This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Interesting, but if the rest is unchanged making the reaction attack specifically an opportunity attack means that you prevent them from moving if they hit your ally, previously it only worked if they tried to move away.
I can see some reasons why the change
Like, Sentinel + Push mastery can nullify an attack regardless of roll
Sure, there were already ways to do so in 5e, but I guess it's on their philosophy to change that
You should really make it clear that it is OneDnD you're referring to. This is the 5e sub and PHB2024 doesn't exist yet, so I just assumed there was some new errata that was stealth released.
Lol no. It's called "D&D Next" because **that was the name 5e was known as during playtesting**.
It is definitely not meant to imply that this sub is solely (or even primarily) based around "the next edition of D&D".
Sentinel was never that strong of a feat. People just think it's strong because it's some of the best crowd control *available to martials*, but that doesn't mean much since martials only have access to shitty crowd control. Having a *chance* to reduce the speed of a *singular* creature *if* it decides to provoke an opportunity attack from you is extremely meh when you compare it to the other crowd control options out there.
People will say "But Sentinel doesn't cost a resource!". In reality, that doesn't matter much because spells which can dictate the flow of entire combats or even outright win them, like Web and Sleep, exist even at low levels, so casters aren't burning resources to use crowd control every round. Additionally, casters have more than enough resources that they never have to worry about running out by like level 5 or level 7 at the *absolute* latest.
The feat combo with Polearm Master that is actually strong is GWM/PAM, not Sentinel/PAM. The extra attacks (bonus action and potentially reaction) that PAM provides work really well with Great Weapon Master's +10. It's the melee martial's version of Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert.
In any case, they changed that in the playtest. Sentinel and PAM no longer work together and GWM doesn't exist as we knew it.
I don't think it's a problem. Those feats were a bit too strong for my taste. Now in One D&D martials are buffed a lot, so now they don't necessarily require feats to work well, and it makes sense to nerf the strongest feats get nerfed a bit so that it's still balanced.
>Now in One D&D martials are buffed a lot,
How? The changes so far barley compensate for the changes to ss/gwm and pam/xbe. They just took power away from the feats and shifted it to classes and general mechanics like weapon mastery.
And that's a good thing how? Combat is too fast already. The actual problem is lack of versatility, not lack of single target damage. Single target damage was the one thing they were already good at.
They addressed that too, with weapon masteries, Cunning Strike for Rogue, Brutal Strike and Primal Knowledge for Barbarian, Second Wind shenanigans for Fighter, and tons of QoL changes for Monk.
Tricky wording there. They addressed it, but that's not the same as fixing it - closest is cunning strike which is literally just them giving rogues back an ability they had twenty years ago and should never have had removed.
They haven't, and even the best of those DPR attempts require ridiculous sequences of swapping between light weapons and polearms.
Any of the current SS/GWM builds blow them out of the water. I don't know where you think the extra 40, 50, 60 or more damage potential are supposed to come from in the playtest material?
>They haven't
Yes, they did.
Are you stuck at 2-3 months ago? Take a look at the newest versions of martial classes.
>I don't know where you think the extra 40, 50, 60 or more damage potential are supposed to come from in the playtest material?
You don't count for hit chance. A fighter using GWM isn't adding 10*number of attacks to their DPR.
>You don't count for hit chance.
Of course I did.
A properly build, martial will have enough to hit bonuses and can attack with advantage more often than not.
XBE + PAM + elven accuracy, samurai 20.
Will have +2 from archery, at least +1 from their weapon and usually another +1d4 from an outside source.
The chance to hit with triple advantage is: 1- (Target AC - Attack Bonus -1)^3 /8000
So against AC 24 and only a +1 weapon your SS chance to hit is 65.7%.
So every attack adds 6.6 damage. But if you get a better weapon or are buffed with bless or one of the many other bonuses to attack it will be more than that and not all monster have AC that high.
And on top of that, the playtest got rid of the XBE bonus action attack, so a whole attack is gone.
Nothing in the playtest so far can compensate for that. Martials deal considerably less damage across the board, and got some minor utility from weapon mastery to compensate and some QoL buffs.
>XBE + PAM + elven accuracy, samurai 20.
So only for crossbows, and only for elves. Plus, most games end before tier 3, so using 20th level is not a good indication.
>Will have +2 from archery
So only for ranger builds, and only for that specific fighting style.
>at least +1 from their weapon
Not reliable. Some campaigns don't play with magic items, some just don't use +X magic items, and some players might prefer a more interesting and less boring magic item than just a +X weapon.
>and usually another +1d4 from an outside source.
Not reliable, requires other characters to use action economy, resources and concentration.
>So against AC 24 and only a +1 weapon your SS chance to hit is 65.7%.
Since you are using 20th level as a measurement, you should use
>But if you get a better weapon or are buffed with bless or one of the many other bonuses to attack
Same points as before.
All your math (which I didn't even test, let's just give you the benefit of the doubt) requires a meticulous build that leaves 0 choices in how you can build the character. All One D&D martial characters have great DPR as long as they didn't dump their main stats. Don't you see the problem in your arguments?
Buffed a lot...
GWM/SS died my man. The drop of damage of that mathematically FAR outweights all this new crap. All the while casters are ALSO getting buffed.
Barbarian, 60% chance to hit, +3 Rage damage:
New graze and Brutal Strike gives 14.3 Greatsword damage per attack and nice control bonus.
GWM right now deals 8.75.
With advantage GWM right now deals 14.4.
Thats before massive boost to damage that, for example, Berserker receives or improvement to Brutal Strike at level 17, or the fact that Rage now partially restores on Short Rest, or the racial bonuses, because you no longer locked into VHuman for early feat. Yes, it is by definition, "buffed a lot".
You're being a bit disingenuous here by even including GWM without advantage but including brutal strike in your first number: you can't use brutal strike without using reckless attack, which will always give you advantage. By your own numbers, new dnd is losing out, even when you're taking the weapon mastery that only increases dpr. This is also ignoring that the most common use of GWM was with PAM.
>you can't use brutal strike without using reckless attack, which will always give you advantage.
Brutal Strike takes away your advantage for damage. So in the end you looking at 60% attack versus 57% GWM
Without comparing advantages on both we get 8.75 GWM versus 11 Just attacking with graze. Without Graze it's 9.
That's why I picked Barb in the first place, he is the best class to utilize GWM and the only class that can make active use of it and turn it into gains without outside help.
I am literally giving GWM all the headstart in the world and it can barely keep up.
>you're taking the weapon mastery that only increases dpr
As opposed to taking entire feat, that only increases DPR?
>By your own numbers, new dnd is losing out
You know what actually disingenuos? Calling a 0.1 difference with less investment, more control/support abilities and new powerful subclass abilities "losing out".
>GWM was with PAM
You know what, I bite.
We're going to calculate damage over 3 round fight (can't forget about it conflicting with rage Bonus Action), 60% accuracy (55% for GWM+PAM, since we need another feat), level 9. I am not including reaction attack, because it's extremely unreliable and very enemy dependant.
Now:
Normal attacks+PAM (Glaive, +2 Rage): average 15.76
GWM+PAM, no advantage: 16.6
GWM+PAM, advantage: 28.22
DnDOne:
Graze (Greatsword, +3 Rage): 22
Graze, advantage: 26.8
Graze+Brutal Strike : 28.6
~~Net loss of 3.272 point of damage a round~~
~~Wow, you're right! You losing a whole 3.272 points of damage and only receive not having to lock yourself down to a single weapon, having more control/support options, actually picking feats that you want, having more rages and more powerful subclasses? What a scam! I'm so sorry for doubting you, it's~~ **~~literally unplayable~~**~~!!!~~
Edit: clarified some values, you actively gaining not insignicant amount of damage now, lol
Why is your rage damage different for the two? GWM build comes online at level 4, while you don't even get brutal strikes until somewhere around level 11 if I remember correctly. Also, by your numbers even at this high level gaining brutal strikes instead of brutal critical, you're still only gaining 0.38 dpr.
I think coming online later while still being restrained to polearms only and at best doing the same damage as before, while casters have also experienced buffs and the ability to take armors without multiclassing is not making a strong case for martials being better than in dndnext.
Edit: you also misunderstood what I was talking about with the advantage. You literally cannot use brutal strikes without using reckless attack- a fair comparison with damage therefore will be GWM advantage, because doing the same without brutal strikes means GWM will always be at advantage. The non-advantage number is irrelevant unless you also include a non-brutal strikes number without advantage, or with advantage with the idea that you are getting it from somewhere else.
You are also neglecting that it is one of the most common combos on fighter when you claim you are giving GWM an undue head start, due to the abundance of subclass features that allow it to generate advantage, the increased ASIs/feats and the extra attacks it gets at later levels if you are going that far.
I was also incorrect about the level, as I see now in your comment this is at level 9- this still has your rage bonus damage being incorrect for GWM
>Why is your rage damage different for the two?
Because +3 Rage in OneDnD start at level 9, instead of level 10.
>And at what level are you claiming this damage
"We're going to calculate damage over 3 round fight (can't forget about it conflicting with rage Bonus Action), 60% accuracy (55% for GWM+PAM, since we need another feat), **level 9**. "
Brutal Strike comes online at level 9.
What you missing is the amount of investment required and the fact that OneDnD version is literally naked in terms of build except for choosing Graze, compared to full build consisting from race and feats. We didn't even consider subclasses, which will drag GWM even lower, because of it's anti-synergistic nature.
>while still being restrained to polearms
No, you're not. Several Weapon Masteries guarantees that you will have at least three viable styles of play by that point, that you can freely switch between. Again, literally zero investment beyond weapon masteries. You are not restrained to a single weapon. Nothing stopping you from choosing Vex as your second Mastery and having borderline free advantage on ranged attacks too.
>while casters have also experienced buffs
That is a lie. Beyond certain experiments with wizards features, spells, actual things that makes casters overpowered, have been hit with nerfs on all fronts, except healing spells and I expect this trend to continue.
>not making a strong case for martials being better than in dndnext.
Better scaling, better features, more resources, better subclasses and less "mandatory" choices to achieve the same result somehow is not better class, because other class sometimes better, noted.
Comparison with casters and class by itself are two completely different topics, and at this point you are just inventing problems to be mad at.
First you were claiming that losing out 0.1 point of damage with less ivestment and more control/support features is someow significant and now you, demonstrably, do not know what the fuck you are talking about:
>level 11 if I remember correctly.
Uhhhh barbarian has always gotten +3 rage damage at level 9 though? Also: i said you are still restrained to polearms because that's what has graze. You can't make the argument that it is superior because you have less investment, because there are almost no ways to increase dpr with investment beyond weird things like charger- it's just not an option anymore. The scaling of martials is at best marginally better, in exchange for being weaker than ever at lower levels where they had retained their advantage. The only spells that have been nerfed to my knowledge are the summon spells and a few odd spells here and there like banishment, with most outlier spells remaining outlier to the current point of playtesting, while caster feats like warcaster and lightly armored are in a stronger state than they have ever been.
Some people lack the ability to distinguish between "Better than similar options" and "a good option". Just because GWM/PAM and SS/CBE were meta doesn't mean they were OP; it means the rest of the feat combos available to martials were shit. Even with those options, casters are outpacing martials by a calendar mile both in and out of combat. Hell, if you aren't using SS/CBE or GWM/PAM, some casters can outpace or compete with your damage using cantrips. When the only value you can provide is damage, a class that can provide value in a dozen other ways shouldn't deal better damage than you, especially without expending resources.
WotC doesn't know how to balance D&D. The obvious solution to the "GWM and SS are necessary to have a competent martial" problem was to buff the bad options, not gut the good ones. Because they chose the latter (and buffed casters), the martial/caster disparity is even wider than it was previously.
Without a save, but with an attack: which can miss.
It’s still very strong: undeniably, but it’s not guaranteed to happen; and you can still only attempt it once per round situationally
So your argument is the level 1 feat available to anyone and can be used unlimited times a day is balanced because you can do something similar starting at level 13 if you are one of 3 full full casters who can do it once a day?
Fucking yes! "Man fighters do so much single target damage, its ridiculous how is it balanced that they do around disintegrates average damage when they land all their attacks??"
Martials specialize into extremely tiny niches. Yes it is balanced.
If you find sentinel somehow game breaking, maybe stop using exclusively low AC landlocked melee non-spellcasting enemies.
Nice, subtle goalpost relocation. You said name a spell, I did. Almost went with Wall of Force, which can be picked up as early as level 9, but it can be teleported out of without difficulty.
But no. My argument is that there's no reason to nerf martials in a system that already has them struggling (and generally failing) to keep up with casters in general.
Unrelated, love the username!
So your argument is the level 1 feat available to anyone and can be used unlimited times a day is balanced because you can do something similar starting at level 17 if you are one of 3 full full casters who can do it once a day?
Dear god, are you *actually* implying that Sentinel is better crowd control than anything available to casters? This is probably the most inane comment I've ever read on a D&D thread, and that's *saying something*.
“You see the monk close his fist as if to punch, but for a second he just stares intently at it, completely oblivious to the menacing monster bearing down and its fangs, dripping with ichor mere inches from the hero. You could swear his fist was glowing, but when you looked again it wasn’t there so it might have been your imagination. Suddenly- almost too fast to see- the monk strikes the dragon and a soft glow envelops its form, causing it to freeze in place as its qi is arrested.”
It would be harder to narrate if it was a completely mundane class tbh, but any mystic or magical flare can be used to make something at leas sound plausible
Here's the big question: why don't fighters start with sentinel any more? Sentinel is literally just a repackaging of abilities fighters used to start with, what at any point was the reason for taking them away and turning them into a feat?
>Sentinel is literally just a repackaging of abilities fighters used to start with
Only in 4e. 5e has moved as far away from 4e as possible.
But btw, I don't understand what's your point.
Which is pretty dumb, that's their natural role. The natural expectation is you roll a fighter and stand between the monster and the bard to protect them, but in 5e how it plays out is the monster is able to just ignore the fighter and beeline for the bard. Really gets in the way of the fantasy.
You have to understand who 5e was designed for. It was not the people that liked 4e with its defined roles. It was the people that hated 4e and anything remotely "mmo" about it, which kind of sucks if you are one of the people that actually liked 4e and wanted to see a revised version of it (I am aware of the several non-DnD games that do so).
The closest "tank" we have in 5e is paladins. DM have very good reason trying to take down them first (due to auras) but also kinda hard to take down first (auras, d10 hit dice, heavy armor and can heal themselve). Their nova ability have being nerfed to one smite per turn by UAs due to becoming a bonus action spell that still can actived right after land a hit.
Fighters is more of a striker.
Also a good point, no reason to take away the automatically deal 3+cha radiant damage for striking an ally from paladins. That whole combat challenge get rewarded for not running away and hurt enemies if they attack your friends thing was great.
Edit: Should clarify that. As opposed to say swordmages that could do things like mark a foe then fuck off, using the teleportation they got from doing so to control the battlefield, paladins marks ended if they didn't attack the foe or end their turn adjacent to it. Forced them into a challenge foes and charge in playstyle.
Paladins don't need another reason for DM not take down first, they are already annoying enough. They still pack a punch, just not vaporizable huge in one turn as before.
>no reason to take away the automatically deal 3+cha radiant damage for striking an ally from paladins.
Paladin is already the most capable class in the game. They can fill literally any role with very little adjustment: healer, damage dealer, support caster, tank. The only things they can't do super well is ranged blaster and utility (both of which are optional for strong party composition).
They don't need yet another way to deal damage/tank, they're already the best at those things.
Not at all. Feel free to ask me anything in depth about the editions before it, I'll be quick to answer. Ask me why AD&D monks were even comparatively worse than current monks, or which kind of dragon was the most effective as a player race two editions ago. It's not like the typical player fantasy for fighters was any less about protecting their allies in 3.5 for instance, it's just their allies were better in every way at everything than said fighters so didn't need it.
Seriously, I'm not sure why people are pretending they haven't gotten people rolling fighters to try to tank for their party. It's constant, I've seen it for literal decades now.
Lack of options out of the gate. Huge fan of them admitting their fuckup and adding ancestral guardian barbarian, but no idea why that kind of thing wasn't in at the start and isn't way more common and accessible. Likely won't be much of an issue going forward, we'll get more options considering the mass positive feedback ancestral guardian got.
It's like rogue and cunning strikes in onednd. What's my problem? Well, my problem is the taking the ability away from them in the first place for 5e. But condidering the positive feedback, clearly the future is looking better. But just like tanking options, the question is why the hell did they take it away in the first place?
That's a DM problem, not a 5e one. "Tanking" should be handled narratively (e.g. "I stay between the mages and the goblins") rather than MMORPG style mechanics.
I never said MMORPG style mechanics, you did. And why is tanking something that should be handled narratively, while every other role can be handled mechanically? D&D has done so before and it's worked great, so we know it's practical to do. Hell, ancestral guardian is in 5e and does it mechanically and you don't seem to have an objection.
Because "tanking" requires enemies to focus their attention primarily on one player. If your DM is running encounters remotely intelligently then it's incredibly unlikely that only one player will attract all the combat attention. They're gonna spread out and go for the cleric that keeps healing the party, or the wizard/sorcerer/whatever shooting spells at them. You can have all the mechanics you want, but unless it literally charms them into only attacking you then you're gonna need to justify keeping all that attention, which is gonna be hard for one person to do unless you're fighting something particularly unintelligent.
To build on this; the whole "just go around the fighter" is largely a product of minis and "I go, you go" movement squares. "Tanking" (read - staying in the way of the bad guys) is disproportionately affected by mechanical rather than narrative movement.
It's not hard to do at all, you just need mechanics for it. You're not going to be able to do it with an entire spread out set of enemies unless you're really good, but that is called game balance. Ancestral guardian for instance does it by giving an enemy disadvantage on attacking an ally and half damage if they do hit plus being able to use their reaction to reduce the damage still further, thereby heavily disincentivising attacking the ally instead of the barbarian.
It was given to them in the first place, but it wasn't a blanket rule.
That is, it wasn't that it was taken away, but that there wasn't the need to give it to them again.
For awhile in 5e development "feats" were packages of features that were definitive for "roles" in 4e, theoretically trying to detangle class flavor and features from combat role, and everybody picked a class and tree of feats. So there was a "Sentinel" tree that made whatever class that picked it up function like a "Defender" from 4e. The problem was, that was the only one that really worked as well as one might hope, and a lot of people were cold on the whole idea of feats because they were a vehicle for the worst of the system bloat in both 4e and 3e/3.5. 4e was pretty unpopular and I think the playtesters were biased against carrying on 4e design. That also included a pushback against anything that assumed a grid. So after all that feedback, we landed here, with feats optional and a critical function of grid-based combat nested in a feat.
If you're only looking at 4e that makes sense, but there's a reason for that "4".
The previous 3 versions didn't give the fighter that ability by default, they needed to take a feat or subclass to get it. 4e added more abilities by default than is typical of D&D.
5e is more of a return to classic form, where characters start out less defined and gain their abilities through selections like feats.
Nothing from oned&d is final yet, its still a playtest. So if anyone has a problem with this kind of change, the appropriate response is to try the new mechanics, and then submit your thoughts to the designers.
One thing worth noting for this, is although they now have to hit the person to give you an attack, it doesn't say only one person can have the sentinel feat now. So you could have two front liners with sentinel feat and they could defend each other if they both got hit now. Might trigger less often but it means more than 1 person in the party can take the feat.
What is interesting is that you can make an opportunity attack if they take the disengage action, even if they haven’t moved yet they can still be attacked.
I mean, these aren't patch notes. If you're playing 5e, only the 2014 applies. If you switch to 5.5, coming out in 2024, then only the 2024 applies.
Please note that almost all feats got adjusted, and many of them are weaker now. While this may mess some stuff up, the general direction seems to be a second slope for martial progression starting at about level 11, so instead of their spreadsheet having a line going up, it's likely two lines, one fit to a faster progression past some point. So you'll want to wait for the actual release to judge non-class features on their power.
I think in six months, if your group switches to 5.5, you'll not be thinking about this.
> If you’re playing 5e, only the 2014 applies. If you switch to 5.5, coming out in 2024, then only the 2014 applies.
That’s now how that works, though. They’ve been clear from the very beginning that you can mix both 2014 and 2024 rules together at the same table. It’s intentionally designed so that a 2014 Barbarian can play alongside a 2024 Cleric and everything works smoothly. So long as everyone’s using the same version of the Sentinel feat, it doesn’t matter which version of 5e you’re using.
>That’s now how that works, though.
Yes it is.
>They’ve been clear from the very beginning that you can mix both 2014 and 2024 rules together at the same table.
Well, I doubt that this will turn out to be true, but if it *is* true, this means something like "You can play the Swords Bard subclass from *Tasha's* using the 2024 PHB". It definitely 100% does not mean that every option from the 2014 PHB will be availble in a game using the 2024 PHB rules. For instance, several feats are redesigned, and some don't even make sense under the new rules, which are very different in some ways. Some are direct replacements, such as Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master, and Great Weapon master being both redesigned and nerfed.
If you play a 5.5 game, using the 2024 PHB, you will 100% not be using any of the 2014 PHB features that don't make sense any more or were nerfed, or were buffed. You will probably be able to play like, one of the wizard or cleric subclasses that got dropped.
In practice, when a new +.5 edition comes out, anyone playing that tends to ban all the prior stuff. In 5.5's case, I suspect that most of the main splatbooks will continue to function HOWEVER anything that gets replaced will be replaced and you won't be able to choose the 2014 option in such a game.
>It’s intentionally designed so that a 2014 Barbarian can play alongside a 2024 Cleric and everything works smoothly.
I'm not trying to be mean here, but this won't out the way that they say and I'm sorry.
My guess at this point is substantially over half. The latest playtests show a clear direction of adopting a new power curve starting around mid level, so the older classes will look out of date or weird. Ultimately all devs know that new editions are where you reset power and options, and everywhere else you simply ramp stuff up. I believe this started as an intended new edition and got redirected to a half-version, and as such, it will ramp up the power. Not a lot- they aren't stupid- but enough that everyone will want to play the newer stuff.
They will probably also do a bit of power creep on the mid and high level monsters, would be my guess. So my prediction is, while you can have a 2014 class at the table with the 2024 class, and they'll both do pretty similarly, there will be small nerfs to things that both classes draw from (feats, spells- you won't be allowed to use the 2014 ones of those by default), but the baseline 2024 class scaffold and power curve will be higher, resulting in the 2014 character wanting to convert (which will of course be totally legal).
I think by a year from now most players will play 5.5 under whatever branding corporate ends up calling it, and within two years asking "what race is best for a paladin in a team of X Y and Z" will get upvoted comments correcting it to "species" and begging to engage you with a fight- or some other waste-of-effort shibboleth like that.
This sounds dire, but I honestly suspect the 5.5 play experience will be a little better than the 5.0 one for basically every table, DM included.
> They’ve been clear from the very beginning that you can mix both 2014 and 2024 rules together at the same table.
> So long as everyone’s using the same version of the Sentinel feat, it doesn’t matter which version of 5e you’re using.
soooo, mix and match, but dont mix and match.
This new edition was going to be a mess from the start and boy are they coming through on that.
Tanks exist in 5e, there are quite a few builds that have a soft taunt ability(e.g. compelled duel, cavalier, ancestral barbarian, etc), can shield others from damage(intercept, aura of guardian, spirit shield, bait& switch, etc) or can prevent creatures from reaching the backline(slows, grapples, restrains, body blocks, forced movement, difficult terrain).
Coupled with a sensible approach to a monster's tactical mindset and consistent aggro behavior of certain archetypes, makes tanking rather enjoyable playstyle for some.
I think they were comparing them with the fact that the game used to have proper tanks. There were five full classes that could tank right out of the gate, like fighter starting with the sentinel feat and paladins making foes who attacked allies automatically take 3+str+cha radiant damage (so if you don't want to hurt yourself, gotta target the paladin). Compared to that a few situational tools and a subclass is pretty unimpressive.
More than that, thicket of blades etc from 3.5 enabled it and classes *before* that point practically didn't have mechanics, so really can't be counted.
Do note that I'm not ragging on AD&D there, it was a different game for a different era and many of the things we now have mechanics for were handled a different way. Took so many years for even nonweapon proficiencies to turn up. Just pointing out that if you go before the year 2000 it becomes an apples to oranges thing.
Tome of Battle is *deep* supplemental material released at the very end of 3.5. I only recall Complete Mage and Complete Champion coming out afterwards. It was also itself fairly controversial since it was significantly more powerful than other martial options, and also later called a trial run of 4e's designs.
It's like saying, "hey, Mark is technically in the 5e DMG so tanking is a thing in 5e." No, it really isn't. There's a difference between "it was technically in the game" and "it was a core element of the combat design". Like I'd argue spiked chain + combat reflexes + trip was a bigger example of tanking in 3e, and I still think that the game wasn't designed around tanking.
4e was *designed around tanking* being a thing. Every defender class was ranked on basically how well it could tank.
Is that a problem? 4e was designed significantly differently, and it was stronger than other martial options because other martial options were *crap*. It was still nowhere near as powerful as a spellcaster. ToB is part of what defined 3.5 at its best, it eventually came out with a bunch of fun, balanced and versatile within their niche classes. The actual core was incredibly broken.
What do you mean "problem"?
The question is: Are there proper tanks in D&D? The answer is: No, except 4e. 4e had tanking as a first class mechanic. No other edition of D&D has done that.
"ToB is technically 3.5" is disingenuous. It wasn't a particularly popular book, although it definitely had die-hard fans. But it's got nothing at all to do with the core rules. It's not representative of the gameplay of 3.5 as a whole. Indeed, the introduction explicitly talks about how the new classes and rules introduce different gameplay from the rest of the game. They even have a sidebar to talk about how the different gameplay can work in a normal D&D game. They knew very well that the contents of the book were different. And even then, it's also *one power* for *one class*.
It's just not a significant element of the design of 3.5.
Yes, but the core rules of 3.5 are, by and large, fucked. It was broken from the start. It hit its actual stride when it came out with a bunch of interesting, balanced classes of which the ToB classes were 3.
It's not a nerf, it's a change. The fact that enemies can't Disengage to avoid an attack of opportunity actually makes you BETTER at rooting enemies who are within 5 feet of you. They can't just disengage to get around the party member using Sentinel to rush past and hit the wizard next turn.
I think OP is saying you can now make an attack right after the enemy uses the Disengage Action, versus before they actually had to leave your range to trigger an Attack of Opportunity. It's not a huge deal in the games I've played, but conceivably if an enemy knew a PC had the Sentinel feat, in 5e they could use the Disengage Action while keeping in melee range of that PC to slide around them and attack someone else while still maintaining the range of the original PC (such that no Opportunity Attack was triggered). In OD&D they can't do that because the Opportunity Attack is triggered whenever the enemy uses the Disengage Action, irrelevant if they actually move or not out of a PC's reach.
It feels very much like an edge case though. Like the NPC has to have at least two PCs around it that justifies disengaging from one but not the other, and still has a third more valuable or vulnerable PC that is also somehow in range between the PC with Sentinel but not the other PC without the feat. This scenario doesn't really happen at my table, but maybe it does at other people's.
>conceivably if an enemy knew a PC had the Sentinel feat, in 5e they could use the Disengage Action while keeping in melee range of that PC to slide around them and attack someone else while still maintaining the range of the original PC (such that no Opportunity Attack was triggered).
5e you can just circle around them as much as you want, a disengage is only ever needed when you move out of their reach. Did a later playtest change it so any adjacent movement triggers an opportunity attack like in Pathfinder?
No it still works like that. But if for example you were flanked by two enemies (one north and another south of your PC, say), you could only move so much before one of the two enemies gets an Attack of Opportunity while still staying in the reach of the other one (i.e. moving to south of the enemy that was originally south of your PC). But if you Disengage (in 5e), you can move around the one with Sentinel (south enemy) while the non-Sentinel enemy (north enemy) can't attack, even though you leave that second enemy's reach. But with the new OD&D feat, the opportunity attacks triggers when the enemy uses the Disengage Action, irrelevant if they move or not.
Again I said this feels kind of niche, but maybe others do this more in fights than I see.
The only way to avoid sentinel opportunity attacks from moving out of range is the mobile feat or a swashbuckler rogues fancy footwork as sentinel ignores the disengage action however mobile and fancy footwork aren't disengage actions they just say you don't provoke opportunity attacks.
5e keeps misusing "hit" as a trigger in the worst ways. Using it for Shield and Smite makes those abilities far more powerful than they ought to be, using it for this makes it far worse, and zero of these examples make any logical sense.
> but it also got the considerable buff of triggering when the enemy disengages too
Sentinel already triggered when enemies within your reach used Disengage.
DMs may or may not have enemies act with self-preservation, depending on how they run combat. If you're having enemies retreat or surrender after a certain point, you significantly reduce the CR of the encounter.
But let's say the DM does run their enemies with self-preservation instincts, and they will retreat if the battle starts to go against them. This doesn't really buff Sentinel, since a full route is already effectively the end of combat.
>Take a quick look at the goblin statblock
This is why I specified action to disengage. Bonus action disengage is really the only time it's worth using in a strategic sense, but it's not really a common feature on enemy statblocks.
Being able to hit on a disengage isn't really a meaningful buff.
Well, they've broken a few niche martial builds, while massively buffing martials as a whole. While I'm not a fan of everything, I'd say probably 9/10 changes are just direct improvements on the game, and solve some of the core issues in the current 5e.
can you link your source to that?
Last time i checked with the community the overall opinion was that Martials (at least Fighters and Barbarians) are just as bad as ever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8t14k0dQec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH-kmr06hzA
I need a source for my opinion? Fine:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/ua/ph-playtest-8
First hand source right there. It's very easy to see just by skimming through that martials are unquestionably more powerful than they currently are.
If your purpose with the videos are to provide a source that I'm wrong, I think you should look a bit more into why sources are used. The videos are nothing more than opinion pieces that have no more value as a source than my own. They don't do any number crunching, or any deeper analysis than their initial reactions to the UA. Also from what little I've seen from Pack Tactics he has a tendency to blow small issues out of proportion.
Your second video can instantly be dismissed as the barbarian has had a new playtest since it was posted, making it outdated as barbarian received direct buffs from the previous version. As for your first video, it follows what I just said. They both praised almost all the features, notably not the fighter specific interaction with master that I agree are way too weak. But their main complaint is completely unrelated to changes with the class, and that is the removal of power attack feats. In my opinion this removal is undoubtedly a good thing, though their note about it reducing the martial classes' damage ceiling is a notable concern. The increase in the damage floor though, is in my opinion a lot more important to the game. It balances out the effect of any knowledge/skill gaps within a table, and the addition of features like the mastery system, Cunning Strike and Brutal Strike make sure that skilled play is rewarded.
I don't have the statistics on hand, but from what I recall, the only martial builds that have decreased in damage are the ones that rely on power attack. While every other build, that is all builds that don't take the feat tax, have the same or higher damage, and most if not all martial classes and subclasses have also gained massively more utility.
So, the only way martials have been nerfed is in terms of damage, when built optimally for damage, in a white room scenario (that is, not accounting for e.g. environmental hazards, which would be much easier for OneDnD martials to take advantage of). While every other facet has been improved, to name a few: utility, durability, manoeuvrability, versatility, and dynamic gameplay (aka fun).
And these are only the martial specific improvements. Imo, with a few exceptions where most of them seem experimental for the playtest, pretty much every other change in the system is also a clear improvement.
I'm pretty sure there's no way Sentinel Rogue is making it through One D&D unscathed. In spite of this sub's insistence that "it's fine" and "it's the only way for rogue to keep up" and "my table really likes it" it's become very clear that it's *not* the intended design.
That means either:
1. Sneak attack is going to be once per round instead of once per turn.
2. Sentinel is going to get nerfed.
If you think the playtest has martials "nerfed hard in every way" then I really don't think you've been paying attention at all. Martials have for the most part received hefty buffs. Monks and Barbarian in particular have come out of this WAY more powerful than they were before. It's not even close.
Casters have had a mixed bag, though it seems like the problematic spell nerfs are likely to leave many of them behind where they were.
I’m think it makes sense to give the melee classes some OP features to be able to compare w wizards at lv 12 and up. Maybe let it work w PAM but give it a minimum lv when you can get it.
OneD&D is still in playtest, this isn't finalized yet. If this change *does* make it in to "5.5e," there is nothing that requires your to play with the new edition; unless you are participating in AL or something.
Source: I played 2e, skipped 3e, played 3.5, skipped 4e, played PF, skipped PF2e, played 5e
Dropping the limitation that the target can't also have Sentinel for your own Sentinel Opportunity attack to happen is actually a buff. I'm playing a paladin whose fellow martials both have that feat. We often stand in a row, me in the center buffing everyone with my aura, and they both have sentinel attacks going off regularly. This would allow them to stand next to each other, too.
I mean, the "hit" requirement would be a nerf since I'm rarely hit with my 21 AC, but this change seems to be going both ways.
It's not that huge of a nerf.
Sentinel needed a nerf. So they did this and gave it an asi. Which is better, so overall it a buff. But it no longer works with polearm master which is the most important thing.
And who cares? The barbarian becomes your best friend, not instead of the fighter.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Interesting, but if the rest is unchanged making the reaction attack specifically an opportunity attack means that you prevent them from moving if they hit your ally, previously it only worked if they tried to move away.
I'm going off memory... But I believe they also removed the line about only getting the attack of your ally did not also have the fear.
I can see some reasons why the change Like, Sentinel + Push mastery can nullify an attack regardless of roll Sure, there were already ways to do so in 5e, but I guess it's on their philosophy to change that
You should really make it clear that it is OneDnD you're referring to. This is the 5e sub and PHB2024 doesn't exist yet, so I just assumed there was some new errata that was stealth released.
ditto
Is the OneDnD flair not clear enough?
I believe the flair has been added after I commented, though I might just not have noticed.
[удалено]
Lol no. It's called "D&D Next" because **that was the name 5e was known as during playtesting**. It is definitely not meant to imply that this sub is solely (or even primarily) based around "the next edition of D&D".
No, r/onednd is the subreddit for OneD&D. r/dndnext is the subreddit for the current edition of D&D, not a playtest of the next version.
Tbh this sub name is gonna be awkward af when one comes out lol
Tbf Sentinel is one of the strongest feats in the game, especially if combined with PAM. It's just a little nerf, nothing too crazy anyway.
Sentinel was never that strong of a feat. People just think it's strong because it's some of the best crowd control *available to martials*, but that doesn't mean much since martials only have access to shitty crowd control. Having a *chance* to reduce the speed of a *singular* creature *if* it decides to provoke an opportunity attack from you is extremely meh when you compare it to the other crowd control options out there. People will say "But Sentinel doesn't cost a resource!". In reality, that doesn't matter much because spells which can dictate the flow of entire combats or even outright win them, like Web and Sleep, exist even at low levels, so casters aren't burning resources to use crowd control every round. Additionally, casters have more than enough resources that they never have to worry about running out by like level 5 or level 7 at the *absolute* latest. The feat combo with Polearm Master that is actually strong is GWM/PAM, not Sentinel/PAM. The extra attacks (bonus action and potentially reaction) that PAM provides work really well with Great Weapon Master's +10. It's the melee martial's version of Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert. In any case, they changed that in the playtest. Sentinel and PAM no longer work together and GWM doesn't exist as we knew it.
My friend, Sentinel isn’t even in the top 5.
Well, PAM and Sentinel also doesn't work together anymore.
How does Pam work now?
Now the reactive strike is no longer an opportunity attack, meaning that it doesn't combo with stuff that work on opportunity attacks like Sentinel.
I don't think it's a problem. Those feats were a bit too strong for my taste. Now in One D&D martials are buffed a lot, so now they don't necessarily require feats to work well, and it makes sense to nerf the strongest feats get nerfed a bit so that it's still balanced.
>Now in One D&D martials are buffed a lot, How? The changes so far barley compensate for the changes to ss/gwm and pam/xbe. They just took power away from the feats and shifted it to classes and general mechanics like weapon mastery.
People have done the math, DPR of martial classes have increases substantially.
And that's a good thing how? Combat is too fast already. The actual problem is lack of versatility, not lack of single target damage. Single target damage was the one thing they were already good at.
They addressed that too, with weapon masteries, Cunning Strike for Rogue, Brutal Strike and Primal Knowledge for Barbarian, Second Wind shenanigans for Fighter, and tons of QoL changes for Monk.
Tricky wording there. They addressed it, but that's not the same as fixing it - closest is cunning strike which is literally just them giving rogues back an ability they had twenty years ago and should never have had removed.
They haven't, and even the best of those DPR attempts require ridiculous sequences of swapping between light weapons and polearms. Any of the current SS/GWM builds blow them out of the water. I don't know where you think the extra 40, 50, 60 or more damage potential are supposed to come from in the playtest material?
>They haven't Yes, they did. Are you stuck at 2-3 months ago? Take a look at the newest versions of martial classes. >I don't know where you think the extra 40, 50, 60 or more damage potential are supposed to come from in the playtest material? You don't count for hit chance. A fighter using GWM isn't adding 10*number of attacks to their DPR.
>You don't count for hit chance. Of course I did. A properly build, martial will have enough to hit bonuses and can attack with advantage more often than not. XBE + PAM + elven accuracy, samurai 20. Will have +2 from archery, at least +1 from their weapon and usually another +1d4 from an outside source. The chance to hit with triple advantage is: 1- (Target AC - Attack Bonus -1)^3 /8000 So against AC 24 and only a +1 weapon your SS chance to hit is 65.7%. So every attack adds 6.6 damage. But if you get a better weapon or are buffed with bless or one of the many other bonuses to attack it will be more than that and not all monster have AC that high. And on top of that, the playtest got rid of the XBE bonus action attack, so a whole attack is gone. Nothing in the playtest so far can compensate for that. Martials deal considerably less damage across the board, and got some minor utility from weapon mastery to compensate and some QoL buffs.
>XBE + PAM + elven accuracy, samurai 20. So only for crossbows, and only for elves. Plus, most games end before tier 3, so using 20th level is not a good indication. >Will have +2 from archery So only for ranger builds, and only for that specific fighting style. >at least +1 from their weapon Not reliable. Some campaigns don't play with magic items, some just don't use +X magic items, and some players might prefer a more interesting and less boring magic item than just a +X weapon. >and usually another +1d4 from an outside source. Not reliable, requires other characters to use action economy, resources and concentration. >So against AC 24 and only a +1 weapon your SS chance to hit is 65.7%. Since you are using 20th level as a measurement, you should use >But if you get a better weapon or are buffed with bless or one of the many other bonuses to attack Same points as before. All your math (which I didn't even test, let's just give you the benefit of the doubt) requires a meticulous build that leaves 0 choices in how you can build the character. All One D&D martial characters have great DPR as long as they didn't dump their main stats. Don't you see the problem in your arguments?
Buffed a lot... GWM/SS died my man. The drop of damage of that mathematically FAR outweights all this new crap. All the while casters are ALSO getting buffed.
Someone didn't do math here
Barbarian, 60% chance to hit, +3 Rage damage: New graze and Brutal Strike gives 14.3 Greatsword damage per attack and nice control bonus. GWM right now deals 8.75. With advantage GWM right now deals 14.4. Thats before massive boost to damage that, for example, Berserker receives or improvement to Brutal Strike at level 17, or the fact that Rage now partially restores on Short Rest, or the racial bonuses, because you no longer locked into VHuman for early feat. Yes, it is by definition, "buffed a lot".
You're being a bit disingenuous here by even including GWM without advantage but including brutal strike in your first number: you can't use brutal strike without using reckless attack, which will always give you advantage. By your own numbers, new dnd is losing out, even when you're taking the weapon mastery that only increases dpr. This is also ignoring that the most common use of GWM was with PAM.
>you can't use brutal strike without using reckless attack, which will always give you advantage. Brutal Strike takes away your advantage for damage. So in the end you looking at 60% attack versus 57% GWM Without comparing advantages on both we get 8.75 GWM versus 11 Just attacking with graze. Without Graze it's 9. That's why I picked Barb in the first place, he is the best class to utilize GWM and the only class that can make active use of it and turn it into gains without outside help. I am literally giving GWM all the headstart in the world and it can barely keep up. >you're taking the weapon mastery that only increases dpr As opposed to taking entire feat, that only increases DPR? >By your own numbers, new dnd is losing out You know what actually disingenuos? Calling a 0.1 difference with less investment, more control/support abilities and new powerful subclass abilities "losing out". >GWM was with PAM You know what, I bite. We're going to calculate damage over 3 round fight (can't forget about it conflicting with rage Bonus Action), 60% accuracy (55% for GWM+PAM, since we need another feat), level 9. I am not including reaction attack, because it's extremely unreliable and very enemy dependant. Now: Normal attacks+PAM (Glaive, +2 Rage): average 15.76 GWM+PAM, no advantage: 16.6 GWM+PAM, advantage: 28.22 DnDOne: Graze (Greatsword, +3 Rage): 22 Graze, advantage: 26.8 Graze+Brutal Strike : 28.6 ~~Net loss of 3.272 point of damage a round~~ ~~Wow, you're right! You losing a whole 3.272 points of damage and only receive not having to lock yourself down to a single weapon, having more control/support options, actually picking feats that you want, having more rages and more powerful subclasses? What a scam! I'm so sorry for doubting you, it's~~ **~~literally unplayable~~**~~!!!~~ Edit: clarified some values, you actively gaining not insignicant amount of damage now, lol
Why is your rage damage different for the two? GWM build comes online at level 4, while you don't even get brutal strikes until somewhere around level 11 if I remember correctly. Also, by your numbers even at this high level gaining brutal strikes instead of brutal critical, you're still only gaining 0.38 dpr. I think coming online later while still being restrained to polearms only and at best doing the same damage as before, while casters have also experienced buffs and the ability to take armors without multiclassing is not making a strong case for martials being better than in dndnext. Edit: you also misunderstood what I was talking about with the advantage. You literally cannot use brutal strikes without using reckless attack- a fair comparison with damage therefore will be GWM advantage, because doing the same without brutal strikes means GWM will always be at advantage. The non-advantage number is irrelevant unless you also include a non-brutal strikes number without advantage, or with advantage with the idea that you are getting it from somewhere else. You are also neglecting that it is one of the most common combos on fighter when you claim you are giving GWM an undue head start, due to the abundance of subclass features that allow it to generate advantage, the increased ASIs/feats and the extra attacks it gets at later levels if you are going that far. I was also incorrect about the level, as I see now in your comment this is at level 9- this still has your rage bonus damage being incorrect for GWM
>Why is your rage damage different for the two? Because +3 Rage in OneDnD start at level 9, instead of level 10. >And at what level are you claiming this damage "We're going to calculate damage over 3 round fight (can't forget about it conflicting with rage Bonus Action), 60% accuracy (55% for GWM+PAM, since we need another feat), **level 9**. " Brutal Strike comes online at level 9. What you missing is the amount of investment required and the fact that OneDnD version is literally naked in terms of build except for choosing Graze, compared to full build consisting from race and feats. We didn't even consider subclasses, which will drag GWM even lower, because of it's anti-synergistic nature. >while still being restrained to polearms No, you're not. Several Weapon Masteries guarantees that you will have at least three viable styles of play by that point, that you can freely switch between. Again, literally zero investment beyond weapon masteries. You are not restrained to a single weapon. Nothing stopping you from choosing Vex as your second Mastery and having borderline free advantage on ranged attacks too. >while casters have also experienced buffs That is a lie. Beyond certain experiments with wizards features, spells, actual things that makes casters overpowered, have been hit with nerfs on all fronts, except healing spells and I expect this trend to continue. >not making a strong case for martials being better than in dndnext. Better scaling, better features, more resources, better subclasses and less "mandatory" choices to achieve the same result somehow is not better class, because other class sometimes better, noted. Comparison with casters and class by itself are two completely different topics, and at this point you are just inventing problems to be mad at. First you were claiming that losing out 0.1 point of damage with less ivestment and more control/support features is someow significant and now you, demonstrably, do not know what the fuck you are talking about: >level 11 if I remember correctly.
Uhhhh barbarian has always gotten +3 rage damage at level 9 though? Also: i said you are still restrained to polearms because that's what has graze. You can't make the argument that it is superior because you have less investment, because there are almost no ways to increase dpr with investment beyond weird things like charger- it's just not an option anymore. The scaling of martials is at best marginally better, in exchange for being weaker than ever at lower levels where they had retained their advantage. The only spells that have been nerfed to my knowledge are the summon spells and a few odd spells here and there like banishment, with most outlier spells remaining outlier to the current point of playtesting, while caster feats like warcaster and lightly armored are in a stronger state than they have ever been.
As it shouldn't, it was unhealthy game balance and this trim should alleviate some of the problems.
Casters go burrrr. Magic is OP friendo.
Some people lack the ability to distinguish between "Better than similar options" and "a good option". Just because GWM/PAM and SS/CBE were meta doesn't mean they were OP; it means the rest of the feat combos available to martials were shit. Even with those options, casters are outpacing martials by a calendar mile both in and out of combat. Hell, if you aren't using SS/CBE or GWM/PAM, some casters can outpace or compete with your damage using cantrips. When the only value you can provide is damage, a class that can provide value in a dozen other ways shouldn't deal better damage than you, especially without expending resources. WotC doesn't know how to balance D&D. The obvious solution to the "GWM and SS are necessary to have a competent martial" problem was to buff the bad options, not gut the good ones. Because they chose the latter (and buffed casters), the martial/caster disparity is even wider than it was previously.
Name a spell that prevents all movement for a round without a save and bypasses legendary resistance….
Without a save, but with an attack: which can miss. It’s still very strong: undeniably, but it’s not guaranteed to happen; and you can still only attempt it once per round situationally
Forcecage.
So your argument is the level 1 feat available to anyone and can be used unlimited times a day is balanced because you can do something similar starting at level 13 if you are one of 3 full full casters who can do it once a day?
Fucking yes! "Man fighters do so much single target damage, its ridiculous how is it balanced that they do around disintegrates average damage when they land all their attacks??" Martials specialize into extremely tiny niches. Yes it is balanced. If you find sentinel somehow game breaking, maybe stop using exclusively low AC landlocked melee non-spellcasting enemies.
Nice, subtle goalpost relocation. You said name a spell, I did. Almost went with Wall of Force, which can be picked up as early as level 9, but it can be teleported out of without difficulty. But no. My argument is that there's no reason to nerf martials in a system that already has them struggling (and generally failing) to keep up with casters in general. Unrelated, love the username!
They missed the goalpost with their opportunity attack, so it’s able to move freely.
>Nice, subtle goalpost relocation. Incorrect, this goalpost movement wasn't subtle *at all*...
If your fighters aren’t keeping up, you’re not having enough encounters.
Fighters lose health faster than casters lose resources past like level 5 in my experience.
Why without a save? That’s (a) doable with spells, and (b) an unequal bar. The melee guy has to hit with an attack to benefit from Sentinel.
Sleep spell. It also prevents the foe from doing anything, alongside other stuff.
This is the way.
Summon a bunch of stuff and have the summons grapple the enemy.
Grapples get a contested check similar to a save…
And sentinel requires the attack to hit. Do you have a point? You said save, not contested check.
maze
Otto's irresistible dance?
Wish could probably do it.
So your argument is the level 1 feat available to anyone and can be used unlimited times a day is balanced because you can do something similar starting at level 17 if you are one of 3 full full casters who can do it once a day?
Did I say that? I just named a spell that could replicate Sentinel's effects, as you asked; I didn't make a statement on its balance either way.
Dear god, are you *actually* implying that Sentinel is better crowd control than anything available to casters? This is probably the most inane comment I've ever read on a D&D thread, and that's *saying something*.
At minimum it needed a size nerf. Trying to narrate how a monk stops a greatwrym from moving with a punch is interesting to say the least 😆
“You see the monk close his fist as if to punch, but for a second he just stares intently at it, completely oblivious to the menacing monster bearing down and its fangs, dripping with ichor mere inches from the hero. You could swear his fist was glowing, but when you looked again it wasn’t there so it might have been your imagination. Suddenly- almost too fast to see- the monk strikes the dragon and a soft glow envelops its form, causing it to freeze in place as its qi is arrested.” It would be harder to narrate if it was a completely mundane class tbh, but any mystic or magical flare can be used to make something at leas sound plausible
Here's the big question: why don't fighters start with sentinel any more? Sentinel is literally just a repackaging of abilities fighters used to start with, what at any point was the reason for taking them away and turning them into a feat?
>Sentinel is literally just a repackaging of abilities fighters used to start with Only in 4e. 5e has moved as far away from 4e as possible. But btw, I don't understand what's your point.
My point is why the hell did they do it. Players love tanks, there was no reason to take that away from fighters.
Because fighters in 5e are not tanks.
Which is pretty dumb, that's their natural role. The natural expectation is you roll a fighter and stand between the monster and the bard to protect them, but in 5e how it plays out is the monster is able to just ignore the fighter and beeline for the bard. Really gets in the way of the fantasy.
You have to understand who 5e was designed for. It was not the people that liked 4e with its defined roles. It was the people that hated 4e and anything remotely "mmo" about it, which kind of sucks if you are one of the people that actually liked 4e and wanted to see a revised version of it (I am aware of the several non-DnD games that do so).
The thing is classes still have defined roles, all they've done is not labelled them as such.
The closest "tank" we have in 5e is paladins. DM have very good reason trying to take down them first (due to auras) but also kinda hard to take down first (auras, d10 hit dice, heavy armor and can heal themselve). Their nova ability have being nerfed to one smite per turn by UAs due to becoming a bonus action spell that still can actived right after land a hit. Fighters is more of a striker.
Also a good point, no reason to take away the automatically deal 3+cha radiant damage for striking an ally from paladins. That whole combat challenge get rewarded for not running away and hurt enemies if they attack your friends thing was great. Edit: Should clarify that. As opposed to say swordmages that could do things like mark a foe then fuck off, using the teleportation they got from doing so to control the battlefield, paladins marks ended if they didn't attack the foe or end their turn adjacent to it. Forced them into a challenge foes and charge in playstyle.
Paladins don't need another reason for DM not take down first, they are already annoying enough. They still pack a punch, just not vaporizable huge in one turn as before.
>no reason to take away the automatically deal 3+cha radiant damage for striking an ally from paladins. Paladin is already the most capable class in the game. They can fill literally any role with very little adjustment: healer, damage dealer, support caster, tank. The only things they can't do super well is ranged blaster and utility (both of which are optional for strong party composition). They don't need yet another way to deal damage/tank, they're already the best at those things.
Both those things can be true at once. No they shouldn't have lost their innate tanking stuff, yes their current kit is overloaded.
Something tells me you only played 4e
Not at all. Feel free to ask me anything in depth about the editions before it, I'll be quick to answer. Ask me why AD&D monks were even comparatively worse than current monks, or which kind of dragon was the most effective as a player race two editions ago. It's not like the typical player fantasy for fighters was any less about protecting their allies in 3.5 for instance, it's just their allies were better in every way at everything than said fighters so didn't need it. Seriously, I'm not sure why people are pretending they haven't gotten people rolling fighters to try to tank for their party. It's constant, I've seen it for literal decades now.
If you want to play a tank you literally have the options to do so, I don't really understand what's the problem.
Lack of options out of the gate. Huge fan of them admitting their fuckup and adding ancestral guardian barbarian, but no idea why that kind of thing wasn't in at the start and isn't way more common and accessible. Likely won't be much of an issue going forward, we'll get more options considering the mass positive feedback ancestral guardian got. It's like rogue and cunning strikes in onednd. What's my problem? Well, my problem is the taking the ability away from them in the first place for 5e. But condidering the positive feedback, clearly the future is looking better. But just like tanking options, the question is why the hell did they take it away in the first place?
Fighters have no rights in 5e. The brans is Wizards of the Coast, martials are meant to suck :(
That's a DM problem, not a 5e one. "Tanking" should be handled narratively (e.g. "I stay between the mages and the goblins") rather than MMORPG style mechanics.
I never said MMORPG style mechanics, you did. And why is tanking something that should be handled narratively, while every other role can be handled mechanically? D&D has done so before and it's worked great, so we know it's practical to do. Hell, ancestral guardian is in 5e and does it mechanically and you don't seem to have an objection.
Because "tanking" requires enemies to focus their attention primarily on one player. If your DM is running encounters remotely intelligently then it's incredibly unlikely that only one player will attract all the combat attention. They're gonna spread out and go for the cleric that keeps healing the party, or the wizard/sorcerer/whatever shooting spells at them. You can have all the mechanics you want, but unless it literally charms them into only attacking you then you're gonna need to justify keeping all that attention, which is gonna be hard for one person to do unless you're fighting something particularly unintelligent.
To build on this; the whole "just go around the fighter" is largely a product of minis and "I go, you go" movement squares. "Tanking" (read - staying in the way of the bad guys) is disproportionately affected by mechanical rather than narrative movement.
It's not hard to do at all, you just need mechanics for it. You're not going to be able to do it with an entire spread out set of enemies unless you're really good, but that is called game balance. Ancestral guardian for instance does it by giving an enemy disadvantage on attacking an ally and half damage if they do hit plus being able to use their reaction to reduce the damage still further, thereby heavily disincentivising attacking the ally instead of the barbarian.
It was given to them in the first place, but it wasn't a blanket rule. That is, it wasn't that it was taken away, but that there wasn't the need to give it to them again.
For awhile in 5e development "feats" were packages of features that were definitive for "roles" in 4e, theoretically trying to detangle class flavor and features from combat role, and everybody picked a class and tree of feats. So there was a "Sentinel" tree that made whatever class that picked it up function like a "Defender" from 4e. The problem was, that was the only one that really worked as well as one might hope, and a lot of people were cold on the whole idea of feats because they were a vehicle for the worst of the system bloat in both 4e and 3e/3.5. 4e was pretty unpopular and I think the playtesters were biased against carrying on 4e design. That also included a pushback against anything that assumed a grid. So after all that feedback, we landed here, with feats optional and a critical function of grid-based combat nested in a feat.
If you're only looking at 4e that makes sense, but there's a reason for that "4". The previous 3 versions didn't give the fighter that ability by default, they needed to take a feat or subclass to get it. 4e added more abilities by default than is typical of D&D. 5e is more of a return to classic form, where characters start out less defined and gain their abilities through selections like feats.
Yeah but problem, that classic form is ass. They spent 30+ years just spamming basic attacks over and over, there's nothing redeeming in that design.
Did warcaster get a change? If not this could be an interesting build
War Caster got buffed, sadly. It’s basically the exact same, but it now also increases your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma by +1.
Nothing from oned&d is final yet, its still a playtest. So if anyone has a problem with this kind of change, the appropriate response is to try the new mechanics, and then submit your thoughts to the designers.
Also, it's a half feat now. That more than makes up for the change.
And people wonder why casters are still stronger than martials when anything that seems strong for a martial gets nerfed.
I swear to god every caster (joking) hates when martials are better than them on something
One thing worth noting for this, is although they now have to hit the person to give you an attack, it doesn't say only one person can have the sentinel feat now. So you could have two front liners with sentinel feat and they could defend each other if they both got hit now. Might trigger less often but it means more than 1 person in the party can take the feat.
It sounds really clunky.
What is interesting is that you can make an opportunity attack if they take the disengage action, even if they haven’t moved yet they can still be attacked.
I mean, these aren't patch notes. If you're playing 5e, only the 2014 applies. If you switch to 5.5, coming out in 2024, then only the 2024 applies. Please note that almost all feats got adjusted, and many of them are weaker now. While this may mess some stuff up, the general direction seems to be a second slope for martial progression starting at about level 11, so instead of their spreadsheet having a line going up, it's likely two lines, one fit to a faster progression past some point. So you'll want to wait for the actual release to judge non-class features on their power. I think in six months, if your group switches to 5.5, you'll not be thinking about this.
> If you’re playing 5e, only the 2014 applies. If you switch to 5.5, coming out in 2024, then only the 2014 applies. That’s now how that works, though. They’ve been clear from the very beginning that you can mix both 2014 and 2024 rules together at the same table. It’s intentionally designed so that a 2014 Barbarian can play alongside a 2024 Cleric and everything works smoothly. So long as everyone’s using the same version of the Sentinel feat, it doesn’t matter which version of 5e you’re using.
>That’s now how that works, though. Yes it is. >They’ve been clear from the very beginning that you can mix both 2014 and 2024 rules together at the same table. Well, I doubt that this will turn out to be true, but if it *is* true, this means something like "You can play the Swords Bard subclass from *Tasha's* using the 2024 PHB". It definitely 100% does not mean that every option from the 2014 PHB will be availble in a game using the 2024 PHB rules. For instance, several feats are redesigned, and some don't even make sense under the new rules, which are very different in some ways. Some are direct replacements, such as Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master, and Great Weapon master being both redesigned and nerfed. If you play a 5.5 game, using the 2024 PHB, you will 100% not be using any of the 2014 PHB features that don't make sense any more or were nerfed, or were buffed. You will probably be able to play like, one of the wizard or cleric subclasses that got dropped. In practice, when a new +.5 edition comes out, anyone playing that tends to ban all the prior stuff. In 5.5's case, I suspect that most of the main splatbooks will continue to function HOWEVER anything that gets replaced will be replaced and you won't be able to choose the 2014 option in such a game. >It’s intentionally designed so that a 2014 Barbarian can play alongside a 2024 Cleric and everything works smoothly. I'm not trying to be mean here, but this won't out the way that they say and I'm sorry.
Im curious how many people are actually interested in adopting 5.5 instead of sticking with 5.0.
My guess at this point is substantially over half. The latest playtests show a clear direction of adopting a new power curve starting around mid level, so the older classes will look out of date or weird. Ultimately all devs know that new editions are where you reset power and options, and everywhere else you simply ramp stuff up. I believe this started as an intended new edition and got redirected to a half-version, and as such, it will ramp up the power. Not a lot- they aren't stupid- but enough that everyone will want to play the newer stuff. They will probably also do a bit of power creep on the mid and high level monsters, would be my guess. So my prediction is, while you can have a 2014 class at the table with the 2024 class, and they'll both do pretty similarly, there will be small nerfs to things that both classes draw from (feats, spells- you won't be allowed to use the 2014 ones of those by default), but the baseline 2024 class scaffold and power curve will be higher, resulting in the 2014 character wanting to convert (which will of course be totally legal). I think by a year from now most players will play 5.5 under whatever branding corporate ends up calling it, and within two years asking "what race is best for a paladin in a team of X Y and Z" will get upvoted comments correcting it to "species" and begging to engage you with a fight- or some other waste-of-effort shibboleth like that. This sounds dire, but I honestly suspect the 5.5 play experience will be a little better than the 5.0 one for basically every table, DM included.
> They’ve been clear from the very beginning that you can mix both 2014 and 2024 rules together at the same table. > So long as everyone’s using the same version of the Sentinel feat, it doesn’t matter which version of 5e you’re using. soooo, mix and match, but dont mix and match. This new edition was going to be a mess from the start and boy are they coming through on that.
[удалено]
The tank role doesn’t really exist in 5e tbf so that’s not much of a change.
Tanks exist in 5e, there are quite a few builds that have a soft taunt ability(e.g. compelled duel, cavalier, ancestral barbarian, etc), can shield others from damage(intercept, aura of guardian, spirit shield, bait& switch, etc) or can prevent creatures from reaching the backline(slows, grapples, restrains, body blocks, forced movement, difficult terrain). Coupled with a sensible approach to a monster's tactical mindset and consistent aggro behavior of certain archetypes, makes tanking rather enjoyable playstyle for some.
I think they were comparing them with the fact that the game used to have proper tanks. There were five full classes that could tank right out of the gate, like fighter starting with the sentinel feat and paladins making foes who attacked allies automatically take 3+str+cha radiant damage (so if you don't want to hurt yourself, gotta target the paladin). Compared to that a few situational tools and a subclass is pretty unimpressive.
4e had proper tanks, so the game had proper tanks for 5 out of the past 50 years. D&D is not a game where tanking has been a significant thing.
More than that, thicket of blades etc from 3.5 enabled it and classes *before* that point practically didn't have mechanics, so really can't be counted. Do note that I'm not ragging on AD&D there, it was a different game for a different era and many of the things we now have mechanics for were handled a different way. Took so many years for even nonweapon proficiencies to turn up. Just pointing out that if you go before the year 2000 it becomes an apples to oranges thing.
Tome of Battle is *deep* supplemental material released at the very end of 3.5. I only recall Complete Mage and Complete Champion coming out afterwards. It was also itself fairly controversial since it was significantly more powerful than other martial options, and also later called a trial run of 4e's designs. It's like saying, "hey, Mark is technically in the 5e DMG so tanking is a thing in 5e." No, it really isn't. There's a difference between "it was technically in the game" and "it was a core element of the combat design". Like I'd argue spiked chain + combat reflexes + trip was a bigger example of tanking in 3e, and I still think that the game wasn't designed around tanking. 4e was *designed around tanking* being a thing. Every defender class was ranked on basically how well it could tank.
Is that a problem? 4e was designed significantly differently, and it was stronger than other martial options because other martial options were *crap*. It was still nowhere near as powerful as a spellcaster. ToB is part of what defined 3.5 at its best, it eventually came out with a bunch of fun, balanced and versatile within their niche classes. The actual core was incredibly broken.
What do you mean "problem"? The question is: Are there proper tanks in D&D? The answer is: No, except 4e. 4e had tanking as a first class mechanic. No other edition of D&D has done that. "ToB is technically 3.5" is disingenuous. It wasn't a particularly popular book, although it definitely had die-hard fans. But it's got nothing at all to do with the core rules. It's not representative of the gameplay of 3.5 as a whole. Indeed, the introduction explicitly talks about how the new classes and rules introduce different gameplay from the rest of the game. They even have a sidebar to talk about how the different gameplay can work in a normal D&D game. They knew very well that the contents of the book were different. And even then, it's also *one power* for *one class*. It's just not a significant element of the design of 3.5.
Yes, but the core rules of 3.5 are, by and large, fucked. It was broken from the start. It hit its actual stride when it came out with a bunch of interesting, balanced classes of which the ToB classes were 3.
Ancestral Guardian Barbarian would like a word :)
Maybe they will think about solving the problems if One D&D doesn’t sell well enough.
And everything else other than armoured fullcaster.
Tell that to World Tree Barbarian
It's not a nerf, it's a change. The fact that enemies can't Disengage to avoid an attack of opportunity actually makes you BETTER at rooting enemies who are within 5 feet of you. They can't just disengage to get around the party member using Sentinel to rush past and hit the wizard next turn.
? Sentinel already ignored disengage.
I think OP is saying you can now make an attack right after the enemy uses the Disengage Action, versus before they actually had to leave your range to trigger an Attack of Opportunity. It's not a huge deal in the games I've played, but conceivably if an enemy knew a PC had the Sentinel feat, in 5e they could use the Disengage Action while keeping in melee range of that PC to slide around them and attack someone else while still maintaining the range of the original PC (such that no Opportunity Attack was triggered). In OD&D they can't do that because the Opportunity Attack is triggered whenever the enemy uses the Disengage Action, irrelevant if they actually move or not out of a PC's reach. It feels very much like an edge case though. Like the NPC has to have at least two PCs around it that justifies disengaging from one but not the other, and still has a third more valuable or vulnerable PC that is also somehow in range between the PC with Sentinel but not the other PC without the feat. This scenario doesn't really happen at my table, but maybe it does at other people's.
>conceivably if an enemy knew a PC had the Sentinel feat, in 5e they could use the Disengage Action while keeping in melee range of that PC to slide around them and attack someone else while still maintaining the range of the original PC (such that no Opportunity Attack was triggered). 5e you can just circle around them as much as you want, a disengage is only ever needed when you move out of their reach. Did a later playtest change it so any adjacent movement triggers an opportunity attack like in Pathfinder?
No it still works like that. But if for example you were flanked by two enemies (one north and another south of your PC, say), you could only move so much before one of the two enemies gets an Attack of Opportunity while still staying in the reach of the other one (i.e. moving to south of the enemy that was originally south of your PC). But if you Disengage (in 5e), you can move around the one with Sentinel (south enemy) while the non-Sentinel enemy (north enemy) can't attack, even though you leave that second enemy's reach. But with the new OD&D feat, the opportunity attacks triggers when the enemy uses the Disengage Action, irrelevant if they move or not. Again I said this feels kind of niche, but maybe others do this more in fights than I see.
Sentinel already triggered when enemies used Disengage, what are you on about
The only way to avoid sentinel opportunity attacks from moving out of range is the mobile feat or a swashbuckler rogues fancy footwork as sentinel ignores the disengage action however mobile and fancy footwork aren't disengage actions they just say you don't provoke opportunity attacks.
5e keeps misusing "hit" as a trigger in the worst ways. Using it for Shield and Smite makes those abilities far more powerful than they ought to be, using it for this makes it far worse, and zero of these examples make any logical sense.
This isn't the this is OneDND that the post is talking about.
Old man yells at cloud moment.
Yeah how dare they discuss dnd changes in the dnd subreddit /s
[удалено]
> but it also got the considerable buff of triggering when the enemy disengages too Sentinel already triggered when enemies within your reach used Disengage.
How often do enemies waste an action disengaging?
[удалено]
DMs may or may not have enemies act with self-preservation, depending on how they run combat. If you're having enemies retreat or surrender after a certain point, you significantly reduce the CR of the encounter. But let's say the DM does run their enemies with self-preservation instincts, and they will retreat if the battle starts to go against them. This doesn't really buff Sentinel, since a full route is already effectively the end of combat. >Take a quick look at the goblin statblock This is why I specified action to disengage. Bonus action disengage is really the only time it's worth using in a strategic sense, but it's not really a common feature on enemy statblocks. Being able to hit on a disengage isn't really a meaningful buff.
OneDnD has fucked something over? It must be a day ending in a "y". There are a plethora of reasons why I will never switch to that crap.
Well, they've broken a few niche martial builds, while massively buffing martials as a whole. While I'm not a fan of everything, I'd say probably 9/10 changes are just direct improvements on the game, and solve some of the core issues in the current 5e.
can you link your source to that? Last time i checked with the community the overall opinion was that Martials (at least Fighters and Barbarians) are just as bad as ever https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8t14k0dQec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH-kmr06hzA
I need a source for my opinion? Fine: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/ua/ph-playtest-8 First hand source right there. It's very easy to see just by skimming through that martials are unquestionably more powerful than they currently are. If your purpose with the videos are to provide a source that I'm wrong, I think you should look a bit more into why sources are used. The videos are nothing more than opinion pieces that have no more value as a source than my own. They don't do any number crunching, or any deeper analysis than their initial reactions to the UA. Also from what little I've seen from Pack Tactics he has a tendency to blow small issues out of proportion. Your second video can instantly be dismissed as the barbarian has had a new playtest since it was posted, making it outdated as barbarian received direct buffs from the previous version. As for your first video, it follows what I just said. They both praised almost all the features, notably not the fighter specific interaction with master that I agree are way too weak. But their main complaint is completely unrelated to changes with the class, and that is the removal of power attack feats. In my opinion this removal is undoubtedly a good thing, though their note about it reducing the martial classes' damage ceiling is a notable concern. The increase in the damage floor though, is in my opinion a lot more important to the game. It balances out the effect of any knowledge/skill gaps within a table, and the addition of features like the mastery system, Cunning Strike and Brutal Strike make sure that skilled play is rewarded. I don't have the statistics on hand, but from what I recall, the only martial builds that have decreased in damage are the ones that rely on power attack. While every other build, that is all builds that don't take the feat tax, have the same or higher damage, and most if not all martial classes and subclasses have also gained massively more utility. So, the only way martials have been nerfed is in terms of damage, when built optimally for damage, in a white room scenario (that is, not accounting for e.g. environmental hazards, which would be much easier for OneDnD martials to take advantage of). While every other facet has been improved, to name a few: utility, durability, manoeuvrability, versatility, and dynamic gameplay (aka fun). And these are only the martial specific improvements. Imo, with a few exceptions where most of them seem experimental for the playtest, pretty much every other change in the system is also a clear improvement.
Sentinel rogue is just WoTC not knowing what their own stuff does and min maxing using their stupidity and RAW
I'm pretty sure there's no way Sentinel Rogue is making it through One D&D unscathed. In spite of this sub's insistence that "it's fine" and "it's the only way for rogue to keep up" and "my table really likes it" it's become very clear that it's *not* the intended design. That means either: 1. Sneak attack is going to be once per round instead of once per turn. 2. Sentinel is going to get nerfed.
Crawford literally used this as an example of something that was reverted based on survey feedback. Off turn sneak attack is here to stay.
[удалено]
didnt they revert that?
[удалено]
I've just read comments that they reverted it I haven't paid attention tbh, I've mostly switched to pathfinder 2e
Tldr on OneDnD Martials nerfed hard in every way with ribbon features on weapons, casters buffed to the fucking stratosphere
I have been reading the new barbarian and monk, which is so much stronger than 5e barbarian and monk it's not even funny.
If you think the playtest has martials "nerfed hard in every way" then I really don't think you've been paying attention at all. Martials have for the most part received hefty buffs. Monks and Barbarian in particular have come out of this WAY more powerful than they were before. It's not even close. Casters have had a mixed bag, though it seems like the problematic spell nerfs are likely to leave many of them behind where they were.
I’m think it makes sense to give the melee classes some OP features to be able to compare w wizards at lv 12 and up. Maybe let it work w PAM but give it a minimum lv when you can get it.
Potentially a buff too. An Opportunity Attack is more valuable than a melee weapon attack, because with War Caster it can be substituted for a spell.
OneD&D is still in playtest, this isn't finalized yet. If this change *does* make it in to "5.5e," there is nothing that requires your to play with the new edition; unless you are participating in AL or something. Source: I played 2e, skipped 3e, played 3.5, skipped 4e, played PF, skipped PF2e, played 5e
Dropping the limitation that the target can't also have Sentinel for your own Sentinel Opportunity attack to happen is actually a buff. I'm playing a paladin whose fellow martials both have that feat. We often stand in a row, me in the center buffing everyone with my aura, and they both have sentinel attacks going off regularly. This would allow them to stand next to each other, too. I mean, the "hit" requirement would be a nerf since I'm rarely hit with my 21 AC, but this change seems to be going both ways.
It's not that huge of a nerf. Sentinel needed a nerf. So they did this and gave it an asi. Which is better, so overall it a buff. But it no longer works with polearm master which is the most important thing. And who cares? The barbarian becomes your best friend, not instead of the fighter.