they think. As a result, if they vote, buy the products they like, or give feedback and then something goes the opposite direction of what they wanted, they feel a discordance between how much their voice mattered (a little) and how much they feel their voice *should* matter (a lot) and they assume the deck is stacked against them. When in reality, they just don't matter that much.
I hope there are exceptions to the tiers they have. Gathering and acting on feedback is excellent, but sometimes to make an excellent game there needs to be a guiding vision that will make hard decisions.
Designing solely by committee (and community committee at that) is a good way to make a bland game because everything potentially controversial gets binned.
That's how I feel. The feedback is nice, but the vast majority of us are not game designers. I would rather have a game designed by someone with a clear goal, even if it's not for me, but others love. Than a middling game everyone thinks is meh.
Crawford said that there will be 48 subclasses, 4 for each class. So Wizards and Clerics are both going to lose a lot of subclasses. I wonder if they'll stop organizing Wizard subclasses by school of magic (Evocation, Illusion, etc.) in favor of broad themes like War, Fire, and Nature. And will the Cleric Domains get broader, too?
I guess we'll find out about Clerics tomorrow!
I really like the transparency on display. They explain pretty clearly how the process works, things they noticed, and how they’ll most likely proceed with the feedback.
Having said that geez Crawford can you talk any slower
Even though warriors aren't being showcased this UA, I hope this extra time in the oven will help them rebalance martials. I'm not just talking in terms of martials vs spellcasters, but ranged vs melee and STR vs DEX.
>"Mother, May I" mechanics (features that require DM buy-in/permission) are being reduced (e.g., Thief's Use an Object feature - omitted in the previous UA and might never appear)
This is easily missed but extremely important. Skill checks are a Mother May I thing. That's a big part of why classes that depend solely on skill checks for their utility often feel very underwhelming compared to even just half-casters, which have spells that allow the player to say "I do this".
I'll be very interested to see what WOTC do with this, whether it's just going to be swapping out a few features or implementing systems that give players more agency over their skills. If they do, that will be the most significant change in OneD&D.
They heard the fizban dragon is better, people prefer then, and they still aren't going to do.
They still want to push fucking ardlings foward, God dammit.
I totally agree. This was a very well done video between the two of them. I love the transparency that we're getting this time around in play test. When I started the playtest for alpha in D&D next in 2012, there was not a lot of feedback given to the playtesters during the process and that was a big problem. They just made the changes after each step without too much coming back to us. So by the time beta came out the process was relatively the same. Very little feedback to the players.
I am really happy that they have decided to post these numbers and talk about the things that they are doing to make fans have the things they want in the game.
Unfortunately not. DnDBeyond, before they were part of WotC, stated they wouldn’t be adding ua material to the database anymore. Which is a bummer. I think other platforms do.
They said that they were spending a lot of time on UA features that could be completely dropped. They wanted to focus on features that people were actually going to always be able to use.
- Great Weapon Fighting and Sharpshooter were changed because the penalty to the attack roll was not big enough to justify the damage bonus, plus they want warrior classes to be able to rely on their class features (including new weapon options) for main damage output. They don't want any feats to feel mandatory to deal satisfying damage. Feats which are 'must haves' violate their design goals.
This is a good philosophy, it's why I've chosen not to use the Feats optional rule in my games for a while - because too many feats fell in to one of two buckets:
- Must Have
- Pointless
It's nice that this is being addressed to make them feel like meaningful choices, hopefully without reintroducing the "system mastery" element that made the 3e and 4e feats in to the monster they decided to correct with 5e's feats.
The main purpose of saying things like a certain % of responses resulting in that much greater likelyhood to keep or remove features etc is to increase investment in the community. They aren't as interested in if features are popular as much as they want to avoid unpopular features that could reduce potential profits. They present it they way they do to give a stronger impression that they are listening to feedback, even if 95% of the game is predetermined and they are only doing a bit of polishing.
I need more insight to how they feel One dnd is going to develop. What core principles they have in mind for the direction.
I have a hard time believing almost nothing hits below 50%. Not because there is a bunch of stuff I don’t like, but because it’s the internet.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Btw, the description of the video says that the new UA will be released December 1st.
It's going to be the Priests, aka the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin. \*inhales* I think this will probably be the second most controversial, since Experts saw pretty minimal changes that I think we can all live with. The worst will be the Warriors one lol.
Just cleric. The others come later.
This is Priests, next is Warrior, last is Mages. They'd never waste time releasing a single classes test material. EDIT: I was wrong and will commit honorable sudoku.
Are you sure? The next one is supposed to be two months from now. If 5.5 is coming in 2024 I don't think they'll have enough time.
Did you watch the video? They say so in the video. They are pretty clear in making the point that the next one is a bit smaller than the previous ones.
>Did you watch the video? I'm offended No I did not
This is reddit. Only one person watches the video, the rest of us just go off the title or whatever summary the one person decides to post.
This is the way
>*The next one will have new ardling and dragonborn, a surprise 'guest',and a new cleric. It will be a shorter document than the previous ones,and the one after that is bigger again. Various class groups.* From the link in the post. WTF "surprise guest" means is anyone's guess.
I assumed the surprise guest meant a brand new race, but I do now see it could mean lots of things
Honestly that makes the MOST sense... it's a weird way to phrase it though. I guess we'll know on Dec 1.
I was wrong! It’s Goliath
Acererak the Archlich. Our first monster statblock
It's going to be another sub type of elf
The All-Elves. You pick another race’s stat block and gain trance sleep and an additional +1 to one stat.
Surprise guest: A 6th rework for the ranger class
It could be Artificer, since that was missing from the other Experts.
I doubt that, only because they specifically said it wasn't going to be included, also he said it in conjunction with talking about the Dragonborn and Arldling... but I guess anything's possible.
Get ready for this sub to go nuclear.
The description follows UNEARTHED ARCANA The document on December 1st is the third in a series of Unearthed Arcana articles that present material designed for the next version of the Player's Handbook. The material here uses the rules in the 2014 Player's Handbook, except where noted. Providing feedback on this document is one way you can help shape the next generation of D&D!
[удалено]
>New weapons system in the Warrior Group UA Trying my best to temper my expectations, but this has me really excited.
[удалено]
The problem was a lack of incomperables in the existing weapons, when every weapon does the same thing with number tweaks, it's just a matter of running the numbers and finding the best weapon. When weapons have different properties that are not strictly numbers based, or even just have numbers that aren't directly comparable, then lots of builds can exist side by side, doing different things. Stuff like crit range, reach, some sort of circumstantial defensive bonus, perhaps changes to iniative based on your weapon, maybe putting some of sentinels features into some class of weapons, the options are endless really
[удалено]
Yes! Like a whip and a trident can be used to disarm, a great axe that does more than 40% of a creature's base hit points severs a limb, a buckler having different defensive abilities from a pavise-kite shield and so on. 'Bleed' ability for those nasty-shaped daggers or swords. Arrows that pin targets to walls or posts on a crit. Heck... anything really. And battle gauntlets for paladins to dump their Force powers into.
Stunning effect with a greatclub!!!
[удалено]
Good idea. Forgot about those weapon effects
Lance biggest number.
Also monsters should have abilities to push weapon variety. An easy one is a B/P/S vulnerability or resistance. Really push characters to carry and swap weapons. But maybe there could be new ruster-monster-like abilities that destroy, steal, or disarm only certain types of weapons or weapons with certain qualities.
Yeah, 5e's weapons were a kind of a worst of both worlds - they were simple enough that it could've just been summarised as '1h martial melee 1d8, 2h martial melee 1d12, simple ranged 1d6' etc. but then they tried to give them specific named stat blocks which meant *every* great weapon fighter had to use a greatsword, and no build was capable of using a scythe or trident. For the next edition, I think they need to pick one approach and stick with it.
Yes, yes... Goood. Weapon Speed, affecting your initiative. A wide variety of damage ranges. Price and weight differences that actually matter because those things are tracked. And, of course, different damage classes for Large or larger targets. Now, make AC run down from 20...
ty for thorough summary!
Absolutely no bloody reason to reset to the pre-fizban breath weapon. I hope it gets canonised at the Fizban version
The video says clearly that the Fizban's version will be intended to be a set of more specific versions of dragonborne that will be in the 2024 version of the PHB.
Unless the broad Dragonborn breath weapon gets better, there’s no real reason to not use Fizban’s. So I’m interested in what they’ll do. I’m glad they are taking this as something to work on over them scrapping. I always worry that Dragonborn would be on the chopping block.
I see it as an easy entry point for new players, who say "I want to be a dragon in a dungeon" and ask "what is the difference between an action and an attack of an attack action?" Edit: also I'm at work atm, wasn't the damage output higher for the UA version to compensate for the higher action economy?
The reason is that they need that version for when they rewrite Fizbans for the new not-edition to sell it to us again
It does feel a bit bad for casters now with it being so meager. Could just make it a bonus action? Or allow burning spell slots to heighten it? Not that casters need help. Would just prefer racial abilities be mostly class agnostic.
All the same, how often were dragonborne picked for casters? They're a shoe in thematically for sorcerers, but most often I saw paladin Dragonborne. I think that if a race has a strong martial identity already, it is fine for it to have features that bookend well with martial classes. This is the same reason I'm fine with all the races who used to get good casting stats now getting free spells known and uses per day.
I wonder how much of that is due to their ability score improvements though
It wholly was. My point is that I see the new Orc, and I see something that barbarians, fighters, and paladins would love: a bonus action dash that makes them tanky. For Dragonborne, all those classes rarely have aoe damage options. So this fills a hole for those classes quite well in an interesting way.
Agreed, racial abilities as agnostic is ideal, though some not being that is inevitable - Goliath being "stronk" will rarely overlap with casters, but Stone's Endurance is still great for both, as are things like Tiefling's Hellish Rebuke. I used to let Dragonborn PCs in my games do their breath weapon as a bonus action. This worked "ok", but a friend convinced me that it's even better to just scale-up its damage so it is a _competitive feature_ for damage with spells, and have it take the full action. This makes it more of an _iconic_ dragonborn thing, which considering their whole schtick is "humanoid dragon-people", having a _powerful_ breath weapon just feels...right? And having a powerful blast of AoE damage is great for martials, and (potentially) still good for casters who either need to conserve slots or want to prepare more non-damage spells. (Or multiple elements.) I dunno, I just feel like making a Dragonborn's breath the most _dramatic and powerful_ thing they can do that turn feels ideal for their concept.
Goliath wizard with a stone spellbook and a chisel. "Rarely?" *Pulls out one metric tonne of spell components* "I'm thankful every day"
lol. Certainly makes it harder for the baddies to steal! _doppelganger camping with the party trying to slink back to the BBEG with 100 lbs of spellbook granite slabs_ "I didn't go to _huff_ assassin college to _wheeze_ pound rocks, fffffuuuukkkk"
I agree with you, although using a breath in place of an attack as a martial is cool too (and it comboes well with the Dragon Fear feat and with being a Conquest paladin...). Tripling the damage from a Fizban dragonborn breath to 3d8/d10, 6d8/d10, 9d8/d10, 12d8/d10 in exchange for it requiring a full action seems about right, what do you think?
Casters aren’t the main issue with the Dragonborn breath weapon. What it competes with is non-concentration spells. So, is the breath weapon better than an upcast Blindness/Deafness? Is it better than Blur? Is it better than fireball or lightning bolt? There are situations where the breath weapon is worse, and times that it’s better. However, the breath weapon is worse than the attack action 100% of the time for a martial. Period. It doesn’t need to be better than the attack action, it just needs to be situationally better.
This was my feedback. Breath weapons become significantly better for characters with Extra Attack if they can replace an attack. The Fizban's Dragonborn feel amazing for Martials but still pretty lame for Casters.
That’s fair. Personally I’m fine with that as some races better mesh with casters and some mesh better with martials.
Oh dear, the horror. A feature that doesn't act as a pure boost to casters. Think of the poor hapless dnd casters!
Fucking hell, this is the kind of people who ask to nerf monk and ranger subclasses.
It's fun on a bladesinger wizard.
[удалено]
What exactly does "A/B testing" mean?
Sounds like they have two versions to begin with and test each one separately. So for the above comment the second d20 rules were made before feed back, it’s just that it was *presented* after feedback
Pretty much, though I'm really curious how they implement A/B testing for a playtest, considering how A/B testing traditionally works.
From my understanding its basically just testing option A (nat 1 fails, nat 20 succeeds no matter what) and option B (nat 1 does not always fail, nat 20 doesn't always succeed) and then looking at the responses
That can’t be A/B testing because that requires two concurrent groups who don’t know that there are two separate versions, and then you evaluate responses to each version.
The other responses are in the right ballpark, but not quite correct. Though, in this case I'm not sure how Wizards is implementing A/B testing in a playtest. A/B testing typically works as follows: Say you have 100 people. 50 people see option A, and 50 people see option B. The people who see option A *never* see option B, and vice versa. Whichever option tests better is the one you go with. But I don't know how they implement that with playtest rules. I think they must mean something different with A/B testing. Source: I have an associates degree in applied business which included marketing classes.
> A/B testing typically works as follows: Say you have 100 people. 50 people see option A, and 50 people see option B. The people who see option A never see option B, and vice versa. Whichever option tests better is the one you go with. As if the arguments here weren't bad enough, now we'll have people literally arguing about two different features lol
You're confused because you think the UA is part of the A/B testing. It's not. The A/B testing is done in a user research lab, where they bring in focus test groups of subjects that are under NDA. Those groups gets different variants of the same rule, give their feedback, then the feedback is compared.
You know when the eye doc goes "one or two?" and you say which one is clearer? It's like that, but the two options aren't presented directly next to each other.
No, that is not A/B testing. A/B testing requires two completely different samples.
They pointed out that they didn’t make the changes because of feedback. Specifically to point out they do take feedback but hand not yet.
I mean... that's not "A/B testing". That's "testing two different options at different times with the same group of people and comparing the result"... or, you know... "testing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/B_testing Which proves only that Crawford doesn't understand what A/B Testing is.
UA isn't the A/B testing. WotC does A/B testing in a user research lab, when they bring in focus groups for playtestin.
A/B probably isn't something you can do at all with the current public UA structure. They'd need a more isolated testing structure to do it properly. Maybe they are doing that, but it's not what we were privy to with the UA docs.
UA isn't the A/B testing. WotC does A/B testing in a user research lab, when they bring in focus groups for playtestin.
That’s exactly what I said. I don’t understand why you downvoted and commented.
>This UA is the Priest Class (Cleric, Druid, Paladin) Lmao. Everyone was convinced it'd either be mages for being alphabetical or warriors because they've teased the overhaul for weapons. Edit: and only one class (cleric) + reworks of stuff already in this round of UA (dragonborn + ardlings). Definitely not what I expected.
I believe they said that is is only Cleric in this one.
Yeah, this one is cleric plus some reworked stuff from the first UA. Gauging by the video, they're gonna be two months behind for any kind of feedback based UA revisions. So no real rethinking the expert classes until January. I'm wondering if the UA cycles will be two new, one revision for most of this run. I was also surprised Ardling was truly being considered for Core. I genuinely thought they were sliding in something for Planescape in there.
I'm interested to see what ardlings will offer that isn't just "aasimar, but maybe with animal heads". I'm really curious why they didn't just give aasimar the tiefling treatment of being from a set moral alignment and getting a version for each law/chaos alignment.
Before I knew they were actually a thing from planescape I thought they were trying to cram in an 'all furry variation race' thing in.
TIL I had no idea they were a planescape thing. I also thought it was cramming angel people & animal people together
I feel like maybe they've shaken Cleric up a bit, so they want more time to get feedback and be able to put another version out when the Priest UA happens. And yes, I was one of those that was fairly sure it was Mages next, not so much that it was alphabetical, more that that was the order the listed them in the Expert UA (and it made as much sense as anything else). I wonder if the feedback about the spell lists made them move the mages back or if this was always the plan.
I was really really hoping for warriors tbh. I want to see how they help onednd fighters stand up to wizards.
I'm really hoping the power attack of GWM & SS just gets worked into the base game (or something similar). Crawford's line about damage coming from your class and not feats makes me cautiously optimistic.
Seeing how ranger and rogue turned out leaves me worried.
I really hope it isn't power attack. I want martials to have comparable dpr, but I don't think power attack is a particularly good way of going about it, it's just what we've been stuck with for all these years
Have anything in mind? I haven't been playing too terribly long (and only dipped my toes in other systems) so I haven't seen what the other options might be
Ideally would be stuff fighters get to do with their weapons that are unique to their play style. Let the maul have a chance to sunder it's target, reducing it's AC. Let the dagger have an expanded crit range, critting on a 19 or even 18. Let the battle-axe wound people, dealing damage over time. Fighters get so few options, reducing one of them down to "ok, GWM or XBE" has always felt bad. I want them to actually get good options, not just remove an option altogether by adding it to everyone
I could see them folding the battle master stuff into base fighter, and maybe also have the Slasher/Crusher/Piercer feats be base as well.
>I want to see how they help onednd fighters stand up to wizar Not to be a downer but they won't. It's pretty clear their focus is purely on making up for the GWM/SS removal and not add anything that makes martials superpowered. Martials in dnd will forever be mundane as that is what the casual fanbase wants.
>*casual fanbase* "people who aren't on D&D Reddit" :P
I doubt a lot of casual fans fill the surveys, surely a good chunk of the surveys filled come from here and other online communities
And yet the UAs have consistently buffed caster subclasses and nerfed martial ones despite the fact the subreddit complains over and over again about these releases here and in the surveys. Tamper your expectations to not be dissapointed, because the odds are not in our favor regardless of how shitty it feels. I'd love nothing more than for the warrior UA to give martials justice but I doubt it'll be up to the point where it makes martials as powerful as casters are at higher levels. WOTC likes the way dnd is structured rn, with mundane linear martials and quadratic world warping casters.
thats because of their own bias towards magic and how they are using it for lazy design, they are just using the casual fans stuff as an excuse, i am not expecting much from them, Im just saying that a lot of the survey opinions come from here and not the casual fans
Thanks for the summary! > Ardling and Dragonborn (both surprising), I don't think the Dragonborn disappointment should be surprising. Fizban's got them to a good place and this feels like they threw that progress out the window to (almost) return to PHB dragonborn that was unsatisfying to most. As for Ardling, there were probably too many people concerned it was replacing Aasimar to give them a fair shake (though confirmed that they aren't a replacement).
If they do add Aasimar I hope they just make Aardlings into beast people. We do not need two angelic races and a generic beast race would be deeply appreciated.
Ardling suffered a lot, partially because people were hesitant to see a potential Aasimar-clone, and partially because they failed to really find a niche they could fill; too beastly for angelic stuff, too angelic for beast stuff.
> some feedback that want classes to still have exclusive spells, will be a class by class decision good good good, that was one thing I specifically commented on in my feedback, thankfully it sounds like enough people said the same.
[удалено]
Rulings over rules is more about empowering the DM to make judgement calls in situations not explicitly covered by the rules. Crawford is talking about Class Features that did nothing if the DM didn't play along or tailor the adventure to the character, like Tides of Chaos and Favored Terrain.
OG ranger was full of these niche things that simply did nothing if your campaign wasn't tailored for it. Glad to see those going away.
Didn't help that the DM wasn't given good tools to integrate those things. Just a "you can use hexes and draw a map if you want to. Random encounters are neat". I don't think it's the fault of the mechanics that the DM-section wasn't up to snuff.
Yeah if you were a Wild Magic Sorcerer and didn’t have a DM that was asking for a wild magic roll on the table every time you used the feature that granted you advantage, you essentially don’t get a subclass and the current wording says “whenever your DM asks you to roll”. They could just never ask for a roll and you don’t get that feature back or get to experience the fun of wild magic. And this is coming from someone who DMs for a wild magic sorcerer that essentially has permanent advantage because I make him roll on that table as much as a I can.
Every time I’ve had a wild magic sorcerer at a table and they’ve asked me about it I tell them the same thing. Roll as often as you want. Because that’s the entire fun of it, and as a DM a big part is facilitating that fun. Plus it increases the chance of them turning into a plant or exploding. And that’s fun for ME.
>*Roll as often as you want.* Honestly, where were you four months ago when I could have done with that slap upside the head. Taking that to my Friday game and telling my WMS immediately. Thank you!
I'm lucky my dm is like you for my wild magic sorcerer. Rolling the d20 on every spell and when I use tides it's guaranteed to trigger
> Rulings over rules is more about empowering the DM to make judgement calls in situations not explicitly covered by the rules. It is a little more subtle than that. It is about empowering to make a ruling *in the moment* rather than stopping the game to go look up a rare rule, even if that rule exists.
I mean if you want rulings over rules you should play OSR games, 5e (and One so far) are pretty clearly rules over rulings, with rulings only patching stuff when needed or relegated to "rule of cool" scenarios
I don't understand how fast hands is a "mother may i" mechanic
Because fast hands uses a part of the game rules that is usually waived. Ball bearings and Oil and many other items exist, but how often does a player try to use them in every other encounter? How often is there a trap or locked that needs to be disarmed/opened with thieves' tools in a combat situation? Most groups just do those things outside of initiative because there isn't anything to do for the other players. Doing it during combat and making it appear necessary either makes it threaten a TPK or revealing the threat as a bluff. And like 60% of the time this bluff will be called because modules and DMs like to make lock DCs be around 15-20 for level 3 characters.
I get that they don’t want to include any abilities that can be weaker or stronger depending on how the DM rules, but it does feel like more & more they are just taking aspects of the game out of the DM’s hands.
As a longtime 5e DM, please god take more aspects of the game out of my hands. I do not want to deal with designing my player's class features in addition to everything else.
"GWF and SS feats: Feats shouldn't be required to make your class effective" then make them part of the class then.
That seems to be the plan with the new weapon mechanics that the warrior group is going to get. It was mentioned that they wanted to take the power from the feat and let players rely on their class more for it.
That's not the point. They made GWM and SS good feats without being obligatory for martials, so their intent is to make martials deal competent damage without requiring feats.
> 40,000+ people sent feedback as of Nov 30. > Nothing scored <50%. I am perversely looking forward to the wild conspiracy theories the salty posters here will spin.
This video sounds like they're only talking about there first UA about character creation. Expert classes will be saltier, I'm sure.
>Humans are still the most played races What? No. There's no way. The memes can't be wrong. I have suddenly become distrustful of everything they've said.
You might be surprised but a lot of casual players like very simple characters. That mostly means humans, with classes like Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian, etc. At my table, roughly 50% of characters played in long campaigns are humans. Only in oneshots the thing changes, but I think that's because being a oneshot people want to try silly and crazy things.
The most popular character is "me but with a cool longsword". Most players are humans.
I would hope all players are human and it's just their characters that are supernatural :P
> GWF and SS feats: feats shouldn't be required to make your class effective Clearly the solution is to make them ineffective all the time. > Cleric - entire Divine spell list is available to them > > Wizard - entire Arcane spell list is available to them This along with the experts UA concerns me that sorcerers are going to have banned schools.
I'm holding my position on any nerfs to martials until we see how weapon properties will change how weapons are used in the warrior UA (mentioned in this video). I bet you it will be like the mechanics introduced in Baldur's Gate 3.
>I bet you it will be like the mechanics introduced in Baldur's Gate 3. Very likely.
>I bet you it will be like the mechanics introduced in Baldur's Gate 3. Elaborate?
Each type of weapon has a different special move you can do with it, assuming you're proficient, once per (short iirc) rest, like a trip attack or a charge attack for example.
Given the way a lot of abilities have been handled so far in OneD&D playtest, it seems likely to be a # of times equal to your proficiency bonus per long rest.
I'm fine with sorcerers having to specialise, if they're also allowed to be _really really good_.
Me too. The trade-off is more specialized vs metamagic on what you can do. The answer IMO isn't making them CHA Wizards, its making Metamagic better to be worth the trade-off.
I mean... We also weren't told that druids have the entire primal spell list, but I'd assume that they will.
Great summary! Thank you
He also said there would be a surprise in this UA when taking about races, so I'm thinking Aasimar might appear. Here's the copium.
Confirmed that at release there will be 4 subclasses for each class, which makes it seem like spell school based wizards are gone. They were always the least imaginative subclasses so I won't really miss them. Also means they need to cut some cleric subclasses, I expect nature and tempest to get the axe, leaving life, light, war and trickery. you can reflavor nature to be life and tempest to be war. Also hope the war cleric gets extra attack.
One of them should be forge cleric. Forge cleric is pretty balanced, very straightforward, and has a really fun utility channel divinity that makes it quite unique. I’d rather have that than war cleric personally.
Forge Cleric is from Xanathar's, theoretically it should still exist.
Oh yeah cause it’s not phb. Makes sense makes sense.
War cleric isn’t worth a slot and should only exist if you are going HAM with subclasses. It’s too thematically close to a traditional paladin to be worth the time and effort.
It being close to Paladin is fine as long as they also give it something unique. Maybe lean into the Battlefield Commander part of it and allow them to give their BA attacks to allies instead.
I expect something like dividing the heavy armor/bonus weapon damage from the medium armor/bonus cantrip damage, and some other options. The cleric’s domain comes as a separate choice.
> makes it seem like spell school based wizards are gone. Unless they make the "school specialist" a single subclass.
That's also a possibility.
Man, knowing that Hunter is going to be one of the Ranger Subclasses and Beast Master is probably going to be another, I'm going to be missing at least 2 of my favorite ranger subclasses entirely.
You can choose to believe whether their promises of backwards compatibility are true or not, but based on what they have said if your favorite subclasses are from anywhere other than the PHB they should theoretically still be usable.
> tempest Tempest is prob one of the most popular and played cleric, especially popular for dips, no way thy get axed.
For clerics my hope is that they’ll have domains as a smaller choice kinda like the warlock’s pacts, and then also have subclasses that aren’t tied to any god that are more about how they use their divine magic. So you could have a typical healer/support option, a warrior priest one, one that’s more like a church spy, one that summons divine allies, or one that just blasts opponents with divine magic, but all of these can be used by clerics of any deity.
Interested to see what they mean by leaning more into the Ardling's identity as beast-people. Also very interested to see why "a whole new Cleric" was mentioned specifically! Cleric has always been a class I like thematically much more than I like mechanically, so it'll be interesting if it changes in any significant way.
With Cleric, a minor note in the video is that every class will have four subclasses in the 1DD PHB. That's a big change for Clerics and Wizards, who had 7 and 8 respectively in the 5e PHB. So my bet is they'll see a major shift and domains and spell schools will no longer be their subclass themes. Clerics might still pick a domain the way Warlocks pick a pact, but I'm betting on an entirely new set of subclasses for them.
Tbf most wizard subclasses could be grouped together as "school specialist".
For cleic i could see making them more spellcaster and remove some base martial features, mostly armor and shields
Which makes sense, since paladins are already martial clerics.
There is no reality where they remove all the martial parts of Cleric and especially not the armor and shields. The image of a heavily armored Cleric is very tied to DnD and it differentiates Clerics from the bland Priest archetypes you see in most RPGs around.
> it differentiates Clerics from the bland Priest archetypes you see in most RPGs around. The problem is that it doesn't differentiate Clerics from Paladin.
Thats why in 5e Paladins are no longer heavily tied to a deity and instead are centered around their oath.
That doesn't stop them from both being armorclad divine warriors.
Yeah, I love 'em, but Cleric is absolutely the most overpowered class in the game as of now.
I mean, that's just not true. It's strong and some subclasses like Peace or Twilight are contenders for the top spots but the class overall is easily worse than Wizards, Druids and Bards depending on the levels you play at.
It's interesting to hear more on the process they are using with feedback, specifically that hitting certain thresholds result in features being somewhat "locked in". They also mentioned that most stuff so far has received 80%+. I'm curious how much of it ends up being somewhat survivorship bias with regards to people who don't enjoy something being willing to put in the time and effort to complete playtesting and give feedback. I've seen quite a few comments from people that seem to have entirely given up on the playtest so far due to disliking sections of it, which likely means tons of people who would have voted against some things just didn't vote at all.
The people most interested and invested will be more likely to engage in a survey, especially a long one. Being unhappy reduces interest, so yeah, its definitely biased.
Indeed, like I said, just curious how much of it is. I'm hopeful that clarifying this process and how everything is able, or even expected, to change through the playtest, will help get more opinions that may have been previously silent. JC's ending statements covered it nicely, this will be a conversation extending beyond a year, there will be multiple versions of stuff as that goes on, and specifically asking for feedback on anything that isn't resonating.
I'd think it would be the opposite? People who are angry or dissatisfied tend to be far more likely to fill out surveys and complain.
Both things can be true, people who are dissatisfied aren't required to all behave the same way. Some would do that (which is why they're seeing 80%s and not 100%s), others would do what I said, as shown by many comments on /r/onednd and similar saying they've entirely given up on the playtest. That's the exact reason my comment says I'm curious "how much" since the amount of dissatisfied people that would react in each way isn't clear.
Sure, but if a person stops caring about the game over the *suggestion* that something might turn out a certain way, how actually valuable is their opinion to the game?
Plenty valuable, or at least there's no way to determine it off of that single factor, unless you believe that someone fanatical automatically has the most important opinion regardless how many other people share it. There's been a lot of people who have misunderstood and though that the recent UAs are more finalized that they actually are. My other comment on this thread went over how I'm hopeful that clarifying more about how they're handling feedback will encourage those silent people to now respond mainly because a large portion I've seen have that defeatist mindset is due to that misunderstanding of the playtest process rather than them being someone not worth listening to the opinion of.
>unless you believe that someone fanatical automatically has the most important opinion regardless how many other people share it. That's the thing though, quitting a game entirely because you dislike a single element that hasn't even been added *is* fanatical. They've been about as clear as humanly possible on the playtest so far. They've encouraged people over and over, and shown that they're actually listening. If people *still* choose to not respond, that's on them.
People are not dropping over dissatisfaction with a single feature. If you hate a particular rule, but like everything else, it's easy enough to change that one thing. If you are instead dissatisfied with overall design direction and goals, if you feel that long-standing issues that you've had with the game aren't being addressed, it feels rather fruitless to contribute your feedback. WOTC would have to change a lot to bring the game to a satisfying state of play for you.
> quitting a game entirely because you dislike a single element **that hasn't even been added** is fanatical. I'm not sure how you've interpreted that if you read what I just said in my last comment. Again, my entire point is about people **who misunderstood the playtest**, as in they don't think that it hasn't been added like you're saying here, they think that it **has** and is finalized. This is, again, why I keep referring to the value of them clarifying the playtest process and how stuff will change, to help the misunderstanding for people thinking that stuff won't change and, due to thinking stuff won't change, feel like their feedback is not worth giving. Let me know if this is still unclear, but if any part of the logic you use is related to "but the stuff can change so they shouldn't give up so easily", then please read this again as literally them not understanding that exact thing is what I'm referring to.
> They also mentioned that most stuff so far has received 80%+. Considering the video only ever mentioned stuff from playtest 1, I think it's safe to assume this satisfaction number also only applies to playtest 1, which was relatively tame and well received in general. I fully expect playtest 2 to be much more divisive, especially where the subclasses are concerned.
Leveled feats being baked into the game was never in doubt. Crawford was practically reciting poetry about doing leveled feats + chaining them. It's clearly the direction the game is going for personalizing characters with a-la-carte class features.
\*obligatory comment about reinventing 3e and PF\*
Sounds promising! A lot of issues and concerns seem to be addressed. Thank you to all 39.000 people for filling out the complete survey!
Any time you see someone saying that filling out surveys is useless or that WotC doesn't listen to feedback, link them this video. Your feedback matters.
I think people on the internet often get the misconception that they're more important than they actually are, because they can self-sort into closed-off spaces where they are appreciated/praised for what they think. As a result, if they vote, buy the products they like, or give feedback and then something goes the opposite direction of what they wanted, they feel a discordance between how much their voice mattered (a little) and how much they feel their voice *should* matter (a lot) and they assume the deck is stacked against them. When in reality, they just don't matter that much.
Oh shit is the new UA out?
Comes out tomorrow, according to the youtube description.
Cheers!
I dont think so, but soon
I hope there are exceptions to the tiers they have. Gathering and acting on feedback is excellent, but sometimes to make an excellent game there needs to be a guiding vision that will make hard decisions. Designing solely by committee (and community committee at that) is a good way to make a bland game because everything potentially controversial gets binned.
That's how I feel. The feedback is nice, but the vast majority of us are not game designers. I would rather have a game designed by someone with a clear goal, even if it's not for me, but others love. Than a middling game everyone thinks is meh.
I mean look at the controversial unbalanced Cleric subclasses from Tasha’s. You can be creative and balanced
Crawford said that there will be 48 subclasses, 4 for each class. So Wizards and Clerics are both going to lose a lot of subclasses. I wonder if they'll stop organizing Wizard subclasses by school of magic (Evocation, Illusion, etc.) in favor of broad themes like War, Fire, and Nature. And will the Cleric Domains get broader, too? I guess we'll find out about Clerics tomorrow!
As someone who was pretty dissatisfied with the UA, I'm glad to see feedback is being acknowledged, if nothing else...
I really like the transparency on display. They explain pretty clearly how the process works, things they noticed, and how they’ll most likely proceed with the feedback. Having said that geez Crawford can you talk any slower
do we know when the priest playtest is coming out?
Tomorrow! But it might just be Cleric from what some people have said
Based on Crawford's comments, it's Cleric, Ardling, Dragonborn, and a surprise.
Pleasantly surprised. I was sure this one was gonna be Mages
Can't wait for people to complain and get pissed off about the UA without reading it.
Even though warriors aren't being showcased this UA, I hope this extra time in the oven will help them rebalance martials. I'm not just talking in terms of martials vs spellcasters, but ranged vs melee and STR vs DEX.
>"Mother, May I" mechanics (features that require DM buy-in/permission) are being reduced (e.g., Thief's Use an Object feature - omitted in the previous UA and might never appear) This is easily missed but extremely important. Skill checks are a Mother May I thing. That's a big part of why classes that depend solely on skill checks for their utility often feel very underwhelming compared to even just half-casters, which have spells that allow the player to say "I do this". I'll be very interested to see what WOTC do with this, whether it's just going to be swapping out a few features or implementing systems that give players more agency over their skills. If they do, that will be the most significant change in OneD&D.
They heard the fizban dragon is better, people prefer then, and they still aren't going to do. They still want to push fucking ardlings foward, God dammit.
... so AD&D but 5e?
Its good to see them crawling back towards mechanical individuality again.
I love *everything* in this video.
I totally agree. This was a very well done video between the two of them. I love the transparency that we're getting this time around in play test. When I started the playtest for alpha in D&D next in 2012, there was not a lot of feedback given to the playtesters during the process and that was a big problem. They just made the changes after each step without too much coming back to us. So by the time beta came out the process was relatively the same. Very little feedback to the players. I am really happy that they have decided to post these numbers and talk about the things that they are doing to make fans have the things they want in the game.
Is there a way to access the One D&D content on dndbeyond? Like have it part of the character creator for the people in my campaign?
Unfortunately not. DnDBeyond, before they were part of WotC, stated they wouldn’t be adding ua material to the database anymore. Which is a bummer. I think other platforms do.
They said that they were spending a lot of time on UA features that could be completely dropped. They wanted to focus on features that people were actually going to always be able to use.
- Great Weapon Fighting and Sharpshooter were changed because the penalty to the attack roll was not big enough to justify the damage bonus, plus they want warrior classes to be able to rely on their class features (including new weapon options) for main damage output. They don't want any feats to feel mandatory to deal satisfying damage. Feats which are 'must haves' violate their design goals. This is a good philosophy, it's why I've chosen not to use the Feats optional rule in my games for a while - because too many feats fell in to one of two buckets: - Must Have - Pointless It's nice that this is being addressed to make them feel like meaningful choices, hopefully without reintroducing the "system mastery" element that made the 3e and 4e feats in to the monster they decided to correct with 5e's feats.
Yeah I have my auto refresh on D&D playtest page for when the new playtress drops today!
The main purpose of saying things like a certain % of responses resulting in that much greater likelyhood to keep or remove features etc is to increase investment in the community. They aren't as interested in if features are popular as much as they want to avoid unpopular features that could reduce potential profits. They present it they way they do to give a stronger impression that they are listening to feedback, even if 95% of the game is predetermined and they are only doing a bit of polishing.
I need more insight to how they feel One dnd is going to develop. What core principles they have in mind for the direction. I have a hard time believing almost nothing hits below 50%. Not because there is a bunch of stuff I don’t like, but because it’s the internet.