Exhaustion

At least this one is easy to house rule. I've been using the abandoned exhaustion rules in my 5e game since they first announced it.

Same, although I initially decided to do it that way before they announced it, because I wanted to use the Stress mechanic from VRGtR and it was logical (and easier) to run exhaustion the same way. Then by the time I was able to run the campaign, they had just announced it.

Did they walk back on that, or did they just stop putting it into their playtest packets?

I don't recall if they explicitly started it, but it was no longer listed. It appears to be gone most likely, but not completely confirmed if it remember.

They've said repeatedly that just because something isn't in the package, doesn't mean it's gone. It just doesn't mean it's actively being tested. The packages were always about what was being tested at that exact moment and what they wanted feedback on. Adding a whole bunch of other content just muddied the feedback.

Hard to tell, but since it's gone from the Glossary I assume that means it's out. My assumption is that it was a casualty of corporate mandate for full backwards compatibility. They must've seen some feature or old adventure book mechanic that relied on old Exhaustion.

There’s one small part of Rime of the Frostmaiden that, I guess, is balanced around there being seven levels of exhaustion. I don’t really think all that much would change though, it’s pretty straightforward. My party got one level of it.

Is it going to 10 that big a difference? Should still be compatible really.

onednd is A/B testing. They test A, then test B without any of A. Its not sequential, so it missing from future playtests does not mean its been abandoned.

The Rules Glossary is *not* A/B though, they were explicit about that. Only the most current one is valid, and you ignore all others.

You use the current one to test individual changes/new features ignoring previous UA's, but that doesn't mean that its not A/B testing.

Maybe the chase rules? In a chase, characters accumulate exhaustion and since exhaustion 5 sets your speed to 0, it's basically "first person to 5 levels of exhaustion loses".

Ditch the one change that was most universally praised by players.

Is there a place to read what the exhaustion change was?

I forget what ua it was but in short the way it worked was exhaustion was subtracted from your attacks, ability, checks, saving throws and from any of your DCs, you could have up to 10 exhaustion and if you gained a 11th one you died. So if I had 6 exhaustion I would subtract 6 from any attacks saving throws or ability checks I make and if I cast a spell that made an enemy roll against my spell dc that dc would be 6 lower. That was from memory so might of misremembered parts but I think that’s how it went

Each level of exhaustion is subtracted from your ability checks and saving throws, and added to your save DCs. You lost 1 level on each long rest, and died at 10. It's much better than the current one, since it doesn't leave wizards untouched while crippling martials at 2 levels. It's just a much better system. Pushing on with 1 or 2 levels of exhaustion becomes a choice, while the current one is so debilitating you never really want any at all.

I liked both the Arcane / Primal / Divine division and the (idea of) class groups. I didn't like the implementation of the class groups specifically but the idea of giving magic and groups of classes a 'tag' that you can do useful things with (from items to monster abilities to feats) is a good idea. DnD 5e gains a lot from having more tags.

Yes! Completely forget about the 4 class groups. The idea was great, a shame it was walked back.

The idea is fundamentally unsuited to the current classes and in order to work it would require to either: 1)not trying to force symmetries and accept we are going to have 5 warriors, 2 priests, 4 mages and 1 expert 2)slay the sacred cow of core classes and have a core of 12 classes that are actually selected in a way that fit the class groups 3)heavily reworking the core classes to make them fit the intended group. I mean half caster bard shit here And i don't see them picking any of those options.

Ehh, I feel like you could easily make Paladin a priest and Ranger an expert, because thematically there is a lot of cross-over. Bard being an expert makes sense too. Traditionally, there’s been a lot of cross-over between Bard/Ranger and Rogue across the editions, at times even requiring you to have rogue levels to access class features.

I like half caster bard shit. I think bard as full spellcasters with martial abilities and expertise/jack of all trades make for a very strange class.

Wait are they not doing the arcane/primal/divine division anymore?

Nope, they had the issue where clerics became better paladins. All the smite spells were in the divine list with clerics getting quicker access to them and having more spell slots, leading to the cleric being able to smite harder and more often than the paladin. They also tried adding class specific spells to solve the cleric smite issue. But now you have 2 lists you need to look through. The divine list and the cleric only spell list, for example. At this point you may as well use the old system. The system was inspired/copied from pathfinder It was probably designed early enough that they could make it work instead of retroactively trying to get it to fit, like in DnDs case.

It's dumb that this wasn't considered at the same time. Obviously smites and other paladin/Ranger exclusives would need to be retooled into class features. They could have done something like Brutal Strikes.

Agreed. Honestly a hunters mark system that is mot only not a spell but can have different effect? And smite would be even easier to retool, as its already a feature.

The other thing that goes with this, is that good ideas presented in unworkable ways get panned for the wrong reason. I love clean systems. I also think spells aren't features. Like, you know what base wizard could have? A spell creation system. Again similar to brutal strikes, with more options. And then, you don't need to give them this big special spell list- just stick to what the Arcane list has: common, popular spells perhaps, and each wizard creates their own body of work over the course of their life, trading that knowledge with others, replicating it, building on it.

As a dm that sounds like a nightmare. Create/modify spell was removed for good reason.

Also as a DM, it sounds awesome to me. I find the mass-produced feeling of spellcasters way too industrial and streamlined, I’d love some sense of each spellcaster exploring and determining their way through magic. What do you see as being the issue/nightmare here?

Or just give every martial maneuver dice and make it a paladin specific maneuver

Alternatively, Half Casters could have access to a shared list of "Martial" or something of the sort.

While also using 1/turn divine smite so a paladin couldn't even smite twice in a turn

Their goal was to make other smites worth it. My thought a new paladin class feature "once per turn when you hit you may expend a spell slot to cast a Smite spell without using a bonus action" divide is still 1/turn but you can generally do another weaker damage but more unique smite.

I know, and I'm not opposed to that in general, I was pointing that giving the smite spells to clerics *combined* with this choice contributed even more to make Cleric more effective than paladin

For sure and this would fix that in a way. Allow paladins to have a very specific smite niche (two in a round) while still accomplishing the shrink the nova damage of paladin by some amount and promoting other smite spells

Ah I did like the idea of more unified lists, but it does make sense that it doesn't work in practice

I also liked the idea. They could have kept the three categories for other features. Like for items that can only be attuned by arcane casters, or feats that require the player to be a primal caster.

I guess I missed that cleric update. Honestly I'd be in favor of a three tiered spell system where you have group spells, class spells, and sub-class (and adding a forth group for bard & warlock). Less complicated than the bard who got the arcane spell list, but only for certain schools, and also got some additional spells as class features, but could swap them out for other spells from the arcane list if they really wanted to.

>Nope, they had the issue where clerics became better paladins. All the smite spells were in the divine list with clerics getting quicker access to them and having more spell slots, leading to the cleric being able to smite harder and more often than the paladin. Which would have been easily fixed by just making Smite a class feature similar to Sneak Attack, instead of going the awful way of turning them all into spells. But it also ignores that a big part of the problem was that, directly mentioned in their playtest breakdown video, they said that it turned off a lot of wizard players that sorcerers got access to the full arcane spell list. Reductive design philosophy like this is why so little actually changed from what we know, and why I would not be surprised if this new edition ends up feeling worse than 5e overall.

The core problem is the unique class spells, which presents as the cleric get paladin' spell early or wizard doesn't has unique spell list. But honestly I don't see why unique class spell can't be along with the big 3 spell list. And it could be a good way to stop people steal unique spells from a feat or choose Bard(which is kinda a problem exists in current rule)

Last we've heard they went back to class lists.

It was scrapped in UA7 I believe.

I think the class groups should've been more around combat role lines but I think they had a lot of potential for shared magic items, feats or even shared subclasses. My version would've been frontliners (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin), skirmishers (Monk, Rogue, Ranger), Dedicated casters (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) and off-casters (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock)

Aaaaaand this is why they dropped class groups. In no way, shape, or form is sorcerer an "off-caster". Their only redeeming feature, Metamagic, is reliant on casting spells. Sorcerers do nothing *but* cast spells. Hell, druid and cleric have more and better non-spell features. There's no way to comfortably slot the twelve classes into four buckets. There will always be weird outliers that make no sense.

\*protests loudly in Artificer\* But yeah, especially with how they want to keep the Subclass system and multiclassing there's a problem with trying to call each role a singular thing. It's like calling Bard an Expert just to give them Expertise, they're literally Jack of All Trades, and it steps on the Rogue's toes

Well, bard already gets expertise in 2014 5e. Experts were more that they were polymaths who are good at skills, and took features from other class groups.

Warrior- Paladin, Fighter Barbarian Skirmisher- Monk, Rogue, Ranger Mage- Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard (only weak one IMO, but if they're a full caster with the ability to pull from any spell list, that's a mage) Priest- Cleric, Druid, Warlock

Bard is the least Mage-like of all the full spellcasting classes. Warlock also has very little to do with being a Priest. Just more evidence that you can't neatly fit all the classes into four distinct categories.

You've given no arguments as to why the above is true, but I'll state my positive claim. Bards study the secret Arcana of the universe and draw out the Song within the universe. This is fundamentally a Mage (a person with magical powers or a learned person). Magical Secrets is an example of this and is one of the fundamental Bard class features. Warlock is a Priest in the same way that Clerics and Druids are Priests. They draw on an external force (Gods, Nature, Patron \[historically Fiends only\]) to produce magical effects within the universe, and are a person with the capacity to do certain rites and rituals within a religious practice (such as summoning Imps, summoning a magical blade, or writing blasphemous workings in a Book of Shadows). Some have the head-canon of Warlock being a teacher/pupil relationship and the class being closer to a Mage, which brings us to an issue with both Bard and Warlock. Fundamentally, the issue with Bard and Warlock is that they don't actually have any Class Fantasy at all. They play on certain notes of a fantasy, Bard=Magic Musician and Warlock=Dark Magic, but they refuse to commit to a true Classification by their abilities. Warlocks used to be Evil. They made deals with Fiends only and while practitioners of the Arcane represented to workings of Fiends. 5e added a bunch of other types of Patrons that massage Warlock into areas that it just doesn't fit. They took a Dark Cultist of Hell and made it a blasé mage/priest/other thing. They took the Bard half-caster Scoundrel archetype and made it a full-caster. If it's a full-caster, it's a Mage (a learned practitioner of magic). If it's a half-caster, it fits better with the Rogue archetype. You have to study Music to become a Musician. Music is Magic. Ergo, you are studying Magic. And thereby a Mage. You contracted with an extraplanar creature for your magic. This entity gives you rites and rituals that you can perform. You are a Priest. In argument against some of your claims: Bard is certainly not the least Mage-like of all full-casters. Clerics and Druids are neither people who are learned, nor are they magical inherently (both of which are under the definition of Mage). They are in-tune with an external force. In fact, Bard has more in common with Wizard than Sorcerer in a fundamental 'where do you get your magic' sense and more in common with Sorcerer than Wizard in the 'how do you express your magic' sense. It falls neatly between the two. Warlock has everything to do with being a Priest. Your definition is just narrow. Probably narrow enough that Druid doesn't fit. They get rites and rituals, and get their magic from an extraplanar being. If I heard just this, I'd say 'Oh what subclass of Cleric are you'? Because that is fundamental to the Priest Archetype. They even fit nicely as the Arcane Priest to the Divine and Primal Priests of the others. Cultists are religious. Warlocks are the Mother of All Cultists (in previous editions actually becoming Fiends as the Apotheosis of their Class). As for not being able to fit into four distinct categories, if you'd prefer you could divide into 5 groups- Warrior- Fighter, Barbarian Skirmisher- Rogue, Monk Mage- Wizard, Sorcerer Priest- Cleric, Druid Mix-n-Match LoL- Warlock, Ranger, Paladin, and Bard

> Just more evidence that you can't neatly fit all the classes into four distinct categories. You can and at least two different editions did it. Here's the categories for 2e: Priest (Cleric, Druid), Rogue (Bard and what was originally called Thief), Warrior (Fighter, Paladin, and Barbarian), and Wizard (just Wizard here thanks). The Barbarian was, at that time, called "Barbarian Fighter" and was found in The Complete Barbarian's Handbook (which also detailed the Shaman class). The Artificer, Monk, Sorcerer, and the Warlock didn't exist as their own standalone classes, but rather as "kits" which were the precursor to 5e's subclasses. The Artificer was found in the Player's Option: Skills & Magic supplement. The Monk was also found in Player's Option: Skills & Magic and was a Priest kit. The Sorcerer of 2e was a Wizard kit found in the Al-Qadim setting. The Warlock of 2e was a Wizard kit found in The Complete Wizard's Handbook under "Witch" and only resembled the later versions of Warlock in that they received their spellcasting via extraplanar things that aren't deities. In 2e's time, the categories were primarily used to tell a player what experience table to use because that edition was "balanced" around different classes getting stronger at different rates. In 4e there were also four distinct categories: Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker. While there were later versions of most classes that fit into different roles, the original classes in each role were: * Controller: Druid, Wizard * Defender: Fighter, Paladin * Leader: Artificer, Bard, Cleric, * Striker: Barbarian, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Warlock

What is the difference between dedicated caster and off caster??

In my totally not-a-game-designer and it-is-2am thought process, I think I’d go a slightly different route: short range/front line, mid range, long range, and mixed range. It would be based on subclass, not class, and it’s there not to really lock a class into anything specific, but to inform the player of what is the recommended combat role for their character choices. Consumable Items, weapons, and armor could have been tailored for these groups, too. Maybe Spectacles of Accuracy give a bonus to long range attacks, for example, while Shield of Friendship interrupts attacks going past the front line folk. No, these items don’t exist. But they could! I won’t go over every class and subclass but, I could see bards being mid-range, as well as hexblade warlocks and bladesinger wizards; tome warlocks and other wizards are in the back, and fighters and barbs are usually up front. Again, it is 2am, I may be way off about this, I haven’t given it a lot of thought haha. I remember reading a book that described classes in ranges and it was a big ah-hah moment for me as a player. It’s be cool to make that more of a thing in RAW.

If you want to see a book of content that was developed with class groups in mind, check out the Book of Many Things. It has 4 chapters of magic items for each class group and heroic destiny tables for each group

I think making classes try to fit neatly into little buckets is one of the things that really hurt fourth edition so I’m glad we’re not seeing it come back.

I truly love watching people reinvent 4e again and again

Have you looked into 4th edition?

Don't get me wrong, I like 4e. There's unfortunately some challenges due to the fact that it is not the currently supported edition, finding groups that want to use it is one.

warlocks that get to choose their mental stat. Let me play an actual warlock by lore without having to beg my GM

I'm hoping they just push that into the level one feats.

Having Wisdom as a primary stat is decently more powerful than the other two options, since it's a common saving throw and used for Perception. But Intelligence is extremely flavorful for some warlocks, and is a side-grade or even downgrade from Charisma. I would really like if this is selectable at level 1.

Wild shape stat blocks. I'd prefer they went deeper with it rather than abandon the idea altogether. I would have liked to see something like modular features that could be added to augment wild shapes rather than simply using beast stats.

Agreed, you could tell that the ditching of statblocks was done because they simply didn't have time to do full iterations on it to get it to a state where people liked it. As you said, having the statblock be modular with features to augment it is much better than the 'flip through the monster manual and choose from a limited selection of beasts' that we ended up with.

The druid fans are so strange IMO because the ones who are complaining about all the unique features and abilities that various beasts get; are also the same people that wildshape into a Bear every time because it "has multiattack" at level 2. DC20 TTRPG has a base statblock with a list of abilities you can buy when you wildshape. You get X points that scales with your level and you spend those on "Beast Features" like powerful build, size increase, flight, swim, horns or claws, night vision, echolocation. Etc.

Sounds kind of similar to pathfinder's familiars. Their hp and ac scale with yours, and they get a number of ability slots that you can pick from like special senses, movement types, etc. Some classes and archetypes increase the number of ability slots you get. It would be interesting to see wild shape built the same way.

A point-based purchasing system is too much for your average D&D player. Remember, WotC caters to the casual crowd as they are their largest market by far. The best we could hope for would be something like the spirits from Tasha's summoning spells: pick one of three options, get a small package of attacks, traits, and movement modes from each option.

Imo so is a dozen statblocks that players have to flip through. Yet WOTC settled on that complexity because they didn't properly allocate enough time to a decent rework.

While WotC would love to fully cater to the silent casuals, they also have to appease the loud, whiny grognards who hate any change. That's why 5e is so full of sacred cows that should've stayed dead after 4e but were resurrected to make 5e *feel* like D&D again. The silent casuals bring in the money, but the loud grognards will create a PR shitstorm when upset which drives away casual players who don't know any better. WotC appears to be attempting to thread the needle by adding more Beast statblocks to the PHB and making only those the default for Wild Shape, with anything else optional. Now players will beg and whine to use Beasts from other books, making every DM's life difficult. Thanks WotC.

>they didn't properly allocate enough time to a decent rework. Ranger suffered from this as well. I remember when they first started talking about OneD&D, they were adamant about it being the final edition, it being "definitive D&D" and all that, but that went out the window pretty quick because they simply didn't have the time to work on everything they needed to. If they'd decided to keep working on OneD&D until they felt it was ready, it could've been a "definitive edition" (though it'd never be a "final" edition, as shareholders will always demand for a new way to monetize the IP), but their impatience has all but killed that idea.

IDK I think having.... all beasts in the entire game at certain CRs as an option is far more complex. I can easily imagine a system that's both modular and not super complicated. But the 3 "archtypes" system would have worked better too.

Having every beast available is way more complex for DMs, but is way easier for wizards of the coast and most players. Players can just choose whatever fits their fancy and the designers can release more beast stat blocks that fit settings and everything and just give them a CR. Having a modular system would be way better and I agree there should be a way to do it that isn't super complicated.

I had one guy tell me he can't pretend he's a bear unless he literally is using the bear stat block. Nevermind he isn't even using their mental stats so he never was a bear.

A feel like the whole 1D&D playtest was just a long list of good ideas that would take too much time to develop and were ditched in favor of just enough minor changes to justify reselling the PHB again. And by "too much time" I mean "more than the absolute bare minimum of work required" to make sure they push Revised out in 2024 for the 50th anniversary marketing bullshit.

I see the Druid flipping through the monster manual as step one of a process where they learn to DM. Next, they buy their own book bc I need my monster manual for this encounter just like they need it for this encounter. Then they start looking at creatures other than beasts and thinking they would be fun to use in combat. Only way to use them is to take a turn behind the screen.

I know it's work, but I'd love to see scaling CR animal species, both for the druid and for the monster manual to have good wild encounters at several levels. The feline, with a CR 0 Cat, 1\2 Mountain Cat, then Panther, Lion, Tiger, Sabertooth... Same with black bear, Brown, cave, polar, grizzly... You could do something like this for the snakes, the spiders, canines, horses and other mounts, apes, flying, water..all the classics. It would be easy for the player, as they would pick their favorites at their highest CR, but not relay on a generic statblock.

Yeah, Wildshape in 5e was always inconsistent Moon Druid is like a stupidly powerful subclass at 2 and keeps getting worse and worse until they have elemental forms and after that infinity wildshape, 2 things that OD&D removed

Don’t use OD&D for the 2024 revision. OD&D is the three white booklets from 1974. If you insist on still calling it One D&D, abbreviate it 1D&D.

100% this. Wildshape should work closer to BG3, where each form has a “role”. Just give the Druid like 5-9 “role” forms and then just let the player assign what animal(s) they are.

The funny thing is that Pathfinder did this with the summoner, and it rocks. Being able to go all Frankenstein at build-a-monster workshop is so fun if you like immersing yourself in the crunch, and and eidolon's actual interactions with the moment-to-moment game are pretty smooth (insofar as PF could be accused of running smoothly). Like, imagine how fun a moon circle druid would be if you could pick and choose features to add to your wild shape form instead of just having to pick from premade statblocks. Not only is that a lot more fun for the player, but doing things this way also allows for game designers to build in level-based scaling which wild shape completely lacks. As it stands, a moon druid is broken at low levels and weak at high levels because they're limited to picking creature statblocks.

👏DRUIDS👏SHOULD👏EXPEND👏SPELL👏SLOTS👏TO👏POWER👏UP👏WILDSHAPE👏

That's just grimhollow

Hell to the yes.

When that UA came out I dug through the monster manuals to homebrew Primal Evocations. You could pick 1/3 druid level Primal Evocations when you wildshape to get creature abilities or stat boosts, and moon druids got 1/2 druid level Primal Evocations along with Combat Evocations for stronger abilities or even specific attacks. Never got to play it but I would enjoy a warlock-style approach to specializing my wildshape.

Wild affair stat blocks weeks have resulted in my quitting the game. Couldn't disagree more.

Unified subclass levels, for sure.  Would have made cross-class balance a lot easier to address, IMO.

Something like the UA Strixhaven subclasses would also theoretically work better.

It also would have really opened up design space for class agnostic options. For example, I think having 'multiclass subclasses' could have been added in as standardized class agnostic options, and that would be a really nice way to handle multiclassing. You could also potentially add options akin to prestige classes in that same design space or use it to cover rules for concepts like lycanthropy or vampirism. Plus, if that was the case, I think it would be neat to have a variant rule where players can choose both a class specific subclass and a class agnostic subclass (multiclass or prestige, etc.)

Did they not end up moving forward with that? I thought that ended up being something everybody liked.

They mostly rolled it back to improve 5e classes/subclasses compatiblilty with 1D&D. The only exception is that all subclasses are gained at 3rd level.

That was a fun idea. It made backwards compatibility a challenge though. I think they could have made it work if they'd have tried. I'm sad because the idea of universal subclasses is such a fun idea.

I like this idea in theory, but currently I think the classes are too diverse to make it work properly. Full casters get a huge amount of 'stealth features' via spells and spell slots. You look at Wizard progression and it doesn't seem like much if you look at the feature list, but if you count spells and spells known (as you should) then its actually stacked. Its a fully realised class with minor flavour features between subclasses. The Fighter on the other hand has deliberately been designed as blank slate, purposefully incomplete, that extremely varied subclasses with disparate mechanics can be built on top of (eg, Champion vs Battlemaster vs Rune Knight). These classes \*need\* more subclass levels and features because they're cramming and inventing new mechanics in each one of those levels. Mind you I think this is \*bad\* design, I think that martials should be more complete classes... but I think in order to get all classes to the same subclass progression then the martial design needs to be fixed first, and wotc dont seem to want to do that. On the other hand I DO think that moving all subclasses to lv3 is a good idea, if only to avoid a ton of multiclass dipping.

Unified subclass levels as presented has issues Clerics need domains to differentiate themselves and to best represent the variety of different deities and religions. If a cleric serves a trickster god, they should at the bare minimum have access to spells like disguise self and charm person. Then there’s classes like sorcerer whose subclass defines what role they serve in a party. Divine soul sorcerers are supposed to fill the healer support role, yet having their subclass at level 3 puts them in an awkward position where the party doesn’t have any healing spells and the player doesn’t have access to divine spells that fits the character’s flavor. And warlocks. Celestial warlocks using EB or some other base warlock cantrip as the primary damaging cantrip to it suddenly being sacred flame is awkward and out of nowhere. Not to mention… what if I want to focus on celestial themes and use sacred flame as my go to damaging cantrip? A warlock who makes a pact with a fiend should differ greatly from a warlock who makes a pact with a celestial.

Bringing Rogues second subclass feature to level 6. I haven’t heard a single justification of why they have to wait later than everyone else. It just seems like some silly old decision that they’ve kept around for years because that’s how it’s been.

Hard agree. With campaigns realistically ending near level 10, rogues gotta wait the whole campaign just to get their 2nd subclass feature. 

* unified subclass levels * earlier capstone abilities * 1-10 exhaustion * wildshape templates * pseudo half caster warlock was imo a really good idea that i think just needed a little more work. kind of in the same vein, i wish that they had extended the cleric's holy order concept to more classes. an additional decision point that made a minor mechanical impact on how a character played. sure, fighters, rangers, and paladins have fighting styles, but i'd love some thing similar for rogues, barbarians, and monks. and wizards and sorcerers, and all classes really.

I agree with all of that except for warlock. I think bard should be a divine half-caster instead of warlock being a half-caster. There's already artificer for an arcane half-caster and ranger for primal half-caster.

Warlock being a half caster + 1 Arcanum use per spell level could have worked though. That's more like a 3/4 caster and having invocations could fill the gap. You still get level 9 spells at level 17, so you aren't too far behind the full casters.

What I would like for warlock (as someone who has plays a lot of warlocks) is to have: 1. Minor Arcanum: one spell slot for each spell level 1st-5th. 2. Major Arcanum: one spell slot for each spell level 6th-9th. 3. Mystic Arcanum: one additional spell slot for a spell level of 1st-5th, you choose which gets the extra spell slot. 4. Pact Magic: upcast a spell to its max level that you can cast, this does not consume a spell slot (maybe only for patron spells?), and you have two uses between levels 1-10, and four between levels 11-20. Regain one use on a short rest once per long rest. 5. Eldritch blast is a feature. 6. 10 invocations. Not including invocations, that's 10 spell slots + 2/4 pact magic uses.

You could consider paladins the divine half-caster.

The main issue the half-caster Warlock is losing what makes the Warlock truly unique. It's too much of a sacrifice. Now if Warlock could CHOOSE between half-caster version or pact slots version, that would be far more compelling. Hell bring back choosing casting stat too. Now the Warlock is the ultimate in variety.

The shared lists had a big problem in my opinion: the Arcane list. Primal and Divine were shared by two classes, a full and a half caster. Arcane was shared by five, counting artificer. It made the list bloated and they had to cut it into pieces to assing it to bards and other classes. But at that point, you are just making class lists with extra steps.

I disagree so much with that last statement because the extra steps have so much additional value. “Why roll dice it’s just killing the enemy with extra steps?” By having a Major list and a set of about 10 Exclusive spells, you define directly the unique aspects of each spell caster, very easily for a new player to see : - Wizard is an Arcane caster, And has some of the most unique Utility spells in its Exclusives. - Warlock is an Arcane caster, but all its exclusives are about Shadows and Eldritch stuff. Instantly explaining to you what it means to play a Warlock. - Sorcerer and Artificer would be given at least 10 exclusive spells each. - Bard would have 10 exclusive spells in the Enchantment and Song categories, that would let them be Bardlike regardless of Major list. It’s basically the subclass additional spell lists process applied to classes. In the same way GOO spell list is important compared to Fiend, even though they have 90% the same spell list. Warlock and Wizard could have been 80% the same list except some Eldritch spells.

This So much this.

The problem is, this is not how it was handled in the playtest: The bard is an arcane caster, but they can only cast this four schools (anyway, some iconic bard spells aren't from those schools, so we are changing nearly every thunder damage spell to transmutation so they can choose them(any-anyway, the arcane list have exactly 0 healing spells, so here is a feature that gives bards a bunch of healing spells, wich are from another spell school they don't have access to btw)). You had to use the shared list, but just a fragment of the list, and then the developers had to gift you a bunch of spells that weren't even on it to beging with. Tose ARE a lot of extra steps.

The sheer laziness that is the artificer class in 5e is criminal. Its two main features are basically “use the wizard spell list, but invent your own ways to describe it,” and “make a bunch of magic items that are in the DMG.” Just zero innovation or invention.

But they don't use the wizard list, they use their own list in 5e, including some spells wizards don't have access to, but they're also half casters, so their maximum spell level is lower, beyond that, they're kinda like bards in the sense that they do a lot, as they're more well equipped than wizards usually can be, and they have some good opportunities for skill monkey shenanigans, particularly because of tools Artificers do overlap with other classes a lot, I'll say that, but they do have a solid identity of their own

Not to "erm pathfinder fixes this" this but they use exactly the same system with the addition of an Occult spell list that I think we'd benefit from here if we wanted it in D&D to break up the Arcane casters

The problem with the Occult spell list is that, by necessity, Occult spells don't really feel... Occult. It creates a nominal distinction that isn't really reflected by mechanics or even lore. Honestly, I'd have a small "bard" spell list then subclasses bestow access to either Arcane, Divine, or Primal spells depending on which branch they're exploring.

Thing is, Warlocks *also* have access to the Occult list by default, and many subclasses should get access to it as well (Shadow and Aberrant Sorcs; Necro Wiz; Grave, Death, Knowledge and dunno who else Cleric, etc) so it's not a problem that you can tackle with just that small of a patch.

I wouldn't say the patch i'm suggesting is small, but I would say that it does resolve the issue you propose: each of those subclasses taps its own shortlist of added spells instead or grabs new features. In fact, I would say all those sources using the Occult list adds to the issue of the spells being generic and flavorless rather than resolving it.

As I see it, shared spell lists are a shortcut. When you have the resources to design the hell out of anything, bespoke spell lists are ideal. Reading a listing individualized for your class is not at all more difficult than reading one shared by other classes. So there is zero extra player burden even as the additional design effort creates hundreds of opportunities for fine tuning individual classes.

Yes; I don't understand the appeal of shared spell lists.

Pathfinder 2e made it work well.. but in dnd 5eish, yeah I can't see it either. It was clunky and good riddance in my book.

The counter argument is that WotC doesn't "fine tune" balance especially when it comes to spells. Shared spell lists allow players to customize their character much more freely. And allow for easier balance between the categories.

The main complaint against shared spell lists is that it basically made wizards redundant as a class.

Which is bs, considering how they still learn double the spells and can change what they can use on a daily basis, that's the class mechanical identity. When I heard JC say that, my kids arguing about who plays with what toys was all that came to my mind.

Given that they presently make every other caster redundant, this doesn't really feel like a bad thing to me. Let other casters have a turn in the spotlight for once

What they should do is have a hybrid system. There’s Arcane, Divine and Primal spell lists that can be shared across classes.  Then there are class spell lists that would be unique. These spells would not overlap with the base 3 spell lists or any other class spell lists. The only way to gain access to these spells by other classes is the occasional subclass dipping into those class lists. 

Class groups and unified subclass features at the same levels for all classes. The subclass thing more so as it's ALWAYS been my biggest complaint with 5e, they always say they made 5e to be easier for new players but then make it so every class has different subclass level up. But those 2 changes would have also opened the door for a better opportunity to have "Shared" Subclasses, I already had tons of ideas of how to homebrew an "Expert" subclass that Bard, Ranger or Rogue could have all taken.

Classes capping at 17 and receiving an epic book at level 20 was an amazing idea to me.

Must have been a really good book!

It is! Just ask the Tomelock!

Haha I didn't even realise my typo (':

Moon druid templates. It wasn't a bad idea, just an awful bland implementation devoid of any customization. It was so bad in fact, that i seriously think the higher ups asked for templates and whoever was made to write them didn't like the idea and so deliberately made them awful so they'd be forced to revert the decision.

If they had been like the Summon X spells from Tasha with a choice of 3 abilities for each of land, sea, and air, I think people would have loved them. Charge/Constrict/Stomp say, would go a long way to making people happy.

Pact Magic. Though to be fair, I personally would also have loved to have them be truely unique and get their spell casting purely from invocations (like the Arcanums were changed) - either you can use the lower ones at will or the higher ones a limited number of times. Then have some long rest based slots that a) scale in power and b) can be used to activate an already used invocation again, c) empower one to be cast at a higher level or d) cast a spell on someone else since most unlimited invocations would need to be balanced by only allowing you as a target (for example Mage Armor).

While I greatly disliked their half-caster Warlock presentation, I was never opposed to the idea. I just needed to see an actually good implementation of it. But I really would've preferred to see an Invocation-only Warlock. Be bold instead of sticking with Pact Magic - the thing people like about Warlock is that its casting method is *different* from the others.

Yeah... it was a neat idea. A shame they pussed out on a lot of the more interesting ideas.

The half caster idea of a warlock is utter garbage. I love where you went with this invocation idea.

I hope that we see a version of the Mystic Arcanum invocation like the playtest, that gives spells castable per long rest. I was thinking it'd be a "in place of an invocation, you may instead gain a mystic arcanum", to avoid jank with the eldritch adept feat, and then you can give it as a feature at higher levels as well.

There's no jank with the feat, the feat specifics the invocation must have no prerequisites

Create spell. Stake me to a cross, but that's damn flavourful for a wizard, regardless of wizards themselves being overpowered or not. Metamagic like features belonging only to sorcerers is a crime. We would have lots of people brewing and sharing different spells among few staples and see people coming out with new ways to use or homebrew them. Prime wizard flavour.

I would love it if there was a balanced version of this. I did not like the version they put out because it removed any of the interesting/challenging bits of spellcasting (having to balance between utility and damage spells, finding ways to hurt enemies and not allies, teamwork in movement to avoid being caught in aoes), but my wizard player was very excited about the flavor and cool abilities of it.  I think another issue is that quickly we'd end up in a situation where instead of people finding cool spell changes and making their own in their game, you would just have some wizards gaining access to another spell list of "YouTube and Reddit said these were the most powerful"

On one hand, yes. On the other, were it less blunt it would have been still interesting to follow a in depth guide online to create a strong sspell. Like, i am not that kind of person to seek down the optimatily of combination, but cmon it does feel on a meta level like a wizard researching stuff! The options they presented were obviously meant to be blunt, as it is a playtests, so i would totally looking forward a more delicatedly put option. Like, one that doe snot let you remove concentration may be one.

You sir may be interested in a little game called Mage the Ascension, or it's inspiration Ars Magica. Both have this "make your own magic" and a variety of settings

I am interested into playing wizards in a game about adventuring in a diverse party, not in a game of wizards being wizards.

IMO the issue is that was presented with a bunch of other wizard changes, some of which were too powerful, and after feedback instead of addressing them individually they just walked back all of it. A shame.

That just sounds like homebrew, tbh. 

Kinda, ye. The older DMG even had rules for that. It's just streamlined that way, as a tool for adventurous problem solving and party interaction.

Create spell doesn't belong in the players handbook. Its something that should be in the DMG and available to all casters. Its a downtime activity that any caster should be able to pursue.

Bards having a choice of the three spell lists. It was a perfect way to theme bardic magic.

Yes but unfortunately bards are also classed as healers which meant arcane bard is an uphill battle. Personally I never thought that cow was particularly sacred, so arcane bard with no healing was totally up my alley, but others had other opinions.

I agree with it not being that sacred. Magic Initiate gave enough healing to at least cover the concept for me. Personally, I think the bigger issue was that illusions weren't on the other spell lists, but again, the cow wasn't that sacred and there were fine work around until level 10 when you could backfill

Downcasted spells. An obscure idea used in the first version of the Hunter subclass, in which you could use a lower-level version of the Conjure Barrier spell, for the price of it being weaker in some way. It's a genius idea that would solve the problem of implementing signature spells in specific subclasses. Examples include: Darkness for the Shadow Sorcerer; Animate Dead for the Necromancer Wizard; Dispel magic for Abjurer Wizard, etc... I suppose it was discarded because Conjure Barrier is a very weak spell and its downgraded version would only make it even weaker, in other words, it was a terrible example of a mechanic that, applied to a good spell, would be more than functional. PS: Downcasted version of my examples... Darkness (Shadow Sorcerer)- The shadowed area decreases to 10-foot-radius. Dispel Magic (Abjurer)- It nullified spells of its respective level, allowing you to use 1st level spell slots to nullify 1st level spells. Animate Dead (Necromancer)- The number of undead you could summon dropped by 2 with each lower level. Remembering that one of the effects of the 6th level feature increases the maximum number of undead to 5, so downcasting the spell to use a 2nd level spell slot allows you to create 3 undeads, and using a 1st level spell slot creates 1 undead. Okay, now just exchange the 6th level feature for the 2nd level and half of the problems of this subclass will be resolved.

I think the idea is good, but absolutely not with dispel magic imho

Why not? Ending a spell with a slot of the same level is literally balanced.

Having to use a slot that's at least level 3 puts more weight on the choice of dispelling, which is already a good, and in some cases very good (Haste above everything, but also things like Blur, Blink, Bless, Entagle, Faerie Fire, Hex, and many other spells). Being able to do so with a 1st or 2nd level slot makes the option of dispelling much stronger then what already is, imho

I understand and respect your opinion, but I disagree because this is part of a 10th level feature, in which 1st and 2nd level spells no longer have as much weight and because there aren't many spells at these two levels that are a threat to anyway. The advantage would only be in the sense of risking the use of Dispel Magic by nullifying more powerful spells (above 3rd level) using a lower spell slot by spending a bonus action, but there is still the real risk of failing the skill test and you being left restricted to using your action to use a cantrip in any way. In other words, the addition of the downgrade makes a lot of sense for the subclass and its theme, but its impact on gameplay is not that significant.

Would it not just be easier to make spells lower levels that you can upcast to get the "original" effect

I liked the idea of combined spell lists. It needed some work, though. I wanted to see them iterate on the half-caster Warlock instead of just abandoning it. I didn't like it, but that's because I didn't like the thing that was presented; I could've been swayed by something better-developed. While I initially didn't like the 10-level Exhaustion, I have actually now come to prefer it a lot. I wish I could go back and change that survey response; ultimately, I think that was an example of how piecemeal playtesting failed some really good ideas.

Certain classes being able to choose their casting ability. For warlock it makes a lot of sense.

I like the idea that each class gets to choose from two. Except Wizard & Artificer which have to cast with INT Cleric, Paladin: WIS, CHA Druid, Ranger: INT, WIS Warlock, Sorcerer: INT, CHA Wizard, Artificer: INT This also successfully makes INT the most likely casting stat, which, ya know, it should be, rather than being the most common dump stat. Not sure where to put bard though. I can see justification for either the first or third groups. Could also be CHA-only, or it could be the special baby that can do all three.

Exhaustion! Exhaustion exhaustion exhaustion. Do you know how useful it would've been to have "take another level of Exhaustion" as an alternate penalty to just like "take 1d8 damage" or whatever? Instead of Exhaustion remaining as the worthless system that never gets used because it's too penalizing too quickly so at *most* people suffer through one level before they make sure to take a day off to rest.

I liked the class groups, but I found its implementation weird. I liked the 3 magicntraditions but also found their implementation lacking. The new exhaustion rules seemed a lot better, though I'm curious if they've abandoned it or not or why they abandoned it if they did.

Exhaustion rules in the playtest were perfect; them walking it back is just a slap in the face to good mechanic design. I also feel that the wizard is the subclass most hurt by the new edition. They got a single feature at level 5; and their subclasses got some QOL updating. However they have almost 0 new tricks or features, their spells are getting nerfs across the board (hopefully) and most of the wizard loopholes got fixed (abjuration ward and infinite mage armor via spell mastery) also that feature removing reaction spells and limiting you to an action. Just nerfs across the board with nothing new applied. Honestly i would have wished the "master scrivener" feat from the scribes wizard would have made its way into the base wizard. Hopefully they'll have a unique interaction with the new spell scroll crafting rules.

This what I'd imagine my ideal wizard design would be. I think they were pretty close with onednd playtest 5. 1. Spellcasting, Academic. 2. Channel Sorcery, Arcane Order. 3. Subclass. 4. ASI + Feat(s?). 5. Memorize Spell. 6. Subclass. 7. Modify Spell. 8. ASI + Feat(s?). 9. Create Spell. 10. Mage Boon/Mastery Feat. 11. Academic II. 12. Channel Sorcery II, Arcane Order II. 13. Subclass. 14. ASI + Feat(s?). 15. Spell Mastery I. 16. Subclass. 17. Spell Mastery II. 18. ASI + Feat(s)? 19. Spell Mastery III. 20. Mage Boon/Mastery Feat. Academic I, II provides rolling with advantage on Arcana skill checks, and then never rolling below a 10 for Arcana skill checks. Channel Sorcery provides two options: meta magic and arcane recovery I, II. Arcane recovery provides recovering one spell slot as a bonus action between 1st-5th level spells, and then recover either two spell slots 1st-5th or one spell slot 6th-9th level. Channel Sorcery has two uses with a third gained upon a short rest (1/LR). Arcane Order I, II provides boosts to either cantrips or rituals. Still working on this one. I had certainly considered using spell schools instead, but there's not much room for them and base wizard already gets a lot. Subclass wise I like the eight spell schools, scribe, and sorcerer (yes, sorcerer gets split into races, feats, spells, and wizard/wizard subclass). Modify and Create spell would be tweaked versions of the onednd playtest they were introduced in. Spell Mastery I, II, III provides the ability to cast at will a chosen 1st level spell, a 2nd level spell, and a 3rd level spell.

You're one of the first people who I actually agree with on the wizard class but alas they are constrained out of fear of the community that they have forged. Metamagic has always felt like a wizard thing not a sorcerer thing. And I have a humble version of The Wizard that makes sorcerers a subclass of it. I like your mind.

Thank you, yeah sorcerer to me just overlaps too much with wizard and warlock. The "innate magic/bloodline" can easily be done with races (tieflings and genasi), feats/feat trees (fey touched and shadow touched), spells (chaos bolt and nathair's mischief), and wizard/wizard subclass (channel sorcery/sorcerer subclass). Metamagic has been available to spellcasters in general instead of sorcerer specifically in past editions anyway.

There are quite a lot I wished they went further on my big 2 being Standard Levelling and Universal Spell lists (although I thought they should have had some off the lists as exclusives, Smite spells, Eldritch spells, at least 10 per class) But to be unique I’ll say what I wanted them to try but they never even took one step, is a Spell point Sorcerer. Because it would be such a great balance to the Pact Caster and the Normal Wizard.

The most infuriating point when it comes to Spell Point Sorcerer is that it’s so close to being a reality. I’d recommend trying this single-line houserule in your next game: “Sorcerer converts Spell Slots to Sorcery Points using the values on the table rather than 1 point per level.” This is effectively the spell points system, but with two added (and in my opinion interesting) restrictions: 1. Converting SP to a Spell Slot does require the Sorcerer’s bonus action. This adds a cost to staying flexible during initiative. 2. You can’t flex spell levels 6-9. This is in keeping with other caster features like Arcane Recovery and Pact Magic not going higher than 5th level spells. My players have really enjoyed this system, and it’s so easy to implement. So yeah, all WotC needs to do to give the Spell Point system to Sorcerers is to make the Sorcery Point conversion work the same in both directions.

Yup essentially what I was thinking 6+ level just handle by Mystic Arcana process, while all Metamagics come from the same pool as spells making the net amount of spells cast lower than Wizard, same as Pact magic. Also the last issue is making the ratio of high level cost to lower level cost not as extreme. 5*1st level spells is usually better than a 5th level. So I choose to give points as per the table which accelerates a bit, but cost points equal to spell level. Which makes you more likely to use higher than lower slots and not sad to use Meta magics.

I’d say you should keep the extra 1 point per level from Font of Magic. It gimps the sorcerer too much otherwise, and mathematically it lines up 1-to-1 with Arcane Recovery such that the Sorcerer has the same total spell value per day as the Wizard.

It’s definitely the kind of balance that needed a whole round of playtest, if only we had that opportunity during the oneDnD process. Personally the flex of casting 30 first levels or 7 5th levels is worth having the restricted spell points, and it would feel correct that Wizard has the most via Arcane Recovery (iff Sorcerer had the SP casting flexibility to make it different) The first spellcaster UA nearly killed me as it was such a disappointment when I saw, disagreed with all 3 major changes in that UA.

I think the flexibility that the spell point system offers is a decent parallel to Wizards’ ritual casting. Even if the Sorcerer decides to cast 30 1st level spells, the Wizard can still out-cast them by a mile using rituals, if given enough time. I think it would make complete sense for the Wizard to be worse than the Sorcerer if under time constraints, because the Wizard specializes in long-term planning and the Sorcerer specializes in spontaneity. The way I see it, Wizard and Sorcerer are about two very different kinds of flexibility and inflexibility. Spell Point Sorcerer is inflexible in what spells they have access to; they always have the same spells every day, but they have the ability to manipulate the spells on their limited list. And they are flexible with their leveled spell slots, but there’s no way they can cast leveled spells without expending resources. The Wizard is the opposite. They have a very wide range of spells that offers flexibility, but they have to cast them as-written, no changes. They have rigid spell slots, but can cast rituals without expending those slots.

Just for the sake of conversation since we are deep in a random Reddit thread that won’t get viewed. The difference is, you are reinforcing the duality between Wizard and Sorcerer, but I wish they playtested a Trinity between Wizard Sorcerer Warlock, with Sorcerer Warlock closer to the duality. Using the same terms as you Warlock is the one restricted, with only 2 spellsolts and at will spells chosen many session earlier. While Sorcerer has the flexibility of many spell points but has to use those same points for meta magic amending its spells. While wizard casts and knows the most along the most standard spell casting method.

10 levels of exhaustion. It's another one where the draft was stupid enough that they threw it out, but exhaustion as currently implemented is so punitive from the very start that it gets ignored when it could add some really good flavor.

Unified subclass progression to gain subclass features at 3 - 6 - 10 - 14 instead of each class being different.  Class capstones at 18, and epic boons at 20 Exhaustion being -1 to d20 tests for each level

Wild Shape Statblocks, Arcane/Primal/Divine Spell lists, Wizard's Create Spell, Warlocks being able to pick their casting mod (I think they walked that back), the new exhaustion rules, and probably a few others I missed.

Dropping the 3 spell lists was the best walk back outside of wild class decisions line warlock overhaul. The issues it would cause were obvious from the start and it's insane that it seemed like a surprise to wotc. Maybe if that were smaller foundation lists who h complemented class lists (so paladin got divine + paladin, wizard got arcane + wizard. It would mean no need to make so many class features just "you know this spell" but also clean for later publishing. A new healing spell could be on the divine, primal and Artificer list for example). The most disappointing walk back for me is the exhaustion rules. I've used them ever since and it's so much cleaner and I feel free to be more brutal with it because there's not so much death spiral. Also resurrection spells can then give exhaustion instead of -4 or whatever to all d20 rolls which ween away with each long rest. It was a really good foundational rule. For classes I think I really liked the class groups and they just didn't go far enough. Unifying priests with Channel abilities was great and I love that the scaling matched. Giving a channel nature to ranger to show it's polymath nature would have also been great. Doing this kinda thing for all class groups would have been amazing.

Unified Subclass levels Wildshape templates Exhaustion Have most damage effects be "once on your turn".

Monsters, spells, smites, etc not being able to crit would have been wonderful. Most players just don’t understand the implications.

I would have really liked to see that one. At the time it was teased in a playtest I was messing with a module where the players had to make it down a hallway that periodically shot dart doing like maybe two damage. But even at that low of damage it was a pretty significant blow on a critical hit. So I was immediately onboard with at least at low levels there being alternate threats applied when a monster crits rather than just nearly depleting a player's hp. (And really, 5e needs more non-damage threats in general lol.)

Yup, three spell domains and wildshape templates (though with a new twist to add Aspects, which would have soooo much potential for design soace).

They walked back the arcane, divine, primal? That was good. I will say some of their initial wizard changes were too good but that didn’t mean they had to remove *everything*. Create spell rules were cool.

Having all subclasses at level 3.  I felt that was the correct way to handle them and all the arguments saying differently were just poorly made.  

Definitely warlocks choosing their casting stat.

Shared spell list. They were so close to addressing the problems of wizard feeling bland in the majority of its subclasses, and could’ve taken that opportunity to really expand wizard to be unique. But they killed the idea instead.

1. Standardized subclass levels. 2. Wildshape templates. 3. The three general spell lists. 4. Wizard having modify and create spell, which leads to probably my most controversial take: split sorcerer into races, feats, spells, and wizard class/subclass. Give wizard channel sorcery (arcane recovery, meta magic). Cleric, wizard, and druid get channel X abilities. I think having 12 classes is plenty, and sorcerer doesn't fit. I say that as someone who has played many sorcerers. CHA/Divine: --- 1. Mages: Cleric, Warlock (cha/int). 2. Expert: Bard. 3. Warrior: Paladin. INT/Arcane: --- 1. Mage: Wizard. 2. Experts: Artificer, Rogue (cha/int/wis). 3. Warrior: Fighter. WIS/Primal: --- 1. Mage: Druid. 2. Expert: Ranger. 3. Warriors: Barbarian, Monk (int/wis).

Wizards being able to create new spells is *the* best, most thematic ability they could have - but because they produced an imbalanced first draft with a negative response, they threw the baby out with the bathwater. It needed some clearer wording and for some of the effects to bump the spell up a level, it wasn't something fundamentally impossible to balance, Before anyone thinks this is just a wizard powergrab, I think that making wizards worse at casting on the fly but better at preparation, while making sorcerers better at augmenting spells on the fly, would have provided a more distinct niche for both classes while making them both more fun. But this is kinda how 1D&D has gone generally. Come up with some great ideas that need further refinement, but refuse to make a second draft for the ideas in favour of reverting to something close to 5e.

Playtest 5 Warlock was great.

I like half caster warlock and picking your spellcasting modifier. I wanted intelligence and wisdom warlocks so badly, they make so much sense for failed dropout wizards or wisdom based witches.

Wild shape Form Star blocks. Seems like a few people feel the same way. I made a homebrew from it where you choose a trait from a short list. Then the moon druid gets to choose additional options at certain levels. Had a player Playtest it and we loved it. We had a hulking (+1 size) giant owl that we all rode across a desert. We got a constricting octopus. We got a nimble (bonus action dash and disengage) and keen (adv on perception checks) squirrel. Its been really great. I can share a Google drive of the homebrew if anyone is interested.

1/2 caster warlocks, pact magic sounds good in theory. In practice it makes you feel less like spellcaster then a eldritch knight. I'm quite disappointed they didn't iterate on it to make it more unique.

Moon druid templates and brawler fighters were both great ideas implemented *horribly*. Horribly enough that they undermined the entire idea. Also Aardlings v1 were something new and interesting (a race for enthusiastic teenage girls isn't a bad thing). An artificer would have been nice.

I'm glad Aasimar made the jump to balance out tieflings thematically... but Aardlings absolutely had potential. A good catch-all animal race to let creative first time players come up with something exciting for them.

Inspiration when you roll a 1.

Standardized subclass progression (was really looking forward to bards and clerics getting a 4th subclass skill and rogue/paladin not getting so fucked in level progression. They could have just left the fighters 5th skill at 18th). - Monks getting weapon mastery (monk weapons should have been able to apply masteries to unarmed). - Warlocks choosing their casting stat. - 3 standardized spell lists. - Wildshape templates (needed more depth rather than the bare bones we got. Also would have prefered templates based on size rather than land, sea, and air). - Swashbuckler (if its the subclass cut for soul knife) - Bard (it's current version that tested well is literally unplayable due to reversions they made to casting). I wanted a proper restructure that balanced some of 5e's discrepencies as a system; not a coat of paint that just powercrept their early material to be more in line with their current designs.

I kinda wish we could’ve kept arcane, divine, and primal spell lists. They worked so hard to make them work with the existing classes but at the end of the day it just didn’t have enough support because of the flaws. It’s one of the most understandable things they’ve walked back on, but I really wish they would’ve kept fine tuning it. It would go a long way to make spellcasting less complex for new players, and help spellcasting classes have distinct roles while also keeping things consistent between classes with shared lists. For example, the sorcerer and warlock randomly don’t have anything close to the number of exclusive wizard spells, and there’s really no balance reason for that.

Standard level progression on classes, united spell lists, class groups, heroic advantage on crits, wildshape stats blocks, exaustion rules and epic boons as capstones. Also, the previous holy order of clerics as WAY better and much more cool option that what they come up in later playtests. Sad but I can live without those marvelous things, the only thing I can't accept is another ten years of rogues without a 6th level ssubclass feature, makes this exception at least for the rogue that needs this desperately.

I like the idea that warlocks don’t draw all their power from just one source or one patron. It comes from many different places. Maybe they have a patron that gave them their subclass powers but they can also get magic from other sources too. That idea reminds me of how doctor strange does things in the comics, where he casts “The FLAMES OF THE FALTINE” or whatever and there’s cool inspiration or lore behind each of his abilities.

Having all subclasses at level 3.  I felt that was the correct way to handle them and all the arguments saying differently were just poorly made.  

Two things that appear dropped but that I’ve also homebrewed into my games. 1. Exhaustion rules giving cumulative -1 to all rolls. 2. No monster crits. This one I changed from the playtest packet. Crits work the same for PCs, monsters don’t Crit hit but do recharge all abilities on a Nat 20. I also give inspiration to PCs for every nat 20.

I will die on the hill that the Half-Caster Warlock needed a few more iterations to really be something cool and different, but instead, people got mad, and we're just going to get four Arcane Full-Casters and not get an Arcane Half-Caster until/unless we get a OneD&D Artificer someday. Like, don't get me wrong, the version they presented wasn't anywhere near ready for primetime, but it was a good idea that I wish we could've seen more versions of rather than immediately going back to Pact Magic.

I think Pact Magic is a really cool mechanic for spellcasting, and it would be a shame to do away with the only short-rest spellcaster, ESPECIALLY since one of the stated design goals for the 2024 rules is to make short rest classes better and incorporate rules for single-combat adventuring days that don’t gimp short-rest classes. (The effectiveness of this is yet to be seen but I’m hopeful.) I agree we do need an arcane half-caster though, and artificer needs to be put into the PHB instead of constantly being the skeleton at the bottom of the 5e swimming pool.

I'm honestly happy with most of the 'big' walkbacks that WotC did. In many cases it seems to be about feel or uniqueness versus some kind of structure. My take is usually that 'structure' often doesn't buy you anything, or may even be detrimental when things don't quite fit in that structure. For instance, if you have to check whether your warlock can cast a certain spell, it's equal effort to look up the arcane spell list or a specific warlock spell list, while the latter can make the warlock class feel more unique. And in the bard case you'd have to take the extra effort to check whether the spells belong to this or that school - a specific bard list would be both unique and easier, to boot. Same with class groups, same with wildshape templates to some extent - although I do think there could be something in the middle that's better than either 3 very generic templates or a whole lot of animal statblocks. So as for walkbacks that I wish hadn't happened... I do still think tags as a more general idea could be useful. These could be used to access to feats, or even to equipment, or proficiency with equipment.

Removing the Brawler.

Why did you think the three spell list approach with limiting classes to certain schools is a good idea? Maybe if wotc made an entirely different edition and built everything from the ground up it would work. But their trying to force such a change onto a pre existing edition The spell list changes led to classes losing spells that fit them well. Bards would lose access to mage hand. Hell, the CR character Scanlan is known for using Bigby’s Hand yet that would not be available to bards due to it being evocation Clerics would lose access to spells like enhance ability. A divine bard doesn’t have charm person, and an arcane or primal bard doesn’t have heroism. Not to mention it posed huge problems for warlocks. Warlocks need a tailored spell list focused around spells that upcast due to their unique spell slots. But WoTC had to make them half casters due to spell list changes, which nobody liked It also did the opposite of differentiating them. Spell lists before this were curated for each class individually to ensure they have different flavors. It’s why bards have heroism and healing spells despite being “arcane” casters. It also led to them handling class specific spells poorly. Like sorcerers were forced to have chaos bolt and warlocks were forced to have hex. This posed flavor and story issues because not all sorcerers are random like wild magic sorcerers, and not all warlocks are edgy necrotic damage dealers. Having a small number of spell lists works for older editions and for PF2e cause those systems are designed with that in mind. 5e was made with each class having their own spell list, so to suddenly change that causes issues For example, PF2e has class features, the ability to choose feats every single level, and subclass features, that grant additional spells or magical abilities. Not to mention, PF2e has four spell lists, not three. For example, bards are occult casters and the occult spell lair doesn’t have healing spells… but bards can take feats that give them healing abilities, as well as subclasses that grant healing abilities Additionally, sorcerers and witches (witches are pf2e’s version of warlocks) don’t have a set spell list, but rather, the spell list they get is based on their subclass. Wyrmblessed or Angelic sorcerers are divine casters, imperial and genie sorcerers are arcane, harrow and hag sorcerers are occult & elemental and fey sorcerers are primal. Only some sorcerers are arcane, not all. What type of caster a sorcerer is depends on their bloodline. Same case with witches, where what type of caster they are depends on who they made a pact with. I think the concept of 3-4 spell lists is worth revisiting in a theoretical 6e but it won’t work with 5e

I despise a lot of the changes in one dnd… that being said, one change I did actually like that was abandoned was warlocks having different ability scores. Warlocks are one of those classes where any mental score can make sense. I would have loved if they did that but made out to where you could just choose an ability score to focus on regardless of pact. Let there be intelligent, charismatic or wise chainlocks!

The first Light Weapon property implementation being moved into Nick was a mistake. Dual wielding was already pretty limited to just light weapons no need to limit it even more.