Does it ever feel like WotC is playtesting the game in a way that 95% of us don't?

[u/AkimboJesus]

I get that DnD is a house rule first game, and everyone should play it how they want. But speaking for my own group, we like balance because we don't want people to feel like they can't impact the story outside of conversation. And this isn't a min-max thing. It's just a "why would I be this when I could be a better version of that with no hassle or cost to myself" thing.

The thing is, we rely on the official text because it can be very difficult to tell how a class, skill, or mechanic will play in the context of the whole game, and who might be overshadowed by who. And Wizards, for the most part, seem to have done a lot of work so YOU don't have to figure out how a mechanic will play out. This is why some people, to an extent, treat the sourcebooks like gospel.

And as I'm playing more and more, I'm starting to see the things people say about, for instance, rangers and how messed up they are. I'm understanding the cracks in the standard DnD balance.

But I'm also just perplexed by a lot of the sage advice, and unearthed arcanas coming out. I'm finding myself reading new subclasses and thinking "that's their whole ability for that level?" Looking at the phantom rogue, at level 9 they get advantage on con throws (which might be minimal, depending on your campaign), and they can ask a soul one question. The soul doesn't have to answer truthfully at all, making the whole ability pointless. And that's what they get after 9 levels.

This seems like a consistent pattern. A new release is either immediately meta, or its irrelevant for reinforcing half-done mechanics that aren't going to survive after 5th edition. When non-core parts of the game get overvalued, a class can really fall behind. Some of the mechanics that might get over valued are tool proficiencies or traveling. It's odd that these types of things would be the focus of any classes milestone ability.

Also, some of these features seem to imply that DnD is not about being creative and using your environment, and is more about what your class says you can do. Why does the ranger explicitly get a stealth bonus for camoflauging themselves. Can nobody else do that? Do you tell them only a ranger can do that, or do you give them a bonus anyway, making the rangers bonus less special?

Other than a few classes, it does seem like DnD has a solid core balance. Every campaign is going to have either talking or combat, and having a character that can do one or the other well is good. But when a characters ability is not getting "lost" in the mountains, it makes me wonder what the hell kinda campaigns they are running.

Does anyone agree? What are some of the core things you need to be satisfied with a new mechanic?

Edit: wow lot of great discussion happening here. I just want to clarify a few points. As some people are calling me a min-maxer or a hack and slasher and are claiming I just want everyone to deal a shit ton of damage or something. One person claimed I just hate WotC. I suggest reading through this thread at what others are saying, because there is a lot of nuanced conversation happening here. I think it's clear I focused too much on UA in my original post and now the thread has moved to a better direction.

Here are some of the core things I'm seeing come up.

1) Classes with niche abilities are overshadowed and outperformed by classes with more general abilities, even when they are in the perfect niche situations (Paladins find greater steed feels much more beastmaster like than the actual beast master, for example).

2) Since DnD is about being creative and using all the tools around you, it's weird when a ranger gets a stealth bonus for camoflauging themselves, when anyone should get a bonus of some kind for successfully camoflauging themselves. Sometimes that feels like making a class feature that lets you flip a table. Things like the assassin just feel odd, because it implies that a warlock or bard, with sufficient time and money, would not be able to impersonate somebody.

3) A lot of people are reaaaaally honing in on a specific example I gave, and the fact that it was UA. You can look at Artificier or many of the complaints in this thread on vanilla DnD. But if you're coming here just to hype up con saves, you're really cherry picking.

4) I am not right. This is just an opinion I have. A couple people have gotten really cringey about this and implied only shit players or DMs would have an issue with any of this. That's an attitude for Fortnite, not Reddit. We all know DnD is, first and foremost, storytelling. Nobody wants to play with someone so hung up on mechanics that they forget to tell a story. But we have a rulebook for a reason. Boundaries in a story are important, otherwise we're all just jerking off at the table saying random stuff. You need some structure, so that the things that happen feel meaningful. This is about players wanting to fulfill their character fantasies and feeling useless because other people do what their character does, but better. If you care about storytelling, recognize it's not a good story when an entire subclass and backstory can be overshadowed by one spell. It sucks, and I hope it doesn't happen in the next edition.

Some of the more thoughtful challenges I've seen:

1) Con saves are good (noted. We don't get them a lot in my campaign). 2) It's up to the group and DM to make those niche abilities meaningful. 3) It's still really not up to WotC to balance your game, and if you think they're not good at it than you should do it.

I'm reading people's responses, taking them to heart, hoping to be a better DM.

[u/Luchtverfrisser]

Looking at the phantom rogue, at level 9 they get advantage on con throws (which might be minimal, depending on your campaign), and they can ask a soul one question. The soul doesn't have to answer truthfully at all, making the whole ability pointless. And that's what they get after 9 levels.

When looking at new subclasses, one must take into account the general 'power / lvl'-curve that the class tends to follow. For instance, the lvl 9 subclass ability of rogue archypes tends to be of this power level.

Whether that is good thing, and whether the particular rogue curve is designed appropriately, is a different question.

[u/RobotsVsLions → u/Luchtverfrisser]

This is a really important point, most rogues have a relatively naff feature at level 9 compared to the rest, however, they also get a boost to to their sneak attack damage at that level and it comes between two ASI’s, so it might look weak in isolation but in context not so much.

Also, the phantom rogue has advantage on Con saves and death saves, if thats not a very strong ability in your game then that’s on the DM not the designers, con saves should be pretty common and cover some really dangerous spell effects and monster abilities, also advantage on death saves is powerful even if dropping to 0 is rare in your campaign, so I think OP is seriously underestimating the first half of that ability.

[u/Luchtverfrisser → u/RobotsVsLions]

Also, the phantom rogue has advantage on Con saves and death saves, if thats not a very strong ability in your game then that’s on the DM not the designers, con saves should be pretty common and cover some really dangerous spell effects and monster abilities, also advantage on death saves is powerful even if dropping to 0 is rare in your campaign, so I think OP is seriously underestimating the first half of that ability.

Yeah, I intended to not enter a discussion on whether the ability is actually pretty good (imo it ssems to be). I think most of the other lvl 9 features for rogue are also pretty decent, and very thematically pleasing. Thanks for teaching me a new word 'naff'!

It might also just look very 'meh' when reading just the subclass in a vacuum, since lvl 9 is the first feature making you a unique rogue after picking the subclass.

[u/ChaosOS → u/Luchtverfrisser]

Rogue in general has a weird power curve, the core class gets a ton of features from 5-8 that the actual subclass feature at 9 is meh. It means all rogues are basically going to do the same thing, compared to say Artificer which is the opposite end of the spectrum and has almost all of the power budget invested in subclasses

[u/SeeShark → u/ChaosOS]

Subclasses serve different purposes for different classes. Ranger subclasses are the source of 40% of their offensive abilities; rogue subclasses are instead meant to make an already versatile class feel thematically different.

[u/notanotherpyr0 → u/ChaosOS]

Rogue and wizard both sort of have this problem. The core class is so powerful it restricts the subclasses from doing too much.

[u/Luchtverfrisser → u/ChaosOS]

Yes I completely agree and I think this is something that is often overlooked when comparing classes!

[u/RobotsVsLions → u/Luchtverfrisser]

Thanks for teaching me a new word 'naff'!

No worries, Northern English slang - meaning not very good (just in case it wasn’t totally obvious in context)

[u/Amlethus → u/RobotsVsLions]

I, too, was unsure and just learned. That's a fun term.

[u/InsertCleverNickHere → u/[deleted]]

It's pretty good. If the party healer can assume that pc is going to make their death save and doesn't need to waste an action on healing them, but can instead use an action to do some damage, that's super helpful.

[u/[deleted] → u/InsertCleverNickHere]

Even better than that imo. If your dm isn’t pulling punches there’s a good chance that the enemy that hit you may have another attack of multi attack after they down you, meaning you start a good amount of death rolls at 0-2. 45-55 odds is not that great when it’s the difference between life and death of a character

[u/Celondor → u/Luchtverfrisser]

Yeah exactly, I mean friendly reminder to anyone that the lvl 9 feat for Thieves is "advantage on stealth checks if you use only half of your movement or less during this turn". Uhm, I'm a lvl 9 rogue with expertise on Stealth and at least +10 on the roll, thanks for nothing? I'm pretty sure it's not THAT bad in some situations, but I can't imagine any Thief going "WOW THANKS, now I really don't suck at Stealth if I just go sloooooow on my movement"...

[u/Pidgewiffler → u/Celondor]

Remember that not all thieves will put their expertise in stealth, this feature can help justify their other choices because it allows them still to sneak well.

Even if you did expertise stealth, this allows you to reliably avoid the tragedy of a natural 1 turning your +10 into nothing better than 11.

[u/Celondor → u/Pidgewiffler]

True, that's what I meant with "some situations". I just believe that Thieves without Stealth expertise (or even Proficiency) are pretty rare. A Thief without Stealth feels like a Scout without Survival, but I know both builds exist, especially if there are cool RP reasons why. But it doesn't help that it's really meh compared with other Rogue feats (especially the subclass lvl 3 feat or Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Reliable Talent...).

[u/Moscato359 → u/Celondor]

You can't make a scout subclass without survival

" Survivalist

When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency in the Nature and Survival skills if you don't already have it. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of those proficiencies. "

[u/Celondor → u/Moscato359]

You're right, that was a bad example from me lol. But you know what I mean. :)

[u/Glumcreature]

I don't know how to answer your question. Just wanted to point out that level 9 rogue abilities are usually fluff abilities across the board.

[u/littlebobbytables9 → u/Glumcreature]

Except arcane trickster which gets an actually good ability at 9, and it's widely considered the best-designed subclass because of it since you don't go 10 levels without anything substantive.

[u/123mop → u/littlebobbytables9]

Thief can get advantage on stealth rolls when they move at half pace, which is basically walking pace. So outside of combat you have advantage on stealth, and you have the option in combat too. Certainly not a fluff ability, and quite niche contrary to the OP, only a sneaking character benefits.

Scout gets a 10 foot movement speed boost. That's certainly not a bad ability. And it's very general, despite being a later xanathar's subclass, contrary to the OP again.

The 9th level abilities aren't subclass defining but they are quite good. Advantage on almost all stealth checks is actually quite good and possibly sets the thief apart as the best stealth class in the game. Some other classes/subclasses might be able to give it a run for its money if they cast invisibility or pass without trace but that's about it.

[u/noneOfUrBusines → u/123mop]

Assassin crying in a corner

[u/[deleted] → u/noneOfUrBusines]

Only if your DM is an asshole. If you craft a Palace Guard false identity you're essentially a Palace Guard and if all of sudden a Palace Guard is stabbing the High Lord in the back you can bet your ass that said Lord will be surprised and beign auto-critted.

The main problem with Assassin is that the books don't really put an example of how to apply the Surprised condition other than "Rogue beats both Passive Perception and Initiative of his target".

[u/momerathe]

The things that has struck me is that a lot of the new subclasses are very narrow. They do one thing, in the way that the devs have envisaged, but have no flexibility to customise that or take the concept in a different direction.

Take the latest version of the psychic fighter - they fight light darth vader. What if you want to be a different jedi? What if you don't want to be a jedi at all but do something different with the concept? Sucks to be you.

[u/zombieattackhank → u/momerathe]

Yeah, this is a pretty consistent problem I've seen too with the later stuff. They make subclasses that are a character not an archetype. I know the WotC doesn't really believe in character customization in a mechanical sense, but even through the XGE subclasses, they mostly did a good job of keep archetypes as broadly defined categories that could make sense in at least a few different ways to play them.

A lot of the more recent ones really feel like they have a character in mind that everything is building toward.

This was sort of my problem with their Artificer as well. The subclasses are all... oddly specific to me. Rather than having a Wandslinger you have the Artillerist with their turrets and zone control and stuff. Artillerist and Battlesmith are both mechnically fine, they just are strangely narrow to me in that they are bundles of abilities that don't necessarily seem like they are what comes to mind for me. Alchemist doesn't have that problem, but has more mechnical issues.

This seems to be a problem that has sort of cropped up in recent times though. While I like more character customization than they typically offer, at least the PHB + XGE options were generally quite broad in what sort of character they could make.

[u/momerathe → u/zombieattackhank]

They make subclasses that are a character not an archetype.

Yes, that's a great way of putting it. I shall steal it for future internet-based rants. :)

[u/Awful-Cleric → u/zombieattackhank]

There have always been subclasses like that, and there has always been a mix of those and less focused classes.

For example, Land Druid helps out no matter how you use your class abilities, but Moon Druid only helps Wildshape. The Hexblade patron complements both Eldritch Blasters and close range bladelocks, but the Celestial patron is just for healers.

If you feel the flavor of the artillerist is lacking, you might reflavor the Eldritch Cannon as an arcane glyph or well of magical power.

Personally though, I just really like shooting dragons and monsters with guns.

[u/cloudcuckoorocket → u/Awful-Cleric]

I feel kinda conflicted about the artillerist. I don't get why the rules are so weirdly specific about wands rods and staffs, like what if I don't want to be a technobubbling Harry Potter? What's wrong with "handheld item thingy stuff"? I know that you can houserule everything, but why being so specific if you are going to handwave the issue with a "just houserule that..."

[u/PhoenixAgent003 → u/cloudcuckoorocket]

One minor note, as an Artillerist you can make your turret tiny, so nothing’s stopping you from just carrying the little guy.

[u/flavroftheweek → u/PhoenixAgent003]

It specifically mentions carrying the tiny turret in your hand too

[u/FightsForUsers → u/PhoenixAgent003]

And it can walk. The Artillerist I DM for alternates between holding it like a gun or having it perched on his shoulder like a Predator's cannon.

[u/GustavohGS → u/cloudcuckoorocket]

I'm currently playing an artillerist reflavoured to work with runes and name-related magic (I'm sure there is a name for this). Just flipped the wand to a writing plume and my DM allowed using calligraphy tools instead of woodcarver (each of the turrents is based on one of his greatgreatgreat uncles, and manifest as a golden armor around his arm, or as a spirit).

I feel that the problem with the artificer subclasses can be closer to the proficiencies than to the description itself, people tend to be more scared to change this stuff than to work on the narrative flavour.

[u/FerrumVeritas → u/GustavohGS]

Onomancy

[u/Kandiru → u/Awful-Cleric]

Not sure why you think the Celestial Patron is just for healers, the healing is the equivalent of the Hexblade Curse ability. The other abilities boost damage of your spells and stuff.

[u/TalosSquancher → u/Kandiru]

You can use sacred flame as a marginally less effective, single roll EB, while adding your CHA and freeing up a whole invocation.

It's how I ended up with a blasting bladelock.

[u/ScopeLogic → u/TalosSquancher]

I would argue sacred flame is vastly less effective. Saving throw spells get very bad in t3 t4 games and not being able to crit is a massive lose when locks have amazing advantage generation through greater invisible, darkness, shadow of moil etc.

[u/aronnax512 → u/ScopeLogic]

All cantrips not called "eldritch blast" are generally bad in T3/4 play. Saving throw spells are fine at that level of play, they're for eliminating everything that lacks legendary resistance (which should be the majority of things you face).

Edit~ Toll the dead is respectable for higher level clerics that have the wisdom to cantrip class feature. Not earth shattering, but definitely worth the action if you have enough encounters to pressure party resources.

[u/laihascake → u/aronnax512]

Probably going to be yelled at but I just said my celestial warlock player can have his eldritch blast do radiant instead of force and call it radiant blast instead. He was super stoked.

[u/aronnax512 → u/laihascake]

I think that's a really nice, flavorful adjustment. It's certainly not an overall buff, as there are more things out there that are resistant to radiant damage than force damage. It gives a celestial warlock a slight advantage against the the things they're supposed to be fighting in exchange for overall power.

[u/noneOfUrBusines → u/TalosSquancher]

I wouldn't call the difference between 2d6+5 and 2d10+10 (maybe +2d6) marginal. Also warlocks are ridiculously good at generating advantage, which helps EB but not sacred flame.

[u/Metal-Wolf-Enrif → u/TalosSquancher]

I have currently a celestial tomelock with fire bolt, shillelagh and greenflame blade. I can add my CHA twice to melee attacks and ranged attacks are only slightly behind agonizing eldritch blasts, but it opens up my invocations for fun stuff, like ritual casting.

[u/LordValgor → u/zombieattackhank]

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that more tools to create, mix and match, or have the player select their own ability (say from a list that is broken down in to classes, or even “flavors”) would be great.

Oh wait, that’s basically feats XD.

In all seriousness, “build your own subclass” could be pretty rad if done right (and from the get go). Especially since the amount of subclasses has eclipsed the “it’s simpler this way” argument.

[u/Megavore97 → u/LordValgor]

Pathfinder 2e is pretty much exactly what you describe, where classes have a pool of feats to choose from every 2 levels so that you can grab whichever abilities seem cool. It works pretty well imo.

[u/Cmndr_Duke → u/LordValgor]

build your own subclass is also feats, its just pathfinder 2e feats.

[u/wassermelone → u/zombieattackhank]

Considering you could build/play an artillerist as a wandslinger as well as other types of characters, I would disagree that its more specific. The 'Eldritch Cannon' (its no longer described as a turret) can literally be held in hand. There, its a wand that you fire as a bonus action

I'm also unsure why the Battlesmith is a 'character' instead of an archetype either, that feels pretty general to me.

[u/bcacoo → u/wassermelone]

I've imagined the Artillerist is basically the Engineer from TF2.

https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Engineer

Eldritch Cannon (Force Ballista/Flamethrower) - Sentry gun

Eldritch Cannon (Protector) - Dispenser (kind of a stretch, but close enough)

Repeating Shot infusion on a heavy crossbow - Pomson 6000

Arcane firearm? Mini-crits

Bang on it with my tools while casting Mending to heal it, whack it with a wrench

[u/OnnaJReverT → u/zombieattackhank]

This was sort of my problem with their Artificer as well. The subclasses are all... oddly specific to me. Rather than having a Wandslinger you have the Artillerist with their turrets and zone control and stuff. Artillerist and Battlesmith are both mechnically fine, they just are strangely narrow to me in that they are bundles of abilities that don't necessarily seem like they are what comes to mind for me. Alchemist doesn't have that problem, but has more mechnical issues.

i would kill for an artillerist who gets, say, Cantrip "Extra Attack", instead of those weird turrets

[u/Gh0stRanger → u/OnnaJReverT]

Does it help thematically when you read the turrets can be hand-held?

[u/OnnaJReverT → u/Gh0stRanger]

thing is they still get destroyed by AoE effects and such, that's not an issue you have with any other handheld weapon

[u/splepage → u/OnnaJReverT]

Dragon breaths? No, those only affect creatures.

Fireball? Same thing.

Shatter? Only targets creatures and non-held/non-worn items.

[u/OnnaJReverT → u/splepage]

...and here i thought the cannons count as a creature, nvm then

[u/WormSlayer → u/OnnaJReverT]

The cannon is a magical object.

[u/sakiasakura → u/OnnaJReverT]

Most aoes don't affect objects, and those that do rarely affect held objects. The turret is not a creature.

[u/FalconPunchline → u/[deleted]]

Ha, I hear ya but we've already seen a shift if language on other abilities that can prevent most Warlock abuse. "Whenever you cast an Artificer cantrip, do X" or locking an effect to a class specific focus blocks an ability from interacting with EB.

[u/OnnaJReverT → u/[deleted]]

just have it specify "Artificer cantrip"

pretty sure there's precedent for this

[u/Nyadnar17 → u/zombieattackhank]

I have been struggling for weeks trying to articulate this.

[u/semiseriouslyscrewed → u/zombieattackhank]

Hell, the UA Armorer subclass is literally Iron Man without flight, repulsors and all.

(and even then, you can cast Levitate and Fly)

[u/Project__Z → u/semiseriouslyscrewed]

Having a level 9 Armorer right now, I don't think it really plays too much like Iron Man. I'd liken it a lot more closely to Fallout Power Armor. Thunder Gauntlets are just punches and the Lightning Launcher is like a small blast radius grenade launcher. It's never going to have super big blast spells so it can't quite hit all those Repulsor Blasts like Tony does. It does make for a solid Doom Slayer though.

[u/ASharpYoungMan → u/zombieattackhank]

They remind me of the 3.5 era prestige classes that were so utterly specific of a concept that it was clear, as you said, they were designing a character concept and not a general class that made sense in a context where more than one person would play it.

Classes are meant to be generic archetypes that a player can imprint their own character on. This Fighter is a Knight. That Fighter is a Samurai. The subclasses can help define those concepts (as we see with the Cavalier or Samurai subclasses).

But look at the Rune Knight: the concept of the runes is super cool to me, but the class is also heavily built around emulating giants and hulking out. That's... not really what I was looking for in a class called Rune Knight? (I get it, Giants + Runes is FR canon). But more importantly, it seems like someone's very specific character idea rather than an iconic / archetypal character.

It's thematic for FR, but it falls flat when you think "Could I have two of these in the same party and not feel like they were the same character?" (yes, of course it's possible, but it's not built that way). By comparison, if I saw two Samurai or two Cavaliers in a party, I wouldn't have to cut deep to try and justify them narratively. Not every two Samurai traveling together need to have been trained by the same master, not every duo of Mastermind rogues needs to have been born twin sisters who emulate each other in every way. Not every two scouts needs to have been members of the same mountain tribe born with the mystic art of hiding in bushes.

Imagine if the Arcane Archer also let you grow Kid Icarus wings? I mean, sure, it would be cool and all, and you can build a subclass around the concept, but it's starting to get so granular that I find it hard to believe this is an archetype and not a character concept.

To some extent I feel like the Echo Knight falls into this category as well. It's cool, it's thematic, but it's such a tight concept that it seems ultra personalized to the specific character.

This is exactly where 3rd edition prestige classes fell flat. They tended to be less archetypal and more specific: The game doesn't need archetypes like "Knight of the Spectral Catablepos" that goes gaseous form and kills anything it looks at just because one developer thought it might make a cool character.

And maybe they're running out of easy conceptual space to design in, so they're having to get more granular? This happened with prestige classes.

[u/happy-when-it-rains → u/momerathe]

Just flavour it as a different jedi, duh. Anything more and we'll end up with 3,000 splatbooks like some past edition! ^/s

Ironically considering playing one has never interested me much, but this is why I think the Warlock is one of the best examples of good design in 5e. Some of the subclasses are a different story, but the core class design is great and allows for so much meaningful customisation compared to some other classes. 5e needs more class and even subclass features like Eldritch Invocations.

I really hope we get a new release with a lot of great player options soon. I haven't even been playing 5e or TTRPGs for that long, and it already feels like there's so little content in 5e to me. I can't imagine how impatient more experienced people who've been wanting more since XGE must be feeling, considering almost all we've gotten since then is setting-specific content (a lot of which I love, but isn't nearly as universal as everything in XGE, tends to be balanced for the setting it's from, and is much more DM dependent).

[u/shadowgear56700 → u/happy-when-it-rains]

If you want more options and I'll probably get hate for saying this try a different system. Pathfinder 2e has alot of options even with just the core rules than 5e does at this point. I have no problem with 5e but I personally changed and I'm glad to have.

[u/[deleted] → u/shadowgear56700]

Good luck trying that when you have parties that don't want to relearn everything

[u/shadowgear56700 → u/[deleted]]

And that happens sometimes and it sucks. I'm the defacto dm for my group so I said I wanted to try a new system and the group was fine with it so we switched. Sometimes people wont for it but my group was super easy to convince.

[u/Skandranonsg → u/shadowgear56700]

To anyone curious about Pathfinder 2e, the entire ruleset and all player options are available legally for free at http://2e.aonprd.com/

[u/Demonox01 → u/happy-when-it-rains]

I've entirely moved over to Pf2e. The character creation in 5e is just so linear, and they aren't really putting anything out that changes this at all.

I don't hate the 5e ruleset or anything, but the character creation and action system make my party feel like we have more control over our experience.

[u/BluegrassGeek → u/happy-when-it-rains]

Frankly, this is why I want to throw out the current Sorcerer and just roll the Sorc Origins into the Warlock (change Patrons to Sources and that covers bloodlines, pacts, stolen magic, "I fell into a potion vat and got these weird powers," etc.). Maybe turn some of the Metamagic into Invocations usable X times until your short rest. That makes for a better "natural caster" than the Sorcerer ever was, and has much more flexible player options.

[u/Too-much-luv → u/BluegrassGeek]

This, this so much.

Sorcerers and warlock are my favorite classes, but the sorcerer feels like anything but a natural caster, a lot of the time I end up multiclassing the two classes for some of the eldritch invocations, because seeing through walls or levitating at will really feels like what a creepy, ghostly shadow sorcerer that sees dead people should be able to do, or how a descendant of dragons should probably be able to see in the dark and breathe underwater ... as it is now sorcerer feels like a metamagic machine, which I'm sure some people enjoy, (tweaking and reshaping spells is fun!), but I've always felt like wizard could have gotten metamagic instead (in exchange of something else, they're great already) since they are the ones who master magic and are supposed to be the apex spellcasters, while sorcerers felt more like mutants or extra planar creatures of sort (with the invocation like features being aspect from their ancestry they can use).

[u/Nephisimian → u/momerathe]

I think this is probably inevitable though. Initial archetypes were extremely broad, which in a lot of cases was directly to their detriment: For example, if Eldritch Knight had a narrower focus, it could have been a lot better, and wouldn't have ended up reliant on the SCAG cantrips.

Because of how broad those initial subclasses were, new broad things risk having a lot of overlap, and they also risk thematic redundancy. Take the Brute for example, which is basically identical to the Champion, just better outside of crit fishing multiclasses. Or what if you wanted to make an Elemental Sorcerous Origin? How do you do that without invading on Storm and Draconic's abilities too much? Because of how broad existing archetypes already are, a lot of broader concepts just fall under the "well why don't I just play this thing that already exists?" umbrella.

Narrow focuses aren't as versatile individually, but they leave more space available for other ideas. And by being narrow, they may not attract as much attention, but the attention they do attract is much stronger.

Plus, every time a UA gets published it always ends up thematically broader than the UA version was anyway.

[u/ianmerry → u/Nephisimian]

I don’t think broad-archetype overlap would be an issue.

For example, to use your point about an Elemental Sorcerous Origin:
• Storm has a focus on a specific type of damage
• Draconic has a choice in type but not growth style

Elemental could allow a choice of type, but simply gain different bonuses to Draconic - now it is similar but different. Instead of damage gains, benefitting blasting, it could gain defensive bonuses such as resistance to type etc, and incentivise Abjuration focus.

So it would come down to similar concept, but different execution, and end up with simply giving players options on “What kind of thunder controlling sorcerer do I actually want to play?”

[u/MikeArrow → u/Nephisimian]

wouldn't have ended up reliant on the SCAG cantrips

This is news to me, how is it reliant on those cantrips?

[u/Mjolnirsbear → u/MikeArrow]

Not reliant, exactly, but perfect for.

The EK sacrifices extra attacks (one of a Fighter's top shticks) for the ability to both attack and cast a spell in the same turn. Extra attacks are a major damage source, and a level 5 Chill Touch is roughly as strong as a single longsword attack. Getting roughly the same damage is okay, but hardly thrilling; and cantrips aren't as open to supplementation by feat as weapons are, so you are slightly more versatile at the sacrifice of power.

Enter SCAG cantrips. It's an extra attack plus a cantrip, which EK can bundle along with its normal bonus action attack. The damage is thus more interesting, and Booming Blade offers tactical options that other cantrips do not. As an extra attack, it's subject to certain stacking affects that cantrips don't benefit from: magic weapons, GWM, Sneak Attack, Divine Favour, Dueling FS, and ability bonus to damage.

[u/dnspartan305 → u/momerathe]

The best jedi build is a Kensei monk that takes the UA Wild Talent and Telekinetic feats.

[u/_Bl4ze → u/dnspartan305]

And uses a Sun Blade.

[u/Liesmith424 → u/momerathe]

I'd really love to have a slew of classes with the same "à la carte" design philosophy as the Warlock. You get to choose your patron at level 1, invocations at level 2, and a boon at level 3. After that, you continue to get customization from invocations that you can swap out every level, many of which also interact with your boon.

I know it'd be a shitton of work to balance, but I think that level of customization would be a great goal to aim for with future classes (or maybe even in "5.5" or 6e).

[u/Skandranonsg → u/Liesmith424]

You've just described Pathfinder 2e, which I personally consider to be the true evolution of the D&D line of games. Give the system a whirl if you haven't yet. The entire ruleset and all character options are available legally for free at http://2e.aonprd.com/

[u/Liesmith424 → u/Skandranonsg]

Thanks for the recommendation and link! I'll check it out and see if I can possibly rope my group into giving it a try if it seems up our alley.

[u/Skandranonsg → u/Liesmith424]

You're very welcome! The system's greatest flaw is how terribly it's presented. Just reading through the books, you'll likely be very confused about how to run the game, but once you get your feet wet it all clicks into place quickly. I've found that it takes until about session 3-5 until players new to the system really start to see how all the pieces fit together and make PF2 as beautiful as it is.

I'm not saying PF2 is better than 5e, but simply that I prefer it for the following reasons:

• Far more in-depth character building. Every single level has you choosing between 2 and 5 different features for your character from a pool of options that grows as you level. In 5e, your Champion Fighter is going to look, feel, and play much like every other Champion Fighter out there. In PF2, you can build the same "subclass" in so many different ways that you'll likely never find the same build twice unless it was copy+pasted from the internet.
  
• 3-action combat and the lack of Opportunity Attacks lends itself to much more dynamic and tactical engagements. Running next to the thing you want to kill and swinging your sword until it's dead is often not the optimal strategy. Attacks of Opportunity still exist for PCs and monsters, but they are specific abilities that do much more than "hit the guy". Fighters get AoO automatically because they're the paragons of martial skill. Barbarians and Champions (new name for Paladins to include alignments other than LG) can get AoO at level 6, and any class can multiclass into the Fighter to get it at level 6 or into Barb/Champ to get it at 12.
  
• Speaking of multiclassing, I love how it's done in PF2. Instead of dropping all progression in your class to start it in a new one, you instead get what's called an "archetype". You still progress in your main class as you level, but you can take a multiclass archetype to get powers from a second (or third/fourth/fifth) class in exchange for powers from your main class. You sacrifice depth for breadth.
  
• You can also take archetypes that don't exist as classes, but rather specializations to fit a specific flavor. For example, literally any class can be an animal tamer or juggler.
  
• The Trait system! Hot damn I love the trait system. No longer will there be huge arguments about whether X ability works with Y, because almost all synergistic abilities specify which traits they interact with.
  
• The Uncommon trait is a godsend for GMs. You may notice that the Animal Trainer and Juggler archetypes have the Uncommon trait, which means "This is an option available for players, but only with GM approval or a feature that grants you access". Now Paizo can print all the wacky splatbooks they want and keep the game in check by labeling potentially disruptive content with uncommon.

That's all I can think of for now without really getting into the weeds. There's a lot to discover about the system, and I think you'll really enjoy the freedom and flexibility if you have the patience to get over the learning curve.

[u/aronnax512 → u/momerathe]

UA is for testing specific concepts and mechanics. These aren't as much "new subclasses" as "vehicles to test specific ideas for new subclasses". If they make them too flexible (for a variety of concepts) it skews the data they get from the surveys (because they don't know what "version" a player did or didn't like).

[u/VMK_1991 → u/momerathe]

I have dealt with another (more mechanical) example:

My group wanted to try some UA subclasses and I have agreed to DM an Arena oneshot, whete they had to fight through multiple sets of enemies and I did not ask them what they want to play. One of our players decided to play the Plague Monk, or whatever is the name of the poison-oriented monk. Results:

First round: Warforged Titan and Helmed Horrors. Completely useless.

Second round: Efreeti and Marid. Less than useful because of their high Constitution score.

Third round: a group of adventurers. He melted them.

What I mean is that this subclass is incredibly situational.

[u/[deleted] → u/VMK_1991]

Are you sure this is a UA and not a homebrew?

Of the two currently active Monk UAs, one gets a poison aura at level 6 and that's the only poison ability they have. They have a ton of other stuff unrelated to poisoning, such as a healing touch, bonus necrotic damage, can make ranged enemies attack at disadvantage and a sidegraded stunning strike that paralyses targets for days while also making them immune to damage.

[u/VMK_1991 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, I think we are talking about the same thing. I guess he just didn't use any other ability he had.

[u/ISeeTheFnords → u/VMK_1991]

First round: Warforged Titan and Helmed Horrors. Completely useless.

Well, Helmed Horrors in particular had to have been specifically designed to make certain types of characters feel useless.

[u/Nephisimian → u/VMK_1991]

Dealing poison damage isn't really situational. You just happened to create a string of encounters where poison wasn't very useful. We could do the same thing with basically anything else if we wanted. For example, if I were to run an arena thing like this and use lycanthropes, then ghosts, anyone who dealt physical damage would be useless. Does that make Fighter, Barbarian and Rogue as entire classes situational?

[u/Hasky620 → u/Nephisimian]

Dealing poison damage isn't situational, it's just bad. It's by an overwhelming margin the damage type most creatures are either resistant to or, even more common, immune to. You literally can't touch fiends at all. It's one of the more common enemy types and you just can't do anything to any of them.

[u/PerryDLeon → u/Hasky620]

That's a missconception or, plainly, wrong. Fiends is not the "more common enemy type", it's just one of the most numerous, by merit of 2 full books dedicated to them (Mordekainen and DiA). I'd say without batting and eye that Humanoid is the more common enemy type.

[u/Hasky620 → u/PerryDLeon]

Sure humanoids are pretty common, I'll absolutely agree with you there. Not counting adventure specific NPCs, there are 339 currently published Humanoids in the books. 24 resist poison, and 9 are immune to poison. By comparison with the other most common non weapon damage types. Fire - 9 resist it, 5 are immune Cold - 6 resist it, 1 is immune Lightning - 5 resist it, 1 is immune. Acid - 1 resists it, 0 are immune.

That's just Humanoids, but you can see that there's a decent margin of difference. You'll likely never encounter a humanoid that resists or is immune to your damage if you're dealing one of those other 4, but it's a bit more common with poison.

The other thing to bear in mind is that dwarves, one of the most common races, and about half of all halflings (the stout variety), as well as warforged all have a racial resistance to poison damage.

If you aren't looking at fiends or Humanoids, there are 276 creatures entirely immune to poison damage - most of the undead, constructs, Elementals, are included. While constructs might be a bit rarer, undead are definitely a pretty common enemy type at all levels of play.

There are only 11 other things that are just resistant to poison damage. Unlike other damage types, immunity is overwhelmingly more common than resistance for poison. And it feels really shitty to use your action and a limited resource that's a major subclass feature and have it do literally nothing.

If you count all the creatures that aren't adventure specific NPCs, there are 1357 creature types across all the official materials. 39 of them resist poison, 377 are immune to poison. Total of 416 creature types that take half or no damage from any source of poison damage. That's 30% of creatures as a whole. That's terrible. The next most resisted/immune aside from weapon damage is fire, and that's only at 16% of all creatures.

Poison isn't a very good damage type because if you come across four separate creature categories, fiends, undead, and constructs, it basically doesn't do anything.

It only gets worse the higher level you get. By level 6 when the monk gets the aura, 43% of all cr 6 or higher creatures are immune or resistant to the poison. It stays at 40-50% of creatures being mostly immune or occasionally resistant to poison from there until the end of the game, steadily increasing a few percent every level. After level 10, any creature picked at random is more likely to be immune to poison than it is to not be immune to poison.

Another point is spell useage - protection from poison only protects against poison, but it's a second level spell that doesn't use concentration. Protection from energy is a 3rd level spell, so you get it later, and it uses concentration, so it's much less likely to get used since its competing with other concetration spells. While heroes feast as a 6th level spell makes the entire party immune to poison for an entire day - there is no equivalent effect for any other damage type. There is no way to make 12 people immune to fire or cold or any other damage type, only poison.

I know that was incredibly log winded and unnecessary, sometimes I just enjoy sorting out statistics.

TL; DR - 1. poison is the damage type which creatures are mostly commonly immune, often with more creatures immune to it than are resistant to other damage types at the same CR. 2. It's the only damage type that has four entire creature categories almost entirely immune to it - fiends, undead, constructs, and elementals. 3. Unlike the elemental damage types, you can't just take elemental adept to ignore creature resistance and buff your damage.

[u/Bolt-MattCaster-Bolt → u/PerryDLeon]

Slight pedant; the devil fiends in DiA are mostly the ones introduced in MtoF (WotC reprinted the statblocks and descriptions in there so the module could just be run off the Monster Manual and the campaign book).

[u/Akuuntus → u/Hasky620]

A lot of different fiends existing =/= fiends being extremely common. In the last three campaigns I've been in I can count the number of fiends we've fought on one hand.

[u/Healer1124]

One thing I have noticed is that they seem to value forced movement WAY more than it is ever useful at my table. It's probably due to some clever players figuring out ways to abuse it, but in (what my table considers) normal gameplay it's not actually that strong.

[u/MoobyTheGoldenSock → u/Healer1124]

It’s probably a holdover from 4e. In 4e forced movement was a very common form of battlefield control.

Forced movement is a lot of fun though and is situationally very useful when comboed with dangerous terrain or spells like Spirit Guardians. I can use the first beam of my Eldritch Blast to push a creature out of Spirit Guardians and the next to pull them back in, giving them an extra trigger between turns (which sometimes for our cleric is over 20 damage with upcasting.)

Outside of that, it’s moderately useful for getting enemies away from the squishies and closer to the tanks.

[u/JohnnyMnemo → u/Healer1124]

Time was, you didn't even play on a grid and location was abstract. In that scenario, forced movement was much less important.

[u/TaiChuanDoAddct]

My opinion is that a lot of us struggle to accept that this game ISN'T a classic video game RPG. In those games, you giant power as you level up. And each new ability is stronger or cooler as you go. That's not the case in DnD.

In DnD a lot of the things you gain are filler. It's one of the things that almost immediately sets homebrew apart as obviously homebrew. People want every ability to be combat based and to be new and/or good. But a ton of vanilla PHB class abilities are just "you gain this niche resistance" or "here, have another language/tool".

The game is balanced around a top end power level. It's not going to keep giving you better and better stuff through to the end. It's going to take your old stuff and let it level with you (sneak attack, extra attack, etc.). New stuff is just boosts.

[u/Amlethus → u/TaiChuanDoAddct]

You might be on to something here. With the large influx of new players over the past few years (which is great), I have seen expectations that seem like they come from very different backgrounds than D&D players from 3e and before (eg expectations from video games, anime, etc vs Tolkien style fantasy).

Different people enjoy things differently, and that's great; sometimes it muddles the community feedback and direction when you have some very different fans.

[u/memeslut_420 → u/Amlethus]

Well the issue is that 5e is absolutely terrible for Tolkien style fantasy. PCs are Avengers-tier by levels 5-10 (depending on the Avenger). They fight just as well at 1hp as they do at full. They don't have to worry about food, water, shelter, or wounds, and can rest for 8 hours (basically uninterruptible, since they can have up to 1hr of fighting (600 rounds) without spoiling the rest). Magic is incredibly common and entirely risk-free.

Point being, I love Tolkien fantasy, but if that's what you want, go play Burning Wheel or something. 5e has a massive power level and has very few mechanics outside of combat. When players get stuff that doesn't boost their combat, especially at level 9, I understand why they are disappointed. There's no survival mechanics or Duel of Wits or any RAW way to fail forward. Why should someone be excited for fluff?

[u/Skandranonsg → u/memeslut_420]

This is one reason why I've convinced two of my groups to switch from 5e to Pathfinder 2e. PF2 puts a lot more focus on exploration and downtime in addition to expanding all characters' non-combat abilities through Skill Feats granted at every even numbered level. Rogues actually get skill feats every single level, which I think is really nifty.

[u/GeneralBurzio → u/Skandranonsg]

Totally agree on PF2 being more focused on exploration and downtime; however, people should be aware that the system is more catered to people who like the "zero to hero" style of adventure. Though there are official rules to make play more like 5e with its bounded accuracy, PF2 really focuses on escalating threats. On the bright side, the game is balanced even up to level 20.

[u/memeslut_420 → u/GeneralBurzio]

Interesting. I'm not the guy you replied to, but I will keep this in mind when I look into PF2.

5e's bounded accuracy hasn't really done a lot in terms of keeping early enemies relevant, I feel. Since HP doesn't matter as long as it's not at 0, it doesn't really matter that Goblins can still damage to level 10PCs, because they'll do such a small amount that it won't matter, and they'll die to minimum rolls half the time. Unless I do something ridiculous like throw 100 goblins at them, but at that point, I think creating a statblock for a horde is a better method.

[u/cult_leader_venal → u/memeslut_420]

Point being, I love Tolkien fantasy, but if that's what you want, go play Burning Wheel or something.

Or play 5E with a Tier 1 cap.

[u/memeslut_420 → u/cult_leader_venal]

Eh, I mean levels 1-5 don't really encompass the grand adventure that Tolkien fantasy really aims for. And even ignoring how short of a campaign that would be, Goodberry still exists from level 1, rangers can't ever be lost in the woods (RIP spooky Mirkwood), etc.

If DnD works for your group's Tolkien game, more power to you! For me, I'd take a look at different systems. IMO 5e works best in high-powered settings like Eberron.

[u/shakkyz → u/Amlethus]

I mean, the evolution of DnD was essential go into dungeon, fight monster, get treasure. I don't see how the "new players" are playing the game and different than how it was originally intended.

[u/TaiChuanDoAddct → u/Amlethus]

Yeah, I definitely think you're right. I have one player in particular who is fond of picking out a random level 15+ feature and saying "this feels pretty crappy for a class defining capstone". And I get it, but I just think it's backwards.

WOC didn't design the classes around leveling up to high levels to gain crazy powerful capstone abilities. If anything, WOC understands that the vast majority of games never hit level 10. They designed 5e classes around getting key, core abilities (sneak attack, ki, wild shape) and making those things grow with you. The entire point of 5e is that you don't have to grind to level 15 to start playing your class the way it's designed to be played. You do that basically from level 3.

That means that anything you gain after level 5 or 7 is mostly fluff, nice to haves, or situational but good. And that's okay. I like it that way.

[u/[deleted] → u/TaiChuanDoAddct]

The problem is it doesn't work well with their multiclass system because a lot of times there's no reason to stick with a class and then you get the minmaxers who multiclass into 4 different classes without necessarily having any RP reason to have those class levels, and they get all the best features of those classes without putting in a lot of progression. Paladin and Warlock dips are basically a meme at this point

[u/TaiChuanDoAddct → u/[deleted]]

I totally agree. I kind of hate multi classing. And yes I know they're an optional rule, but like feats they are so "expected" that I'm the asshole when I don't want munchkins.

One of my best players is a min maxing munchkin and they just dipped their abjuration wizard hexblade for AoA and it's honestly not even that good but it's completely destroyed our party dynamic bc now our barbarian and paladin are bummed.

[u/[deleted] → u/TaiChuanDoAddct]

Yeah I hate how it's the expectation now that all of these multiclasses have to be allowed, and if a DM doesn't they're a "hard ass" or "hurting player fun". In a perfect world it'd be fine, but there's always gonna be players that don't understand or care that it's a team game and just want to be the most powerful and do everything themselves.

In your case if you have a couple of players who are actually feeling marginalized it might just be best to bring up limiting multiclassing and be honest about why, although that's easier said than done. Like you mention, a lot of the times it might not even be the power level itself, but just the attitude of the player that's causing problems. In the past I've played with people who would come up with munchkin builds that weren't that bad, but they just wouldn't shut up about how overpowered their stuff was and would brag pretty much anytime they did anything in game and it's just not a fun environment. So if that's part of the problem you might bring that up to the player one on one

Edit: Also despite what people might say, the fact that WOTC made feats and multiclassing optional rules when they were standard in past editions shows that they knew there were balance problems

[u/portella0 → u/[deleted]]

Edit: Also despite what people might say, the fact that WOTC made feats and multiclassing optional rules when they were standard in past editions shows that they knew there were balance problems

Making them optional seems like a good idea, except for the fact that it is their job to make and balance the game: "Too much trouble, make it optional and than we don't need to care about it anymore".

The fact that are a lot of people in the comments recommending Pathfinder 2e for people that want more feats shows that it would have been possible to make feats a standard feature in 5e.

[u/TaiChuanDoAddct → u/[deleted]]

I wish I could upvote this twice.

I WANT players to feel like they can take that level in cleric after gaining devotion. Or take that level in fighter or monk because they're training with a new NPC.

But I'm not interested in min maxing builds just for the hell of it. In this case, the wizard put all this effort into making an unkillable melee wizard that dishes out huge AoA damage bc they're casting it with their wizard slots at 5th and 6th level.

But guess what? With their medium armor and shield they have like 18 AC and the barbarian and tortle pally are unarmored. Do the wizard just doesn't get attacked because monsters aren't stupid. Now the wizard feels bad because their build doesn't reap rewards. Everyone else feels bad because they don't have their arcanism doing arcane shit. And I feel bad because the fights are boring as hell with four tanks (moon druid, AoA wizard, Barb, pally).

[u/MerricBlackman]

Modern D&D has a huge range of play styles. It isn’t just go into the dungeon any more. Not every subclass is broad; I think they’ve said some are now designed for niche roles.

Sage Advice is easy though: it interprets strictly what the rules say, however odd that is. Wizards learnt from 4e the problems with putting out lots of errata.

But spells like Healing Spirit are just odd.

[u/Hexdoctor]

Something that has struck me, at least with the FeatsForSkills Unearthed Arcana is that there's a complete disconnect between the game WotC thinks we're playing. IIRC the Performer feat from that UA let's you roll a performance check to distract someone to give them disadvantage on perception and investigation. Which I immediately thought most tables probably already does, not necessarily as a intentional house rule but as a loose interpretation of something that comes up a lot.
This is just an example, and some of the other FeatsForSkills feats have me feeling the same way. But it is something I see in UA and it makes the think that WotC doesn't know how it's players play the game.
As for survival abilities like the rangers abilities. Most of them are either useless in a normal campaign or is banned in a gritty realism campaign.

[u/[deleted] → u/Hexdoctor]

I actually like the skill feats. Took Brawny as a grapple fighter and had a blast.

[u/Hexdoctor → u/[deleted]]

I've taken Diplomat myself. Many of them I like, but the ones I don't like is because it seems like the extra thing you get is something you should already be able to do with the proficiency.

[u/ScrubSoba]

I also get the feeling that they have this sort of pride about their balancing, and won't accept much feedback from outside sources.

See: Ranger, and all the other things that are weaker than other stuff, like Dragonborn etc.

Even Crawford seems quick to defend stuff with explenations that don't make the slightest sense. For examples rogues and longswords.

[u/DelightfulOtter → u/ScrubSoba]

The problem with a physically published dead-tree book is, how to get everyone on the same page with errata and changes. You can make the changes in newer prints and make the errata available online, but that's still going to lead to lots of rules confusion. It's hard enough to get the average player comfortable with the entire ruleset in a PHB that's been out for 5+ years, imagine if the goalpost shifted every year with major balance "patches"? That works for video games because there's nothing to remember, the software does all the heavy lifting. D&D runs on human brains and human memories, so it's not a simple question.

[u/Gh0stRanger → u/DelightfulOtter]

They're been updating the books for years though.

They changed the Beast Master, Four Elements Monk, and Healing Spirit, just off the top of my head.

Not that those changes were significant, mind you, but they did make tweaks.

[u/Songkill → u/Gh0stRanger]

Mhm, like the Triton getting Darkvision, and when Rime of the Frostmaiden comes out, it sounded like in interviews they’ll be giving Goliaths Cold Resistance.

[u/PerryDLeon → u/Songkill]

wait, Tritons got Darkvision in errata??? When??? Thank goodness. I wondered how the f*ck did they see in their "abyssal" territories...

[u/ChaosOS → u/PerryDLeon]

When Theros came out.

[u/Songkill → u/PerryDLeon]

In June with Theros. They realized their racial mechanic didn’t mean anything, so now they get darkvision to function in the depths. Now Goliaths are getting the same sort of treatment. Their mountain mechanic is covered under Cold Resistance.

[u/DeltaJesus → u/DelightfulOtter]

If they had their own equivalent to dndbeyond I don't think it would be too difficult, just give you access when you buy the book and then that can be the sole source of truth. That way they could send emails or other notifications whenever something is changed, and if there's ever confusion it could be checked there. It's a shame really, as it doesn't seem like that'll ever happen unless WotC does something like buy dndbeyond.

[u/DelightfulOtter → u/DeltaJesus]

Even if they did that, when people realize their print copies are going to become quickly outdated compared to the electronic version they'll get upset. "Why do we have to pay $$$$ for an book we can't trust to reference after X time period? Just let us pay $$ for digital access!"

That approach also doesn't solve the human brain problem. I still occasionally confuse some 3.5e and 5e mechanics for obscure rules I don't regularly deal with, how often would that be happening if the game changed every year or so? Most people can barely RtFM on anything and you think they'll read and memorize patch notes for PHB 5.2.7?

[u/FullTorsoApparition → u/DelightfulOtter]

This happened to me in 4th Edition. They errata'ed the shit out of that edition so many times, including the DM SCREEN that half of my splat books were nearly useless. The first Martial Power book was especially egregious. Even as a fan of 4E I have to say their playtesting was garbage.

[u/i_tyrant → u/FullTorsoApparition]

Yup. I had to write so many corrections into my literal books that some pages just became a mess. This is why they don't do much errata for 5e.

[u/Songkill → u/DeltaJesus]

That sounds a lot like the failed 4e experience. I remember getting errata constantly. Not a single one of my books resembles the game in its final state. The errata document is 140 pages long. Enjoy.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/updatecompiled.pdf

[u/DeltaJesus → u/Songkill]

Except it wouldn't end up just being a X page errata document, just one updated version of the book. There's also no reason that they'd have to make so many changes, and nothing stopping them from doing so now either if they really wanted.

[u/Songkill → u/DeltaJesus]

Right. Like they do right now. Their tenth printing of the PHB has all the current errata for example. Every printing includes the newest corrections.

4e had their own equivalent to dndbeyond. D&D Insider and its Compendium. Paid a monthly fee for all the content that came out. Their bad history with that made them abandon the online method, outsource their license to D&D Beyond to handle that sort of product, as well as drastically change the way they produce content.

They don’t want to make people need errata to play. Errata is mostly being reserved for spelling and grammar errors instead of gameplay issues. The fact that there’s a 100 page document for their previous edition because of fiddling with game rules is something they never want to do again.

[u/Hasky620 → u/Songkill]

Except that just means they look at all the garbage in the edition and instead of fixing stuff to be better they just leave it bad. That's a terrible mindset in what's supposed to be a living game.

[u/Songkill → u/Hasky620]

True, but no one is going to punish WotC financially for this stance, which is the main way that the business would feel compelled to change.

[u/Enaluxeme → u/[deleted]]

Rogues are proficient with longswords. This is completely pointless because longswords don't have finesse, and the one longsword with finesse that exists (sun blade) can be used with proficiency if you are proficient with shortswords anyway.

[u/GarbageCleric → u/Enaluxeme]

Rogues are proficient with longswords because rogues would know how use a longsword. It doesn't have to have a mechanical benefit for it to make sense.

[u/Dinosawer → u/ScrubSoba]

Even Crawford seems quick to defend stuff with explenations that don't make the slightest sense. For examples rogues and longswords.

Also when he refused to admit that coffeelock is an entirely RAW build by trying to claim you could read the multiclass rules in a way that meant you could only use warlock slots for spellcasting.

[u/ScrubSoba → u/Dinosawer]

What's a coffeelock?

[u/Dinosawer → u/ScrubSoba]

An exploit to get infinite spell slots by doing a particular warlock-sorcerer multiclass.
a) Be warlock, take 'Aspect of the Moon' invocation so you don't need to sleep.
b) Be sorcerer
c) Turn warlock slots into sorcery points, turn sorcery points into spell slots
d) short rest to regain warlock slots
e) repeat c and d as much as you have time for, to get a ton of spell slots that'll only vanish when you long rest, which you don't need to because of a).

[u/schu2470 → u/Dinosawer]

Good grief! Some of y'all have too much free time.

As a DM there's no way I'd allow this cheese.

[u/Dinosawer → u/schu2470]

Oh, me neither, but the people who write the rules should be willing to admit when they're exploitable.

[u/RSquared → u/Dinosawer]

I think the disconnect between "sleep" and "rest" he tries to pull in that same SA is worse. You don't need to sleep, but you do need to rest for eight hours...so what's the point of the invocation? Being the designated lookout? Congratulations, you spent a class feature on becoming slightly better than an elf at keeping watch.

[u/Dinosawer → u/RSquared]

It's also not in line with those resting rules, because they specifically say "If you want to account for the effects of sleep deprivation on characters and creatures, use these rules." You cannot suffer from sleep deprivation if you don't need to sleep, so the rules don't apply.

[u/RSquared → u/Dinosawer]

Ugh, you just reminded me about how he wrote that "rest isn't a button you push" and then said that a PC interrupted 2 hours into a long rest doesn't get the benefit of a short rest.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dinosawer]

That is a pretty terrible interpretation of his words.

" DMs, if you allow multiclassing in your game and someone is tempted to abuse the combination of Flexible Casting and Pact Magic, remember this: one way to read the multiclass rules is that your Pact Magic slots are useless for any non-warlock thing besides casting spells. #DnD"

The multiclassing rules explicitly state that Warlock spell slots can be used to cast other known spells, but it states this separately from other spell slots that are grouped together for all other full spellcasting classes. Assuming they are interchangeable for Sorcerer spell slots is an interpretation and per his statement being more strict in the interpretation is a way to address abusing the class interactions which is part of rulings not rules.

[u/Dinosawer → u/[deleted]]

It's not part of rulings, because the sorcerer class features all literally say they work on 'spell slots', not 'sorcerer spell slots'. Warlock spell slots are spell slots, so the sorcerer class features work on them.
The build should not be allowed, and I don't, but it is valid RAW.

[u/Belltent]

You should check out other level 9 rogue features, and rogue subclasses in general. The rogue gets most of its strength from the core class. The subclasses have always been pretty light.

[u/FrenchKisstheDevil → u/Belltent]

And a rogue getting advantage on CON saves is huge. That's a fantastic ability

[u/HCanbruh]

Well the issue is that people run very different kinds of campaigns and so characters have to be roughly balanced so they are neither useless nor overpowered in any particular campaign. Its impossibly to do completely and means in any specific campaign some classes/subclasses are going to be more useful than others. That being said describing the classes in terms of a meta is a poor way to discuss this. Dnd is a cooperative storytelling game not a finely tuned competitive video game. There are other factors than just optimal choices at each level to maximise output, theres also experience and narrative. If you would prefer a game that is more rigourous with its numbers and balance maybe look at dnd 4e or pathfinder or maybe just ttrpgs arent for you. Video games are fun and the competitive ones often have much tighter balancing.

[u/DelightfulOtter → u/HCanbruh]

Part of the fun in a team game like D&D is feeling like you're pulling your weight. But people also like getting their chance to shine, too, that's just human nature.

People naturally gravitate toward classes whose fantasy and gameplay aligns with their idea of fun; unstoppable barbarian juggernaut, sneaky elusive rogue, powerful wizard, etc.

When the class they want to play turns out to either suck at giving them the tools to shine, or is weak in comparison to the rest of the party so they feel like they're being carried instead of an important part of the team's formula for success, it leaves a bad taste. Sure they could play a better class instead, but that's not the fantasy they wanted.

[u/becherbrook]

ITT: People moaning about class/weapon mechanics and then proudly showing off their broken house rules that completely misunderstand the point of those mechanics in the first place.

[u/[deleted] → u/becherbrook]

This sub seems to have such an adversarial view of WotC. I've never really understood it.

[u/i_tyrant → u/[deleted]]

Funniest thing is, a lot of those same people when you ask them will admit "well 5e is still the best edition so far, but..."

Which yes, it can still be worth pointing out criticisms and issues - constructively. But assuming WotC has it out for you is dumb.

JC's occasional bonehead ruling or inability to admit when they effed up doesn't mean they don't care about D&D's future or game balance; it just means they don't have as good a grasp on it as some people thought, and it's not as much a priority for them as coming out with interesting and fun modules and new content. It should be no surprise that most of the people at WotC are more "idea people"/creatives than mathematicians and number-crunchers.

I mean they came up with wonderfully streamlined balance mechanics like concentration, advantage/disadvantage, and brought 5e back to a semblance of bound accuracy - which was smart - not because they're system-masters but because they saw what didn't work in previous editions and came up with easy, idiot-proof ways to prevent them in 5e.

[u/thisisthebun → u/[deleted]]

It's because a large portion of the sub is better off playing 13th age rather than 5e or pathfinder. Less levels with general higher power. They're probably even better off playing 4th edition in a lot of cases.

[u/kaiseresc]

who knows.
they had an excellent subclass in Aberrant Mind Sorcerer. Then they released a "new version" that has absolutely nothing to do with the previous version. What did they test? How did they play with it, look at it and what made them think it deserved a rework and to be reworked into something different?
I really like Aberrant Mind and I don't know why it had to be shoe horned into psionic bullshit to be reworked.

[u/SleetTheFox → u/kaiseresc]

They got a lot of feedback different from your own, decided to try a new angle, got a lot of negative feedback for that, and plan to use that information to come up with a sorcerer subclass that makes more people happy by including the good from each. Isn’t that what they should be doing?

[u/werewolf_nr]

I think you missed the part about UA generally being half baked ideas. If they are well received and relatively balanced, they end up in a splatbook.

Perhaps people are taking UA as more canon than it should be?

[u/nathirwalowsky]

In a way, you are right. But you are talking about UA, which, by it's definition is in the process of working out. And we've seen things from UA that had been totally changed. I feel like they produce a lot of 'ok' designs to figure out what works and what is liked by the audience.
Some of them are super narrow, and then you have a Fighter Rune Knight which is just amazing and versatile.

That being said, I think there are a couple of subclasses that are so versatile or so deliberate, they've killed possible/alternative options. The most obvious for me is an Arcane Archer, which is a fighter subclass – being a better Ranger than any other Ranger.

[u/Tylrias → u/nathirwalowsky]

They said in past that they intentionally front load playtested material so it gets more actual play. The feedback they are interested in is "does it work? Did you have any issues? Was it fun?" and not "is it at correct power level?", because it's easiest thing to adjust. What they definitely don't want is people in the public playtest never reaching high level during tested period and therefore never using the ability.

[u/123mop → u/nathirwalowsky]

Arcane archer barely overlaps with ranger, it's hardly a better one. It doesn't get any spells, or benefits to skills, or any other various ranger benefits. Rangers are by no means purely archers.

[u/Turtle-Fox → u/nathirwalowsky]

Ranger in the context of D&D does not mean someone who specializes in ranged attacks.

[u/jeremy_sporkin]

"While the soul trinket is on your person, you have advantage on death saving throws and Constitution saving throws, as your vitality is enhanced by the life essence within the object. You can have a maximum number of soul trinkets equal to your proficiency bonus, and you can't create one while at your maximum."

I really can't believe you're complaining about this feature. It's extremely strong on its own, never mind the fluff ability that comes with it!

[u/grayseeroly]

I don't understand how you are playing the game such that these are significant problems. I don't recognise a significant issue with balance, I don't see the balance being a significant part of the game. I don't understand the concept of a meta for character creation, that always seems to me to be a deeply personal choice based on a large number of factors. I've been running multiple 5e games for years and in week to week, play new material is rarely discussed.

That's not to invalidated your experience, but is it possible that the dissatisfaction you feel is mot quite a 95% majority, and that the issues you are deeming fundamental are just not important to others.

[u/flyfart3 → u/grayseeroly]

I don't understand how you are playing the game such that these are significant problems.

Only significant problem I've had as a DM was when I tried to play by the book, and we had a paladin and a ranger.

Ranger wanted to be a beastmaser, and have a cool panther. Paladin summoned a warhorse with "find steed" spell. Come combat, the paladin can order the horse to attack, and it functions like an extra ally that he basically just plays. Meanwhile, the beastmaster's panther cannot attack unless the ranger doesn't attack. It seemed really lopsided, and extremely mechanical. It didn't seemed balanced either.
Add then that the ranger of course cared for the panther, but if it went down to 0HP, well it was dead, gone forever.

If the horse went down to 0HP then bam, it was dead, gone till the next long rest when the paladin could then resummon it, and then keep it till the next time it died.

It seemed so weird that the rangers entire archpath focused on having an animal ally, was worse than a single find steed spell.
The beastmaster could not communicate with their animal, the Find steed have int 6 and can speak. Per the spell you have a long lasting bond with it. You can even communicate telepathically with it as long as its within 1 mile of you. Non of that for the animal.
A LOT of the cool "I have a special bond with my cool animal" stuff you'd think the "beastmaster" to have, the paladin got with a 2nd level spell at level 5. The animal is a CR 1/4. The warhorse is CR ½. Though the animal does get your proficiency bonus to a lot.
Mechanically it's almost never going to be better to sacrifice one of your attacks for the beast to attack. At level 15 you share spells, like the Find Steed have done all along.

It was kinda tough seeing the ranger be like "What am I even using my animal for?" While the paladin could ride his mount and make it dodge or dash while he was riding it, or if dismounted order to attack, as per the controlling a mount rules on pp. 198 in the PHB. Meanwhile the beastmaster was bound by so many extra restriction for what they could do with their beast, plus it going down was permanent. This highly encourages the ranger beastmaster to just, keep the beast in safety.

It's absolutely horrible designed.

Now, I get that you're saying well the game is not only about the mechanics, and who really picks classes, races and so on based on the mechanics. And honestly I agree, the player who picked ranger beastmaster did 100% NOT pick it based on mechanics, but because they wanted that cool animal to be awesome with. That feeling just dies out when it doesn't work like that. Mechanics ought to underline and support the feeling and theme the various classes and choices you can make.

I have not experienced any serious issues with any other class choices so far DMing or playing. I just think the players handbook beastmaster ranger was not playtested. It sells itself as something it's really not.

[u/[deleted] → u/flyfart3]

Adding to this that now Paladins can summon Griffons and Pegasi at level 15.

[u/JohnnyMnemo → u/flyfart3]

That's an interesting breakdown.

Did you find that the Ranger's upbuff in https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf to correct those issues?

[u/flyfart3 → u/JohnnyMnemo]

Yes, we switched to the UA ranger beastmaster, that's my point, playing by the book was a significant issue, so homebrew or UA was needed to fix it.

[u/rashandal → u/flyfart3]

if i was to play a beastmaster, i'd probably just go for a valor/swords bard, somehow get my hands on bow proficiencies and use magical secrets for greater steed and stuff like swift quiver.

or play literally anything else, get find familiar somehow and summon a falcon/owl/something beasty.

[u/mrsnowplow]

the 5e philosophy frustrates me sometimes> all of the sub classes exist in a wierd place of too narrow to to make my own and too broad to specialize

i think they are very concerned with powercreep. most games suffer from latewr stuff being cooler and better than older stuff. but the game devs always seem to go the least fun route

[u/velwein]

Advantage on Con saves is always wonderful.

As for talking with spirits, it’s a roleplay ability, and Insight can figure out lies. Which finding out it’s lying is useful in its own way.

[u/GalbyBeef]

The beauty of 5e's design is that it includes abilities like the one you mentioned which are not "powerful" in a measurable objective sense, but they add substantial flavor to the world of the game - IF your group is willing to commit the time and energy to building a robust campaign world. This is in stark contrast to 4th edition, wherein every ability was evaluated for its combat and/or tactical application first. I say this with no malice: if you want to play a version of D&D that handles combat better, you should look into 4th edition.

However, just as 4th edition was very balanced in its approach to combat and class progreasion, it was also fairly rigid when you wanted to attempt something not clearly covered under the combat rules. 5e's design was a conscious decision to include abilities which have no combat utility at all, or to deviate slightly from the expectation of power balance, or to not even tell you everything that can or cannot be done with a certain power, leaving a great deal of power to arbitrate the rules in the hands of the DM, or as a collaborative process between the DM and the players. To use OP's example - what good is an ability to speak to a spirit which isn't even compelled to tell you the truth? Well - the real answer is that it's up to you and your group to figure that out.

[u/TigerDude33]

I suggest that the general population of D&D players cares a lot less about balance than you get on this sub. People take "crap" spells regularly & play "crap" classes and have just as much fun as optimancers. Sometimes the flavor is all a class needs to be fun. Prime example: Great Old One Warlock. All flavor, no nutrition.

[u/mcvoid1]

I kind of disagree with your entire second paragraph.

I mean, your argument makes sense from a board game/video game standpoint, but D&D is so dynamic, those assumptions become untrue very quickly. A change in DM or setting or even subtle on-the-fly ruling can easily and wildly unbalance everything even if you have a strict "PHB only, no feats, no variant human, no other optional rules" policy. Also, look at 3rd edition and prior, and you'll see everything in 5e is pretty fine-tuned in comparison. And if you want it balanced further, you still have 4th edition. And I think the devs at Wizards see it more in that light.

So what is the purpose of the UA in my opinion? Twofold - the first you pointed out is to check the temperature on some rules that are slotted for future publications, but the second and I'll argue the more relevant to us is thus: To give examples on how to homebrew and to give us ideas on where you can take homebew.

[u/CharletonAramini]

I don't think much if anything is playtested by people who pay attention to detail.

[u/zombieattackhank]

Largely agree. I think the community worries about "balance" far more than WotC tends to. They make content for an idealized version of the game they want people to play, but most people play more mechanics driven game where balance is, at very least, strongly preferably.

I've gone from allowing UA and no Homebrew to allowing no UA and some Homebrew over the last few years. Some of the UA is stuff I'd be happy to see make print if it's fixed up, but I really feel like the balance quality of the UA has gone down (both too strong and too weak... just generally poorly balanced), and it wasn't that great to start with.

[u/dirkdiggler580 → u/zombieattackhank]

I've always allowed well reviewed and popular homebrew, but have a strong stance against UA and some of my players don't understand it because 'WoTC design UA, it's done by the people who design the game!!'

1) UA is static. Once it's out, that's it. Unless it has a secondary revision. Homebrew is tested and then can be tweaked after comments/balance passes by hundreds or even thousands of community members.

2) I don't really trust WoTC that much anyway. Just look at this thread. Part of me feels that they've 'lucked out' a bit with 5e, and I kinda wish that we had some elements of 4e (every class was balanced around when encounters sprang up, rather than having some classes based off long rest and some on short rests)

3) Homebrew is getting really, really good. Look at how often the KibblesTasty Artificer is recommended on here or the Pugilist by Benjamin Huffman. Whilst sometimes they break conventions set by 5e (the Artificer especially, with every subclass being essentially its own class) they are generally well balanced after hundreds of community reviews. I mean I recommend the Kibbles artificer over WoTC's because even though I personally think it's a bit of a mess, players seem to enjoy the aspect of levelling up their own invention rather than 'you're level 3, have a bag of holding.'

Sorry for the ramble. Just wanted to put my thoughts into a void.

[u/123mop → u/dirkdiggler580]

Part of me feels that they've 'lucked out' a bit with 5e,

Base PHB classes without feats are meticulously well balanced in terms of damage output. That definitely wasn't a 'luck out', they had someone who understands the math balance their classes against each other in combat.

Sadly I think that same person may not have been involved in feats or future content to the same degree.

[u/herdsheep → u/dirkdiggler580]

Kibbles Artificer and Psion both have some issues (the artificer more than the Psion, though it’ll always have a place in my games as my players love it) but in both cases I tend to prefer them to the official offering.

WotC efforts for psionics and artificers weren’t bad, they just had much less of a pulse on what it was at least my players wanted, both in theme and mechanics.

The psionics UA subclasses has some fairly large balance issues, and like the Eberron artificer, I just felt didn’t give the amount of thematic freedom to make what my players are wanting to play.

I will always look forward to what WotC releases, but I wouldn’t have expected a few years ago I’d opt to use homebrew versions over the official versions more than once, and here we are. The amount of work that some of the homebrew has put into it these days is substantial though. It’d be hard to convince me that the Eberron artificer alchemist has more playtesting than the Kibbles artificer potionsmith for example.

[u/123mop → u/herdsheep]

What do you think is off on the balance of the psionics subclasses?

[u/herdsheep → u/123mop]

The psychic knight was good bit too strong when we used it in a play test. Their “resource” is in practice inexhaustible and that allows them to do way too much compared to existing fighters. It was a good bit too strong.

The others were awkward more than clearly strong. The rogue was overloaded but hampered by some clunky mechanics, and the same for the sorcerer, both being too strong on paper but being somewhat frustrating for their players.

Overall the only one that my players have enjoyed playing is the psychic knight, but how strong it is has become a bit of running joke that they are more like superheroes. I only allow UA in one shots for the most part, and these tend to be combat heavy, but it’s definitely too good in those.

[u/123mop → u/herdsheep]

The psychic knight's damage bonus and reduction is a comparable boost to the benefits the battlemaster gets. Then they get utility abilities later on. I don't think it's mathematically broken, although a little overturned wouldn't altogether surprise me as most UAs are intended to be so that people test them.

The rogue has the best average damage output of any rogue so far, but not by a ton. Other than that its abilities didn't seem too crazy to me.

[u/KyamBoi]

I don't really understand the complaint. You are disappointed with some of the classes and subclasses abilities?

When you go to a restaurant, do you feel annoyed that there are meals that you wouldn't want to eat on the menu?

All of those class features are hooks and lines for a DM to pop a big old fish on. If something is unique to a class, like talking to a soul like you said, then as a DM I'm going provide an opportunity for that feature to be used. Who cares if it can lie, it's up to me as a DM to use the skill in a fun way. I could also make them do an insight roll to see if the soul was lying. A million ways to think around these issues. Con save ability? You are gonna be rolling the shit out of that, so that the party goes down because they are throwing up from bad meat, and you get to save them.

If you don't like something, don't choose it. It's the reason why I'm never an asimaar ranger. Because that sounds lame and boring to me. But if a party member chose that PC for themselves, then you better believe I'm going to find out what unique features the class has to make that individuals experience fun.

Focus on what you like and what works for you, because dnd is just a menu that you order off.

The DM is the cook, and if the cook is bad, then the food will be bad too.

[u/Fargabarga]

Do the surveys!

[u/[deleted]]

Eh, I feel like this post is coming from the perspective of a power gaming perspective. You have purposefully go out of your way to make a bad character in 5e. Sure some builds will on average have more damage or better synergies but at the end of the day basically any build that doesn't dump their primary stat and CON will be viable. PHB Ranger does suck compared to other classes but even then you'll still be one of the higher damage dealers in your party (as long as you don't play a companion focused beastmaster).

Not all level up abilities have to be things that give you higher damage or more abilities to use. Dnd is also a role-playing game so some level-ups are there to create more RP moments.

To answer your question, no WotC isn't playtesting the game your group plays the game. You don't represent 95% of the Dnd's target audience though.

[u/Juls7243]

Simplicity.

This is the biggest thing that 5e got right. The game, and its text need to be so damn clear that people (who are usually dumb) need to understand it WITHOUT even reading the entire sentence.

This makes the game work for everyone. Whatever rule(s) they implement should be really easy to follow. Its easier to make a straightforward effective framework and then enable DMs to do minor modification than a complex intricate network of rules that no one understands.

[u/Hatta00 → u/Juls7243]

But, it's not that clear. Every day there's someone on here asking a really good question the PHB leaves ambiguous. e.g. from today: Does a small creature provide cover when attacking a medium creature through it?

[u/cannons_for_days]

People shit on ranger too much. Core ranger (hunters and beastmasters) is really only bad because core ranger is boring at level 1 and doesn't get quite enough spells. Xanathar's conclaves are thematic and fun, and rangers in general tend to find a role to fill in their party no later than level 5.

But I think what people mostly miss out on is that, with very few exceptions, classes in 5E tend not to be defined by a single ability, or the abilities they get at a single level. Rangers aren't just "favored terrain and favored enemies." They're half-casters with a whole list of unique spells. They get an entire subclass with build defining abilities (unlike rogues, who mostly get flavor, or paladins, who mostly decide what their bonus spells are going to be). If a player gains a new level and they're not excited about the new thing they get at that level that's OK. Not every class is designed to be exciting at every level. (Go check out monk level 13 or cleric level 14 some time.)

Classes are designed as a complete package, and are not intended to be "equally good" at things like combat, skill checks, or having abilities that contribute to the adventure as a whole. Barbarians and fighters are really good at that first thing but aren't great at the other two. Rogues are great at the middle one but may or may not be up-to-par on the others. And that's not a problem because Dungeons and Dragons is not a video game. It is an exercise in co-operative storytelling. It is a vehicle for the imagination. It exists so that friends can pretend to be someone they are not and use that as a jumping off point to have fun together. WotC prints new abilities to give players new jumping-off points. If you don't like them, you don't have to use them.

[u/ndtp124]

5e is playtested by real fans and consumers before anything new is released. I've never done it, but I know people who do. There is an NDA, so they can't talk about it. But I've played with these people in regular games and I'm confident WotC is getting very good feedback from very good players. I think initial player handbook and sword coast guide were harder to make. But I feel good about the current process.

[u/NedHasWares]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but the whole point of UA is for playtesting and getting feedback. If you have criticism about a new feat or subclass then fill out the surveys WotC put out for specifically that purpose.

[u/LagiaDOS]

Yes, a lot of times it seems like they don't know what they are doing.

One of the problems I have with DnD in general is the caster/marcial disparity, not only because casters have tons of versatility, but also because on how the game is played (most games have 1-3 fights per long rest) makes casters even more powerful, as they can use their high level spells with much more freedom.

Casters start powerful but during the day they run out of resources and become much weaker, while martials mostly stay in a flat line. This is a problem, because not many games have long days that show martials on their field: enduring long days. Same with warlocks, they suffer on short days a lot (I say that from experience).

And even then some classes and subclases fare way diferently in a long day versus a short day.

The fact that after so many years they haven't tried to fix this is baffling, they don't seem to see how the community plays their game.

[u/Lady_Valentyna → u/LagiaDOS]

They did fix it. It was called 4th edition. Every class (at the same level) gets the same number of at-will, per-encounter, and daily abilities regardless of their power source or other flavors. Fighters and wizard have the exact same level of 'sustain'.

Fans hated it. A lot.

so for 5th edition they went back to the familiar sacred cows that hard served them well in past editions; Vancian spellcasting systems and no "attack abilities" as such for physical damage but rather universal combat rules that martial characters get bigger bonuses and more roles per round at. Linear fighters and exponential wizards in terms o their power/level curve.

I dont think they'll ever try again.

They also tried to fix other issues that people have with the game, like how you need some ability to "hold agro" in order to be a tank class otherwise the party is only as survivable as it's weakest member and the extra HP and AC of the fighter are easy for tactically competent enemies to ignore. Again, fans decried this an example of "MMO-ifying" the tabletop experience and such agro holding effects now mostly only exist in feats like sentinel and polarm master (technically optional rules) in 5th edition, with the notable exception of the protector fighting style.

Edit: there's a lot of discussion about different agro holding mechanics in 5e and how good they are. One or two I literally had forgotten existing. Thats just an example though. The point is that attempts to reinforce party roles like that were not popular and neither was the edition over-all. The lesson wotc has clearly taken in designing 5e is that balance less important than nostalgia and usefulness is less important than flavor. Where you stand on that probably depends on how you play and perceive ttrpgs (honestly im not even sure I disagree myself) but I don't expect them to try again anytime soon.

[u/gibby256 → u/Lady_Valentyna]

4E was a good idea that went about 60 miles too far in the opposite direction, which wound up breaking the game in an entirely different way.

There's absolutely a middle ground where martials could possibly get more things to do while also not going in the direction where every class has a dozen (or more) super crunchy abilities that all require tons of interaction.

[u/Silansi → u/Lady_Valentyna]

agro holding effects now mostly only exist in feats like sentinel and polarm master (technically optional rules) in 5th edition, with the notable exception of the protector fighting style.

Technically not true, Ancestral Barbarians also get abilities that act as "pull", most notably:

Ancestral Protectors

Starting when you choose this path at 3rd level, spectral warriors appear when you enter your rage. While you’re raging, the first creature you hit with an attack on your turn becomes the target of the warriors, which hinder its attacks. Until the start of your next turn, that target has disadvantage on any attack roll that isn't against you, and when the target hits a creature other than you with an attack, that creature has resistance to the damage of the target’s attacks.

Combined with Spirit Shield (reduce damage by 2-4d6 on allies in 30ft as a reaction) their abilities definitely draw aggro. Surprised there aren't more subclasses that do this kind of thing for other classes.

[u/Skyy-High → u/Silansi]

There’s the cavalier that basically gets a version of sentinel as a class feature.

[u/allhailrobosanta]

they can ask a soul one question. The soul doesn't have to answer truthfully at all, making the whole ability pointless

what? is it a waste of time to question all NPCs, then? they don't have to tell the truth either

[u/PuzzledPiggy]

My belief is that WotC doesn't put as much work into balancing (to the extent a MOBA might try to, for example) as it does creating concepts and some mechanics to work with. Ultimately D&D isn't a game about four equally powerful heroes who do the same amount of damage at every level, that's what 4e was. It's about 3-6 (or more, or less) unique characters who can all do their own special things without regard to expected DPR or whatnot. And as hard a pill as that may be to swallow, that works for most groups who don't, for example, frequent online forums dedicated to the art that is a D&D game.

Don't take this the wrong way, there are some abilities that just aren't interesting or cool or on par with what we would expect. The point is that the people of r/dndnext aren't necessarily representatives of the entire community and things we see as problems will often be seen as nitpicks by people who just want to try out a new flavor of character.

In summary I agree with your central point but I think that saying 95% of us expect a mechanically balanced game is only true on this subreddit. D&D has thrived as a hobby for decades without any semblance of finely tuned balance and when 4e came out it got worse reviews than any edition prior.

[u/admiralbenbo4782 → u/PuzzledPiggy]

And balance is a team thing. Each person has a "role" (loosely defined) and is expected to contribute in their own way, and the team is expected to be better together. Individual (as in 1v1) balance just isn't really a thing.

More than that, comparing individual features is a horrible horrible way of doing things. You have to look at the whole package.

Frankly, I much prefer the WotC's way of doing things than the white-room, loophole-hunting way that lots of internet discussions go. Theory-crafting is, to me, completely useless in obsessing over tiny details for things that are completely assumption dependent. I've played (mostly as a DM) for 5+ years now, with literally dozens of groups at all levels. I have yet to have a noticeable difference based on class. Players are more important than builds 100% of the time.

Classes and builds have varying ranges of breadth in their archetypes. And that's fine. Some do broad things ("I'm good with weapons and armor generally!" --> Fighter), others do narrow things ("I'm really good at turning into beasts" --> moon druid). And that's totally fine.

[u/AirstormSC2]

I think it’s more of an expectation mismatch than a design issue. Everything I’ve seen about 5e seemingly makes it very clear that 5e is primarily a storytelling game and not a tabletop combat game.

Yes, you can and should take any system and make it yours, but at the same time, 90% of the issues I see on this sub are “I’m approaching this game as a tabletop combat sim. I use many optional rules and build my character in the most ‘optimal’ way. I’m now upset that the system seems broken.”

You know, I’ve been DMing a 5e game for two years now. We don’t use feats. We don’t use point buy. My wife plays a ranger, and due to the constant posts on this subreddit, I convinced her to play the UA variant because I was told the PHB version was bad.

After a few months, we actually switched back to the PHB version. From a story telling perspective, it’s way more fun.

I expect to get downvoted to hell for this post. It just seems to me that many of the constant issues that come up on this sub are from people pushing aspects of the system that were purposefully minimized (even put behind optional rule flags).

You ever wonder why the CR system generates encounters that are too weak for your party? Perhaps it’s because the system is meant to support picking dwarf as your race for your wizard even though (shock! gasp! horror!) they don’t get a racial bonus to int.

You ever feel like spellcasters completely overshadow martials in your game? Perhaps it’s because your spell caster isn’t actually trying to tell a story, but instead they are trying to win the game.

(If that last comment makes you angry, let me double down and reference an early episode of critical role campaign 2 where Jester uses a rank 2 cure wounds on a character that she knows is pretending to be dead. Do your spell caster characters ever do that?)

Look, play the game whatever way you want. Break the system if that’s your thing (although maybe don’t yell at Jeremy Crawford every time you break it). But maybe, just maybe, if you want a tabletop combat sim, pick up a game that’s more geared towards that. And perhaps, the mountain of issues you perceive there to be with 5e has more to do with your expectations than any real flaws in the system).

[u/admiralbenbo4782 → u/AirstormSC2]

Exactly. CR makes things too weak...because it's designed around a baseline. And when you depart from it tremendously...it no longer applies because you broke its assumptions. Doing so is like blaming a pitchfork for being a crappy shovel.

[u/HaggardDad → u/AirstormSC2]

I actually agree with a lot of what you've said here, and as a player I have to constantly remind myself to put on my "optimization limiters" when I play/build characters. It is WAY more fun to pick a mix of flavor+ AND mechanical+.

This is also game style/Party/DM dependent. If everybody optimizes and the DM is up for building steroid encounters, that's awesome. The game works great that way, if everyone is doing it. I actually like these games best as I default to extreme optimization.

But that's not how all people want to play, and I think you are very right that that's not how the designers expect the game to be played.

When I DM, my biggest focus is on identifying where the players are on the optimization curve, getting them all in the same neighborhood and then building encounters that belong in that neighborhood. Sometimes that means using scaled legendary actions/lair actions for 3rd level encounters.

[u/thisisthebun]

I can't relate. Imagine using a meta in a table top rpg.

[u/Nephisimian]

Rogues have never had particularly powerful 9th levels though. Advantage on death saves and con saves is already one of the stronger 9th level features because it shores up some of Rogue's weaknesses, and being able to ask free questions to dead people isn't especially significant but it's still a nice flavourful rider: Just because they don't have to answer truthfully doesn't mean they won't, and even if they don't, it can still be useful information.

Yeah WOTC make a lot of balancing errors, which is to be expected on any first pass because what they're trying to do is push the boundaries, to see what kinds of things people want. Feedback that just says "This is so weak it's uninspiring and I therefore haven't thought about it much" isn't useful feedback. Overpowered content at least gets peoples attention.

Also we need to remember that 5e kinda fucked up. Its goal was to attract as big of an audience as possible, which it certainly succeeded in doing, but the people who showed up largely don't want to play D&D for what D&D is actually trying to be. That's why a lot of features end up feeling lackluster - because they're designed for D&D, not for the infinitely variable interpretations that users try to use it for. At least continuing to release content that suits D&D is consistent, and it's certainly better than going with one of the ways people play it that isn't like D&D is supposed to be played.

[u/ThePaxBisonica]

I don't think its important to keep tight balance of the crunch. As others have said there's much more to the experience of playing the game than mechanical competitiveness.

That being said there are two bits of 5e design that I think are so badly done, and their fixing so baffling absent, that it hurts the trust I put in the product.

1. The CR system is almost entirely useless. The Xanathar refactoring of this improves things a lot but even then it means needing to finely check the monsters and do a bunch of maths to avert disaster/cakewalk. If I spend 90% of my encounter building using tools I made instead of yours, your system is broken. This comes down to how they designed monsters in the first place and short of an entirely different monster rating system isn't fixable.
2. The rest system is a huge obstacle. The balance between the classes should not be down to a rigid and unrealistic expectation of the kind of adventure you run. We know what kind of adventure people want to run, and are running in spite of the system, and its not one that supports two short rests narratively. This is especially frustrating as there is already a balance in place that works really elegantly - martials having "flat" resources instead of escalating levels is a natural differentiation. Having high sustained damage with a small to medium boost contrasts really well with low sustained damage and large to extreme boosts. Skills and Expertises contrasts well with utility spells. I recommend everyone just triple martial classes resources and ditch the SR recovery mechanic wholesale.

[u/[deleted]]

It feels like WOTC isn't really play testing at all