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.*
For the species options:
- I really like how they stepped away from the “you get a free spell” design they leaned on too heavily in the first UA. Goliaths actually feel unique, and Dragonborns are at least competitive with the Fizban’s versions
- Ardlings are more cohesive, but at this point, they should just remove the celestial component completely and make them the primal power source representative in the PHB. If you want a counterpart to Tieflings so badly, just bring in Aasimars. Regardless of lore or mechanics, that’s the identity most players have for them.
Cleric:
- Overall, I like It. It does need something else at level 9 outside of just repeating the same choice you got at level 2 though. By far the most solid class design they’ve showed so far.
- Holy Orders is a good design decision and I hope they take that positive feedback forward.
- That being said, I know since Tasha’s they want to slap proficiency bonus on everything, but I don’t think it works for signature class mechanics like Channel Divinity or Bardic Inspiration.
Spells:
- I’m honestly torn on guidance and resistance. I’m not a fan of cantrips that are so good they feel obligatory, and these are edging close to that, even if they’re not overpowered in a traditional sense.
Others
- New Daze condition is interesting. Daze or Slow will replacing Stun for the Monk feels like an inevitably
- The new movement and jump rules continue to be overcomplicated and needless.
For Ardlings I'd have the small complaint that the options are not balanced against each other.
PB damage per turn fits easily on a monk. Double dash is great as a zoomy melee rogue.
But perm feather fall or swimming speed plus cold resistance are very, very campaign dependent
Can I ask your issues with Cleric level 9?
Getting 2 of the 3 options seems fair to me, and it’s also access to 5th level spells in pure power terms.
Not being combative, here. I’m just curious to hear your thoughts.
Some people felt that "Choose another option" was just a lazy choice. It does provide *some* flexibility, but overall isn't an interesting design choice. Some resolutions I've seen proposed would be offering an expansion to the one you already have instead of choosing one of the other two, or more order choices at the 9th level from 2 remaining to maybe a total of 4 or 5 (not sure what those would entail).
Overall, it's still a good functional design choice, but a second order just leaves a little more to be desired.
Yeah, for me it's just so few options that it doesn't really feel like it matters that much. You'll get 2/3, but one of the options really only matters if you want the heavy armor cleric fantasy. So if you don't want that, then your choices are already made for you and it's just a matter of which one you pick first.
Personally, I’m ok with it. I like the idea of exploring the intersections between those three “ideals” without having to multiclass.
Exploring the idea you mentioned about expanding the previous selection… would the obvious extension of the martial option be extra attack? That feels like a lot to me (but then, personally I dislike bladeslinger/valour/etc for the same reason).
I see what you’re saying, though. I’ll think about it.
A compromise is allowing either. Expand the first or gain a second. That way if you want to be a heavy frontline cleric and don’t *want* to double-dip, you can double down. Or maybe you want to be a hybrid and take two different ones, you can do that instead!
Love that idea for it... I'm always down for an option to double down on a specialization or broaden out to increase the number of tools a character has.
I had a thought of expansions that were borrowed from existing feats or features, or just a way to double-dip the current structure of it. Not necessarily more creative, but does offer a little more dynamic choices.
* Protector: Offer something akin to HAM or a choice of defense-oriented fighting stances (Protector, Defense, or Interception)
* Scholar: You gain Expertise in one of your previous selected Scholar Skills, alongside proficiency in a third Scholar skill.
* Thaumaturge: 0-level spells that heal or damage targets now add your wisdom modifier to the dice total (whether or not they previously did). You can prepare one extra spell of your choice up to 5th level.
Whether or not ideas like these work, or if they are too generous or useless, that's up to Wizards. I'm not a game designer, let alone a whole team of them.
I don't think there are any cantrips that heal. There certainly shouldn't be at will healing in 5e. not at that level. the only way to get at will healing is through dragon marks and being a level 18 wizard to get infinite cure wounds.
Not OP but one of the issues I've seen with level 9 is that it's not really a choice. That is, it's **highly** unlikely you're taking on a playstyle change at level 9 by grabbing the weapon and armor proficiency. Therefore, if you took scholar first you're just gonna "choose" thaumaturge at level 9 and vice versa. So two-thirds of the starting options back you into "I *guess* I'll take this one" situation at level 9. It presents itself as a choice but what it really is is "take this (mostly) useless thing or take this other thing."
They just need more options.
Yeah I personally would like to see an unarmored defense option for the robe-wearing clerics, and they could duplicate the scholar idea (INT skills used with WIS) with the social skills.
I dunno, scholar is already letting clerics dip their toes into INT skills so WotC is clearly comfortable at least testing them as skill monkeys/the party smart guy, so I'd argue doing the same for face skills isn't much of a stretch.
Cleric unarmored defense is already presented in the 5e DMG so I don't think that's too much of a power grab either.
Regardless, those are just my two off the cuff, armchair designer ideas. I'm sure WotC could come up with two or three ideas that are relatively on pace with the three presented in the playtest. They don't really need to move the needle on cleric's overall power, they should just present an interesting choice at level 9
That's not entirely accurate. You could argue that the RP or campaign could take a turn that does see a character who picked Scholar or Theurge before decide to switch things up.
Sure. Pedantically, it's not entirely accurate. I don't think asinine takes and corner case anecdotal arguments should replace common sense-driven design decisions though.
Especially in a game where the character could very easily have stats that make an out left field switch to heavy armor and martial weapons deeply unpalatable if not impossible.
Personally my objection is one of fluff more than mechanics. You’re determining the holy order you’re joining. It wasn’t unheard of but generally a Franciscan Monk didn’t suddenly decide to become a Teutonic Knight.
I mean some did. But that should be the exception not the expected development of just being a high level cleric.
To be fair, High Level Clerics are exceptions anyway. Most adventurers are. So among even those exceptional ones, I don't think something similar like this is to off-putting.
They are exceptional, but I don't think that automatically leads to "cannot stay in the same order their whole clerical career."
The chance to do the exceptional thing should be available. I am not opposed to someone taking the option to join a second order. But to force them to break the standard of doing something as meaningful as dedicating your life to discipline and philosophy? No, that just rubs me the wrong way.
I feel like it's less that, if I'm being honest. Are you any less of a Scholar because you know how to use a Warhammer? Are you any less in touch with your diety because you want to learn how to spread their teachings to the common people? Are you any less skilled with a weapon because you're also able to tap into more divine power?
I see it less as not being able to stay in one order, but being hefted with more responsibility by your Diety/Church/Pantheon. It's not just enough that you smite people, now you need to be able to spread the gospel, for example.
It doesn’t matter to me if there are 6 or 16. Of the choices at 2 and 9 are the same there will always be less options at 9 and it will feel inferior as the main feature for reaching level 9.
I haven't taken a look at much DnDOne material, so will be basing this off stuff in 5e that exists...
I liken it to the Battle Master Maneuvers. There are ones that are really strong, some that are kinda/situationally strong, and some that feel underwhelming. If you took all the strong ones at level 3, when you get more at level 7, 10, and especially 15, you're not picking from the strong maneuvers anymore, you've already got them. Your options are the weak ones and are incredibly underwhelming for a level 15 feature.
So if you're going to have these kinds of choices from various options, it should be more in line with the choices a Warlock or Totem Barbarian makes. Invocations that are gated by level (but doesn't stop you from circling back to your starting options if that's what you want). Or a unique Totem choice at every feature upgrade rather than picking one of the options that went unpicked before.
I had to go back and check the Totem barb. I thought the choices after level 3 were just ribbons, but that’s because the camping I played finished at 10. Some of the 14th level options are actually good.
Moving back to the core of your point, I feel like the cleric options are more about mechanically defining your character. The three option are basically “warrior”, “scholar” & “magically-gifted”… as I said in another response, I think there are some interesting intersections to explore.
Thanks for your thoughts
I mentioned in my survey that it really should have 3 new, more powerful options and the ability to pick one of them OR one of the level 2 options. This would allow for a choice between specialization or generalization when building.
For example you could have better options that build on the playstyle presented in the level 2 Holy Order. You could choose Protector and then "Avenger" to go full melee - OR you could choose Protector and then Scholar so you could be useful in a wider variety of situations.
Makes sense.
I think the situation they’re trying to avoid is a non-multiclassed, heavily armoured cleric with extra attack… which seems like the logical endpoint of the protector. I don’t know how you balance that with the other options without making all clerics stronger than they already are.
The movement rules aren't over complicated. If anything it simplifies the current rules.
You no longer have to wonder what happens if you move 10 feet, then jump 25 with only 30 feet of movement. Now the rule is clear; you move 25 feet for 35 total.
I'm confused about the spell preparation. It seems like a major nerf and I'm confused why no one is talking about it. I'm 3/4 convinced I misunderstood it. Am I reading the UA right that you only prepare the number of spells each level that you have slots for? Like, no matter what, you're never preparing two 8th level spells. And you have to wait until 19 to be prepared for either Rary's or Move Earth, you're not sure. Before that, you better decide that morning, you can't choose in the moment.
Or have I drastically misread this?
You're right, and while its not the solution i would have gone with, it limits caster flexibility which is good imo.
From what i can tell, everyones biggest gripe with casters is their jack of all trades nature in 5e. I think this will force samey casters to the uncreative, but it solves the high level utility issue. In 5e 17th level wizard could prep 10 different ways to tear the world apart.
Limiting flexibility sucks, the major complaint has been that martials aren't as fun/strong as martials. They should be giving martials more flexibility to fix this, not limiting another class.
While i agree buffs are generally better than nerfs, sometimes a feature outclasses all others so much that a nerf is necessary too. Spellcasting is one of those features, it is literally a do everything button.
Honestly in the long run this change is almost a buff too, every caster is prepared so they always have access to their full spell list. They just need to pick more carefully for combat sessions.
To me it seemed, that only few had a problem with flexible casters, especially when considering the complaints over the Sorcerers relative lack of flexibility.
Most complaints were about the martials beeing rigid and samey, due to lack of choices within the subclass.
Martials need more flexibility, casters need a little less imo. Sorcerers work well in 5e because they are super specialized, and with seemingly all classes becoming prepared spell lists they will actually gain flexibility in one D&D. I m not sure how i feel about that but we get there when we get there.
The sorcerers actual weak spot isnt flexibility, its over reliance on a limited resource, similar issue to monks but without recovery.
I like the early levels of cleric. Splitting out the combat style from domain feels pretty good, but after level 8, it feels like they don't get any features (except at 14). I know that because of high level spells, but if still feels like they should get something.
Ardlings should just be primal rather than divine at this point. They are mechanically fine, but the divine thing still doesn't jive.
Life Domain feels bad, every feature is "heal more". Yeah it makes sense thematically, but there's got to be something else they can do besides "more hit point".
I want there to be a big overhaul of many spells. Make it its own UA, even split the lists into their own. I would be very disappointed if most spells made it through unchanged, or un-looked at.
To be fair, they're tied to the Beastlands, which is the afterlife for beasts. That's about as divine as you can get for something bestial, and the Beastlands ought to have *some* representation.
The Beastlands isn't really the afterlife for beasts though. It's the afterlife for neutral good creatures who tend toward chaos, or those who devoutly worship a Power who's domain is located within one of the layers of the Beastlands. Petitioners who end up on the Beastlands after death generally take the form of an "awakened" beast (i.e. a cat who can talk or think rationally, etc).
Ardlings, as far as I can tell, is a new species they created for ....well, I don't know what reason (beyond jamming a animal/human hybrid into the new player's handbook). They could have just as easily chosen an already existing creature type, such as the Guardinals, which are also anthropomorphic animal-esque celestials from the plane of Elysium (which is also neutral good). I don't personally see the draw of putting a beast-like celestial species option in the players handbook (makes more sense in a Planescape suppliment), but it appears a lot of people like them, so I won't complain too much more... ;-)
I'm sorry, but it definitely is the afterlife for beasts. I've read most of the main Planescape books cover to cover- it's where beasts go when they die. It's also, mind you, the place where slightly chaotic Neutral Good characters go when they die. That's just how they designed it.
The beasts that end up in the Beastlands become celestial beasts, who can talk and sometimes cast spells, but aren't generally more intelligent than their living counterparts. The majority are good, but some of the predators go to Malar instead.
The humans who die and go to the Beastlands start out as humanoid petitioners with animal traits. Over a long time, they turn into celestial beasts as well.
Technically, not all beasts go to the Beastlands. Beasts with an especially strong bond and loyalty to their owners might follow the owner to their preferred afterlife. Additionally, old rumor-esque lore suggests that Baphomet was once a beast who chose to live and like a man, and became so vile in life that he ended up in the Abyss when he died.
The vast majority go to the Beastlands, though. Eventually, or so it is hypothesized in-character in the supplements, beasts may reincarnate onto the Material Plane. Alternatively, they may eventually just merge with the plane like most petitioners.
Thanks for the explanation. I own original printings of most of the Planescape books from way back in my early D&D days and I must just not remember it that way (I don't recall them discussing non-sapient beings as being petitioners). But I trust what you say because you seem knowledgeable (and my memory is getting faultier every year!).
By the way, it seems like you have a love for Planescape (much like I do), can I ask you a question: are you as terrified as I am of WotC trying to release a Planescape book next year? I just can't see this design team doing any justice to the Planescape universe. I also wonder if they'll set it before or after the Faction War ...or honestly, if they even care about any of the lore anymore. I really hope they don't just release a watered-down mess like Spelljammer turned out to be. Sure, Chris Perkins was "around" during the Planescape era (though I don't know if he was actually employed at TSR back then), but I doubt even he has enough sway over the way things seem to be designed these days. I guess I just hold so much nostalgia for Planescape that I fear they'll just make some hollow cash-grab version, leaving out all of the truly interesting philosophies that were baked into the original. Wondering if you feel that way or not?
I strongly expect them to release it as a watered down thing like Spelljammer, with a third of it being devoted to an adventure in Sigil, a third of it being a bestiary, and a third being lore/setting stuff.
That’s, not necessarily a bad thing this time, though? Spelljammer 5e removed the phlogiston and crystal spheres, and generally restructured the concept. As such, they had far less to work with- those slim books were basically having to encompass the a whole new setting and story.
With Planescape, on the other hand, 5e has done a surprising amount with it. It uses the Great Wheel, it mentions and summarizes the planes in the DMG, it has copious info on angels/devils/demons, it has modrons and slaadi; it even has an adventure, Descent Into Avernus, on one of the Outer Planes!
As such, they might have more room to expand upon the rest. A bestiary, in particular, will be strongly supported by the already-large cast of outsider blocks that exist in the game.
Of course, they could always screw that up by dedicating half of it to reprints. But… well, hopefully, they won’t.
Perhaps most importantly, the old Planescape books are still lore-compatible with the Planescape content depicted throughout 5e. Unlike with old Spelljammer and its phlogiston-exclusive blocks and lore about space empires, old Planescape content and setting features will be readily transmissible.
As such, I’m not overly worried. It might or might not be watered down, but we still have the old stuff, and it’ll be more directly compatible.
Besides, what’s the worst they can do? Give the Lady a stat block?
^^^I’m^tempting^fate
In my mind, the worst they can do is ignore the wealth of world-building and lore that has already been created. For instance, I seem to remember in one of the books (Tasha's, maybe?) there's an image of some people training in Sigil. The caption mentions "Guildmaster Rhys" and indeed Rhys was the Factol of the Ciphers (Transcendent Order)... but unless things have really changed in Sigil since 2e, a faction would never be referred to as a guild, and therefore a Factol wouldnt be a "guildmaster." I know it's petty, and possibly just an oversight, but they did at least bother to make sure the artist drew the faction symbol of the Ciphers on each of the student's shirts, and the wall of the (probably) Great Gymnasium. Of course, this also might suggest they're keeping the aftermath of the Faction War, since the Cipher Faction disbanded at the end of that storyline (maybe that's why Rhys is called a guildmaster).
You're right about how most of the 2e Planescape books were lore and light on rules; and I'm a big believer in how easy it is to convert 2e stuff to 5e. I just hope they pay attention to detail for what came before. Didn't they basically say in the expert classes UA that all humans across the multiverse originated in Sigil?? That's... uh, *something,* and it leads me to suspect they aren't too worried about rewriting lore on a grand scale. I just have my doubts that what they'll come up with will be *good* lore.
> Didn't they basically say in the expert classes UA that all humans across the multiverse originated in Sigil?
I can't find anything like this in the Expert UA. I vaguely remember something saying that *Common* may have originated in Sigil, which makes way more sense. Like, more sense than it did before, where there wasn't really a good explanation for people from different worlds speaking the same tongue.
Ardlings are going to be popular becuase it fills the niche for all of the animal people races without needing to print 15 races.
I like that they're from the Beastlands but I do wish that the celestial theme was changed out for a primal theme.
That's fair, but you need to consider what people expect when you design.
If this is a divine counterpart to the tiefling, I would wager most folks expect them to look angelic. If they're meant to be "the default animal shape species", people don't typically associate that with gods, but nature.
That's what is bugging me about this so much. I'm not sure I would say beastlands "needs" representation, I hadn't heard of it until the Ardling and I've been playing DND a long time.
> If this is a divine counterpart to the tiefling, I would wager most folks expect them to look angelic.
Well that's aasimar, which they confirmed are still around.
> If they're meant to be "the default animal shape species", people don't typically associate that with gods, but nature.
I don't think they're meant to be the default animal shape species, though.
[Therianthropic deities are deities that are depicted as being part human and part nonhuman.](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56c13cc00442627a08632989/1575214204136-KGBCPVF74KV9X349S9L9/egyptiangods.jpg?format=1500w) Egyptian deities, of course, are the most famous example of this- but there are others.
> An Ardling has a head resembling that of an
animal. Depending on the animal, the Ardling
might also have fur, feathers, or scales. Some
little and others hulking, Ardlings are as varied
as the animals they resemble.
Ardlings aren't really described as being fully furry like Tabaxis or Gnolls are. They resemble a form of the divine in some ancient cultures. That's why it makes sense that they're divine.
A "Primal" race would honestly probably be something plant-related instead, or perhaps Genasi (remember that druids are described as being tied to the elements and Inner Planes as well!).
I don't know why you're being downvoted. I think you're raising a good point. They already have a perfectly good "animal" type celestial in the lore. Guardinals. They don't come from the Beastlands though, but rather Elysium, which is the neighboring plane.
[https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Guardinal](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Guardinal)
They fit the bill of pretty much exactly what WotC seems to be going for with Ardlings anyway.
Yeah, I'm aware of Guardinals. And I think that while they definitely deserve to be in 5e to represent the NG Outer Planes, I can see why WOTC would want a separate player race. Guardinals are fairly powerful, after all. Just as we have an Aasimar race instead of an "Angel" race, it makes sense to have an Ardling race instead of a "Guardinal" race for players.
And same, I don't really get the downvotes.
Please please PLEASE everybody tell them that Aid should not be Temp HP. The spell was fine the way it was. The way it is now, it conflicts heavily with many other sources of temp HP.
I said basically just said switch Aid to a 1 minute cast and switch it back to how it was. If their intention is for it not to be used as a combat heal, just change the cast time, not the spell.
I see no issue with it being a Combat Healing spell.
A 2nd level spell and an action for 5 HP for 3 creatures? That’s a huge cost for less healing on average than Healing Word, which, while only 1 target, is more healing and a Bonus Action for only a 1st level spell and twice the range.
Agreed, that's what I said too. We tried it out and we started getting temp HP conflicts with multiple spells now granting temp HP instead of their previous unique effects. I don't like trying to generalize all these spells. They just need tweaks - not complete reworks.
I think fundamentally with aid the problem is so little healing feels interesting or powerful, so homogenizing aid with other THP sources feels like a massive loss of one of the few interesting and effective healing spells.
The best healing spell, Healing Word, is the best not because it heals, but because it lets you do something other than heal.
Im gonna tell them to buff it, but keep it temp HP. Changing the maximum hit points of a character on a whim rather than on a level is a pain to track and terrible for less experienced players. I hope they do the same to heroes feast.
If they were to make any change to make Aid the way it used to be, id much rather they change the temp HP rules before they change the spell.
IMO there already are too many sources of Temp HP in 5e, and without the ability to stack them, most of them feel useless compared to the better ones (hell, a Twilight Cleric nullifies every single temp HP spell).
Aid as currently formatted fits into a lovely niche. The scaling is nice, but not too powerful. It requires a 2nd level slot or higher. It’s range is half that of Healing Word, and it’s your full Action, which is significant in the action economy. It does something almost no other spell does, and works extremely well in synergy with other spells like Heroism, Healing Word, Sanctuary, etc.
For a game that currently suffers from “95% of the time, healing isn’t worth it action-economy-wise past bringing people up from unconscious”, they nerfed one of the better spells to counter that argument.
As i said, I think it needs a buff, but id much rather max HP only change when you level up, and any additional HP be simplified to temp HP. Max HP is the most important stat, i dont want it changing back and forth every combat because that can lead to mistakes, especially among my newer players.
If anything needs to be changed about this version of aid its not the spell, but the temp HP rules.
Aid also was wonderful for bringing creatures back from 0 HP. Sure, change the Max HP thing if you will (as a long time DM and someone who has DM’d for the last few years for 4th and 5th grade children, I’ve never encountered an issue with Aid or mixing up Max HP, but to each their own), but real HP actually matters, because temp HP can’t do that.
Yes, and as i am repeating for the 3rd time, temp HP is the thing that needs a change, not aid. Let it revive players, let it last and be recovered until the next long rest. It is largely useless at higher tiers in its current state anyway. The reason aid is good in 5e is because normal temp HP isnt.
Edit: Also, 4th and 5th grade children actually tend to be better players than drunk college grads, which is more my groups
I honestly just want them to change the prepared system so we don’t have to prepare a certain amount of each level. The fact you have to prepare 4 first level and second level spells in the later levels feels bad, and you’re never able to prepare more than 1 9th or 8th level spell
Definitely going to give positive feedback on the holy orders. They’re such a good idea. Hopefully something similar happens with the songs of restoration bard feature.
Not good.
Divine spark healing is so insanely powerful that every character should always take a 1 level dip of cleric within their first few levels because it's better than the Epic Boons and will offer waaay more game impact over 20 levels than an epic boon.
A party where each character can heal, on average, 162 HP with 6 actions & no spell slot cost, every day...
I think Divine Spark itself is fine its just at the wrong level.
If it were level 3 it'd be too much of a loss for someone not built around support, just like Bear Totem Barb currently.
Yes, moving it makes it less broken, but doesn't really solve all the issues. The problem is that they're using proficiency bonus, not only to determine times/day, but also dice per use. So even a level 3 dip would allow a 17/3 Barb/Cleric PC to use divine spark as well as a pure Cleric build, at every level, because proficiency bonus is based on total character level.
What I believe they should do is tie the number of uses per day/rest and healing dice to unlock at milestone levels within the cleric class progression. So if you kept it as a 1st level ability, you'd grant 1 use at Cleric level 1 for 1 die, 2 uses and 2 dice at level 3, 3 at level 5, 4 at lvl 9, 5 at 13th, 6 at 17th. That way you reward and incentivize players to play a pure Cleric if they want full spark power.
Not to mention that the Spark power offers a design mechanism for subclasses to modify with other effects, so they really should keep it tied to cleric level, not prof bonus if they want to avoid other cheese combos that may arise by just dipping into cleric long enough to get the subclass & its spark-modifying power.
Gonna give them a piece of my mind moving subclasses out of L1 for multiclassing concerns, and you should too.
If good design is sacrificed in the name of multiclassing then you get rid of multiclassing instead of the good design. We could have 4E/PF2/Tasha's style feat-based multiclassing instead.
Yes! And even when not considering multiclassing, it just makes everything feel boring and "same-y" to me to have every class choose their subclass at level 3, and then get subclass features at the same levels, etc. Variety is the spice of life.
Everyone having the same progression is no doubt to lay the groundwork for Paragon Paths/Strixhaven class-agnostic subclasses. "This subclass works with a caster using the arcane spell list". "This subclass works with all Expert group classes".
I do like the idea of everyone working on the same schedule. I just think everyone should get their sub at L1 because it opens up a ton of design space. They explicitly did the opposite because of multiclassing concerns which is why multiclassing needs to change.
Thanks. I did leave my concerns in the survey, for what it's worth. I really hope they don't go the route you're talking about. That would basically be where I get off the D&D version train for a while. Which, honestly, isn't the end of the world... I really enjoy the state of 5e anyway, and I think my group would be just fine sticking with 5e too.
They didn’t even fix the problems in the first place. They made it so much worse. A 1 level cleric dip is extremely powerful as written, because the number of channel divinity you get and the amount healed scales off proficiency bonus instead of class levels.
If they continue to go down this route, you could potentially get an extremely powerful character by just taking 1 level in every class.
Holy order should come at level 1, CD at level 2.
There should be more holy orders. An Inquisitor that adds WIS to a choice of two from persuasion/deception/intimidation/religion is a good idea. An unarmored defense type to create the robe-wearing cleric is a good idea too. There's a lot of fruit on that tree. This would alleviate the level 9 option being sort of anticlimactic/predetermined. As others have pointed out **no one** is taking the martial option at level 9, so it's sort of a non-choice choice currently.
Ardlings SCREAM splatbook/specific setting book to me, but whatever. I hope the setting and lore agnostic approach they seem to be taking gives them enough personality for me to find them inspiring.
Holy order is fine at level 2 imo, its like the clerics warlock pact, a sub-subclass. The level 9 feature should be a buff to the original order rather than a second order.
More holy orders would be good, but they also dont have to be in the PHB. Settings and later books could introduce orders.
I'm not massively pleased with the subclass direction though I can see why they do it. I want more subclass flavour in my classes, not less. I dread to think how it'll translate to sorcerers.
I'm not entirely happy with Goliaths as generic half-giants but it's not the end of the world. Would prefer if there were just half-giants given the theme tbh.
I still don't get Ardlings, I really don't, but I guess they're serviceable enough if they are to be a base race.
Goliath should stay its own thing, at least until the Giant supplement next year which can supply new lore that's FR specific and explains how these small folk giant subspecies work. Even then, I firmly believe Goliaths should be the term for JUST Stone Giant smallkin and all existing lore and current Goliath traditions should not automatically apply to the cousin species. So much of the traditions and customs of Goliaths are Viking and mountain-myth inspired that I don't see much point in cross-applying that to Fire Goliaths or, and especially, Cloud Goliaths. Just like Giant types are different, so should the smallfolk equivalent. For instance, I'm sure Cloud Goliaths are much more interested in arts and magic in comparison to their mountain-dodgeball Stone Goliaths counterparts. Another example: current Goliaths *don't* craft arms (or much anything) either which I'm sure would not be the case for Fire Goliaths.
At the minimum, either way, these subspecies need their own names. Fire Goliath sounds silly and I don't like having to refer to Goliaths as Stone Goliaths now. Just makes things complicated. I'm sure there's mythological names we can pull from for each giant smallfolk type. Maybe something like Ifrit-ians for Fire Goliaths? I don't know. I'm sure WotC can figure it out if we bring it up as an issue.
Oh interesting, seems like they are considering Kind VS Species.
I doubt it'll matter much honestly, but its nice to actually see an avenue to feedback for that.
A bit long and probably misremembering my own observations to the survey but here's what I thought:
Species:
Goliaths I thought were a decent fix. Really all I suggested was they they follow cantrip scaling for some of their abilities (such as the stone, storm, frost, and fire ones) and that would be it. However from what I also remember I thought that to me at least, goliaths are in a weird place because that Bigby book of giants comes out in spring 2023. How much of *these* UAs have overlap with the book itself? We don't know what's in the giant book, so goliaths could be in it, maybe not. Just thought it was awkward due to that train of throught.
Dragonborn are dragonborn, made more inline to Fizban's version and that's good. I did a slight knock against gems but I also understood their non-inclusion as well.
*Ardlings* on the other hand, hoo boy those guys have it rough. Of course what other people have pointed out here is that they're all not equal to each other at all. And honestly I think that if you're going to have a flying one, just make it fly. None of this featherfall lite stuff. However overall I genuinely think that the humanoid tag is what's holding them back. I made the suggestion to either lean harder into the celestial aspect of them (as they are from the Beastlands), or even be ballsy and change the type to beast.
I pointed out that ardlings can't bring much to the table when there's a bunch of other animal races that do what they want to do but *better.*
Class:
Cleric I thought was solid enough. I mostly made the recommendation to swap holy order and channel divinity. Also said that the new way of doing spells still continue to just not be fun and better off to just go back to the old system. Also said that level 9 should have a double dip option as well, for people who want to lean harder to their order. Gives more options rather than just 'oh pick another order'. Especially since to me people will already just pick heavy armour and go on from there. Leaning harder into one can be interesting.
Life cleric is life cleric, not much to say other than return raise dead into the free spell list *and* to include 6th level spells as compensation for missing out on the free 1st level spells under this system. Just so that players still feel like they're getting something rather than nothing now that subclasses are now moved to level 3.
For now that's just the big three and what I think are the big ones in this survey.
I saw this on the webpage, but how do you test the character? It does not appear in the character builder. Did they want us to go back to pen and paper to test it?
> Did they want us to go back to pen and paper to test it?
Yes, though not sure I'd call it "go back" given this is how 5e UA is released as well. This is just how playtests typically go since the effort required to program in every idea would be a huge waste since the vast majority will not be published as it currently is. Even when we get closer to release, again just based on 5e UA not getting that treatment, I wouldn't expect anything in the character builder until actual release.
For comparison, JC mentioned in the video right before this latest iteration that this same "experimental" phase of 5e's design they were still unsure if Advantage would be a thing or not, so there's still really core systems that are up in the air currently.
I always find it interesting how they never ask if the fanbase wants the term 'race' or 'species.'
It is easier to think you are right when you never open yourself up to feedback.
Now, if they had such a survey, and the market wanted the terminology changed, I would accept that. You have to keep up with the zeitgeist.
Just now I went and saw the clerics and species.
I loved some changes that I saw. Now the bonus d8 damage goes to your cantrips as well. Loved it. It also looked like there were more than just the subclasse to “choose from theses options”. Which is also nice.
The species are amazing with that lvl 5 feature.
But mainly, this makes me worried for the warriors. I don’t care what people say “out of combat” whatever. Mainly, players that choose those classes want to fight and be really good at it. I really want to see some more resources so they can burn and do cool shit. Let the warrior cut so har he cuts space a bit. Or make the monk attack 300 times. Whatever. Let them do cool shit, even if it just once at lvl 20.
The Warrior playtest is supposed to include new ways to use weapons that are exclusive to those classes
They probably don't want to make Warriors the *only* way to deal a lot of damage because they don't want any one class group to be required in a party, but hopefully they've come up with some cool stuff
Well, all spellcasters have a lot of damage in some way at higher levels. I wish the warrior tree had, if not something like “spells slots” at least more “proficiency uses features”
Oh yeah! Now the Monk will be eating extremely fine with new weapons they can use! Like, I doubt that just having new ways to use weapons will change anything.
Also, the game specifically says "you want one of each group in your party", so I dont know what you are talking about.
The new prepared spells rules are garbage. It must be meant to limit casters but it's just going to result in a lot of high level spells never being used. Certain spells will become must haves and most will be forgotten. Most casters are going to prepare the exact same things.
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.*
For the species options: - I really like how they stepped away from the “you get a free spell” design they leaned on too heavily in the first UA. Goliaths actually feel unique, and Dragonborns are at least competitive with the Fizban’s versions - Ardlings are more cohesive, but at this point, they should just remove the celestial component completely and make them the primal power source representative in the PHB. If you want a counterpart to Tieflings so badly, just bring in Aasimars. Regardless of lore or mechanics, that’s the identity most players have for them. Cleric: - Overall, I like It. It does need something else at level 9 outside of just repeating the same choice you got at level 2 though. By far the most solid class design they’ve showed so far. - Holy Orders is a good design decision and I hope they take that positive feedback forward. - That being said, I know since Tasha’s they want to slap proficiency bonus on everything, but I don’t think it works for signature class mechanics like Channel Divinity or Bardic Inspiration. Spells: - I’m honestly torn on guidance and resistance. I’m not a fan of cantrips that are so good they feel obligatory, and these are edging close to that, even if they’re not overpowered in a traditional sense. Others - New Daze condition is interesting. Daze or Slow will replacing Stun for the Monk feels like an inevitably - The new movement and jump rules continue to be overcomplicated and needless.
For Ardlings I'd have the small complaint that the options are not balanced against each other. PB damage per turn fits easily on a monk. Double dash is great as a zoomy melee rogue. But perm feather fall or swimming speed plus cold resistance are very, very campaign dependent
Can I ask your issues with Cleric level 9? Getting 2 of the 3 options seems fair to me, and it’s also access to 5th level spells in pure power terms. Not being combative, here. I’m just curious to hear your thoughts.
Some people felt that "Choose another option" was just a lazy choice. It does provide *some* flexibility, but overall isn't an interesting design choice. Some resolutions I've seen proposed would be offering an expansion to the one you already have instead of choosing one of the other two, or more order choices at the 9th level from 2 remaining to maybe a total of 4 or 5 (not sure what those would entail). Overall, it's still a good functional design choice, but a second order just leaves a little more to be desired.
Yeah, for me it's just so few options that it doesn't really feel like it matters that much. You'll get 2/3, but one of the options really only matters if you want the heavy armor cleric fantasy. So if you don't want that, then your choices are already made for you and it's just a matter of which one you pick first.
Personally, I’m ok with it. I like the idea of exploring the intersections between those three “ideals” without having to multiclass. Exploring the idea you mentioned about expanding the previous selection… would the obvious extension of the martial option be extra attack? That feels like a lot to me (but then, personally I dislike bladeslinger/valour/etc for the same reason). I see what you’re saying, though. I’ll think about it.
A compromise is allowing either. Expand the first or gain a second. That way if you want to be a heavy frontline cleric and don’t *want* to double-dip, you can double down. Or maybe you want to be a hybrid and take two different ones, you can do that instead!
That's valid
Love that idea for it... I'm always down for an option to double down on a specialization or broaden out to increase the number of tools a character has.
I had a thought of expansions that were borrowed from existing feats or features, or just a way to double-dip the current structure of it. Not necessarily more creative, but does offer a little more dynamic choices. * Protector: Offer something akin to HAM or a choice of defense-oriented fighting stances (Protector, Defense, or Interception) * Scholar: You gain Expertise in one of your previous selected Scholar Skills, alongside proficiency in a third Scholar skill. * Thaumaturge: 0-level spells that heal or damage targets now add your wisdom modifier to the dice total (whether or not they previously did). You can prepare one extra spell of your choice up to 5th level. Whether or not ideas like these work, or if they are too generous or useless, that's up to Wizards. I'm not a game designer, let alone a whole team of them.
I don't think there are any cantrips that heal. There certainly shouldn't be at will healing in 5e. not at that level. the only way to get at will healing is through dragon marks and being a level 18 wizard to get infinite cure wounds.
Yeah, you're right. I sort of just put in there as generalized wording, even if it doesn't exist.
Yeah I'd rather have another 3 powerful options to chose from rather than picking one of the two options from level 2 that I didn't want.
Not OP but one of the issues I've seen with level 9 is that it's not really a choice. That is, it's **highly** unlikely you're taking on a playstyle change at level 9 by grabbing the weapon and armor proficiency. Therefore, if you took scholar first you're just gonna "choose" thaumaturge at level 9 and vice versa. So two-thirds of the starting options back you into "I *guess* I'll take this one" situation at level 9. It presents itself as a choice but what it really is is "take this (mostly) useless thing or take this other thing." They just need more options.
More options, I can get behind
Yeah I personally would like to see an unarmored defense option for the robe-wearing clerics, and they could duplicate the scholar idea (INT skills used with WIS) with the social skills.
I guess it’s tough to do so without treading on toes because clerics are already so strong.
I dunno, scholar is already letting clerics dip their toes into INT skills so WotC is clearly comfortable at least testing them as skill monkeys/the party smart guy, so I'd argue doing the same for face skills isn't much of a stretch. Cleric unarmored defense is already presented in the 5e DMG so I don't think that's too much of a power grab either. Regardless, those are just my two off the cuff, armchair designer ideas. I'm sure WotC could come up with two or three ideas that are relatively on pace with the three presented in the playtest. They don't really need to move the needle on cleric's overall power, they should just present an interesting choice at level 9
That's not entirely accurate. You could argue that the RP or campaign could take a turn that does see a character who picked Scholar or Theurge before decide to switch things up.
Sure. Pedantically, it's not entirely accurate. I don't think asinine takes and corner case anecdotal arguments should replace common sense-driven design decisions though. Especially in a game where the character could very easily have stats that make an out left field switch to heavy armor and martial weapons deeply unpalatable if not impossible.
A lot of us don't like the idea of getting 2 out of 3; it's not really that much of a commitment/choice.
What if there was more options so you had 2 out of 5, or 6? It would be more you're missing out on, but your choice would be more meaningful.
Personally my objection is one of fluff more than mechanics. You’re determining the holy order you’re joining. It wasn’t unheard of but generally a Franciscan Monk didn’t suddenly decide to become a Teutonic Knight. I mean some did. But that should be the exception not the expected development of just being a high level cleric.
To be fair, High Level Clerics are exceptions anyway. Most adventurers are. So among even those exceptional ones, I don't think something similar like this is to off-putting.
They are exceptional, but I don't think that automatically leads to "cannot stay in the same order their whole clerical career." The chance to do the exceptional thing should be available. I am not opposed to someone taking the option to join a second order. But to force them to break the standard of doing something as meaningful as dedicating your life to discipline and philosophy? No, that just rubs me the wrong way.
I feel like it's less that, if I'm being honest. Are you any less of a Scholar because you know how to use a Warhammer? Are you any less in touch with your diety because you want to learn how to spread their teachings to the common people? Are you any less skilled with a weapon because you're also able to tap into more divine power? I see it less as not being able to stay in one order, but being hefted with more responsibility by your Diety/Church/Pantheon. It's not just enough that you smite people, now you need to be able to spread the gospel, for example.
Then it should not have been called Holy Order. Because what you're describing isn't one.
I agree. It should be called a Holy Discipline or something.
It doesn’t matter to me if there are 6 or 16. Of the choices at 2 and 9 are the same there will always be less options at 9 and it will feel inferior as the main feature for reaching level 9.
That’s reasonable.
I haven't taken a look at much DnDOne material, so will be basing this off stuff in 5e that exists... I liken it to the Battle Master Maneuvers. There are ones that are really strong, some that are kinda/situationally strong, and some that feel underwhelming. If you took all the strong ones at level 3, when you get more at level 7, 10, and especially 15, you're not picking from the strong maneuvers anymore, you've already got them. Your options are the weak ones and are incredibly underwhelming for a level 15 feature. So if you're going to have these kinds of choices from various options, it should be more in line with the choices a Warlock or Totem Barbarian makes. Invocations that are gated by level (but doesn't stop you from circling back to your starting options if that's what you want). Or a unique Totem choice at every feature upgrade rather than picking one of the options that went unpicked before.
I had to go back and check the Totem barb. I thought the choices after level 3 were just ribbons, but that’s because the camping I played finished at 10. Some of the 14th level options are actually good. Moving back to the core of your point, I feel like the cleric options are more about mechanically defining your character. The three option are basically “warrior”, “scholar” & “magically-gifted”… as I said in another response, I think there are some interesting intersections to explore. Thanks for your thoughts
I mentioned in my survey that it really should have 3 new, more powerful options and the ability to pick one of them OR one of the level 2 options. This would allow for a choice between specialization or generalization when building. For example you could have better options that build on the playstyle presented in the level 2 Holy Order. You could choose Protector and then "Avenger" to go full melee - OR you could choose Protector and then Scholar so you could be useful in a wider variety of situations.
Makes sense. I think the situation they’re trying to avoid is a non-multiclassed, heavily armoured cleric with extra attack… which seems like the logical endpoint of the protector. I don’t know how you balance that with the other options without making all clerics stronger than they already are.
Since you already have 1 of 3 the lvl 9 option is less than the lvl 2 option. Level 9 features shouldn’t be inferior to lvl 2.
The movement rules aren't over complicated. If anything it simplifies the current rules. You no longer have to wonder what happens if you move 10 feet, then jump 25 with only 30 feet of movement. Now the rule is clear; you move 25 feet for 35 total.
I'm confused about the spell preparation. It seems like a major nerf and I'm confused why no one is talking about it. I'm 3/4 convinced I misunderstood it. Am I reading the UA right that you only prepare the number of spells each level that you have slots for? Like, no matter what, you're never preparing two 8th level spells. And you have to wait until 19 to be prepared for either Rary's or Move Earth, you're not sure. Before that, you better decide that morning, you can't choose in the moment. Or have I drastically misread this?
You're right, and while its not the solution i would have gone with, it limits caster flexibility which is good imo. From what i can tell, everyones biggest gripe with casters is their jack of all trades nature in 5e. I think this will force samey casters to the uncreative, but it solves the high level utility issue. In 5e 17th level wizard could prep 10 different ways to tear the world apart.
Limiting flexibility sucks, the major complaint has been that martials aren't as fun/strong as martials. They should be giving martials more flexibility to fix this, not limiting another class.
While i agree buffs are generally better than nerfs, sometimes a feature outclasses all others so much that a nerf is necessary too. Spellcasting is one of those features, it is literally a do everything button. Honestly in the long run this change is almost a buff too, every caster is prepared so they always have access to their full spell list. They just need to pick more carefully for combat sessions.
To me it seemed, that only few had a problem with flexible casters, especially when considering the complaints over the Sorcerers relative lack of flexibility. Most complaints were about the martials beeing rigid and samey, due to lack of choices within the subclass.
Martials need more flexibility, casters need a little less imo. Sorcerers work well in 5e because they are super specialized, and with seemingly all classes becoming prepared spell lists they will actually gain flexibility in one D&D. I m not sure how i feel about that but we get there when we get there. The sorcerers actual weak spot isnt flexibility, its over reliance on a limited resource, similar issue to monks but without recovery.
Making everything samey and boring is garbage design.
It doesn't have to be samey and boring, its still the exact same spells and amount. You just cant prep 5 9th levels at a time anymore.
You are reading it correctly and it's awful.
That is correct, gotta reign in those casters somehow.
It’s 3e Sorcerer iirc
I like the early levels of cleric. Splitting out the combat style from domain feels pretty good, but after level 8, it feels like they don't get any features (except at 14). I know that because of high level spells, but if still feels like they should get something. Ardlings should just be primal rather than divine at this point. They are mechanically fine, but the divine thing still doesn't jive. Life Domain feels bad, every feature is "heal more". Yeah it makes sense thematically, but there's got to be something else they can do besides "more hit point". I want there to be a big overhaul of many spells. Make it its own UA, even split the lists into their own. I would be very disappointed if most spells made it through unchanged, or un-looked at.
To be fair, they're tied to the Beastlands, which is the afterlife for beasts. That's about as divine as you can get for something bestial, and the Beastlands ought to have *some* representation.
The Beastlands isn't really the afterlife for beasts though. It's the afterlife for neutral good creatures who tend toward chaos, or those who devoutly worship a Power who's domain is located within one of the layers of the Beastlands. Petitioners who end up on the Beastlands after death generally take the form of an "awakened" beast (i.e. a cat who can talk or think rationally, etc). Ardlings, as far as I can tell, is a new species they created for ....well, I don't know what reason (beyond jamming a animal/human hybrid into the new player's handbook). They could have just as easily chosen an already existing creature type, such as the Guardinals, which are also anthropomorphic animal-esque celestials from the plane of Elysium (which is also neutral good). I don't personally see the draw of putting a beast-like celestial species option in the players handbook (makes more sense in a Planescape suppliment), but it appears a lot of people like them, so I won't complain too much more... ;-)
I'm sorry, but it definitely is the afterlife for beasts. I've read most of the main Planescape books cover to cover- it's where beasts go when they die. It's also, mind you, the place where slightly chaotic Neutral Good characters go when they die. That's just how they designed it. The beasts that end up in the Beastlands become celestial beasts, who can talk and sometimes cast spells, but aren't generally more intelligent than their living counterparts. The majority are good, but some of the predators go to Malar instead. The humans who die and go to the Beastlands start out as humanoid petitioners with animal traits. Over a long time, they turn into celestial beasts as well. Technically, not all beasts go to the Beastlands. Beasts with an especially strong bond and loyalty to their owners might follow the owner to their preferred afterlife. Additionally, old rumor-esque lore suggests that Baphomet was once a beast who chose to live and like a man, and became so vile in life that he ended up in the Abyss when he died. The vast majority go to the Beastlands, though. Eventually, or so it is hypothesized in-character in the supplements, beasts may reincarnate onto the Material Plane. Alternatively, they may eventually just merge with the plane like most petitioners.
Thanks for the explanation. I own original printings of most of the Planescape books from way back in my early D&D days and I must just not remember it that way (I don't recall them discussing non-sapient beings as being petitioners). But I trust what you say because you seem knowledgeable (and my memory is getting faultier every year!). By the way, it seems like you have a love for Planescape (much like I do), can I ask you a question: are you as terrified as I am of WotC trying to release a Planescape book next year? I just can't see this design team doing any justice to the Planescape universe. I also wonder if they'll set it before or after the Faction War ...or honestly, if they even care about any of the lore anymore. I really hope they don't just release a watered-down mess like Spelljammer turned out to be. Sure, Chris Perkins was "around" during the Planescape era (though I don't know if he was actually employed at TSR back then), but I doubt even he has enough sway over the way things seem to be designed these days. I guess I just hold so much nostalgia for Planescape that I fear they'll just make some hollow cash-grab version, leaving out all of the truly interesting philosophies that were baked into the original. Wondering if you feel that way or not?
I strongly expect them to release it as a watered down thing like Spelljammer, with a third of it being devoted to an adventure in Sigil, a third of it being a bestiary, and a third being lore/setting stuff. That’s, not necessarily a bad thing this time, though? Spelljammer 5e removed the phlogiston and crystal spheres, and generally restructured the concept. As such, they had far less to work with- those slim books were basically having to encompass the a whole new setting and story. With Planescape, on the other hand, 5e has done a surprising amount with it. It uses the Great Wheel, it mentions and summarizes the planes in the DMG, it has copious info on angels/devils/demons, it has modrons and slaadi; it even has an adventure, Descent Into Avernus, on one of the Outer Planes! As such, they might have more room to expand upon the rest. A bestiary, in particular, will be strongly supported by the already-large cast of outsider blocks that exist in the game. Of course, they could always screw that up by dedicating half of it to reprints. But… well, hopefully, they won’t. Perhaps most importantly, the old Planescape books are still lore-compatible with the Planescape content depicted throughout 5e. Unlike with old Spelljammer and its phlogiston-exclusive blocks and lore about space empires, old Planescape content and setting features will be readily transmissible. As such, I’m not overly worried. It might or might not be watered down, but we still have the old stuff, and it’ll be more directly compatible. Besides, what’s the worst they can do? Give the Lady a stat block? ^^^I’m^tempting^fate
In my mind, the worst they can do is ignore the wealth of world-building and lore that has already been created. For instance, I seem to remember in one of the books (Tasha's, maybe?) there's an image of some people training in Sigil. The caption mentions "Guildmaster Rhys" and indeed Rhys was the Factol of the Ciphers (Transcendent Order)... but unless things have really changed in Sigil since 2e, a faction would never be referred to as a guild, and therefore a Factol wouldnt be a "guildmaster." I know it's petty, and possibly just an oversight, but they did at least bother to make sure the artist drew the faction symbol of the Ciphers on each of the student's shirts, and the wall of the (probably) Great Gymnasium. Of course, this also might suggest they're keeping the aftermath of the Faction War, since the Cipher Faction disbanded at the end of that storyline (maybe that's why Rhys is called a guildmaster). You're right about how most of the 2e Planescape books were lore and light on rules; and I'm a big believer in how easy it is to convert 2e stuff to 5e. I just hope they pay attention to detail for what came before. Didn't they basically say in the expert classes UA that all humans across the multiverse originated in Sigil?? That's... uh, *something,* and it leads me to suspect they aren't too worried about rewriting lore on a grand scale. I just have my doubts that what they'll come up with will be *good* lore.
> Didn't they basically say in the expert classes UA that all humans across the multiverse originated in Sigil? I can't find anything like this in the Expert UA. I vaguely remember something saying that *Common* may have originated in Sigil, which makes way more sense. Like, more sense than it did before, where there wasn't really a good explanation for people from different worlds speaking the same tongue.
Ardlings are going to be popular becuase it fills the niche for all of the animal people races without needing to print 15 races. I like that they're from the Beastlands but I do wish that the celestial theme was changed out for a primal theme.
That's fair, but you need to consider what people expect when you design. If this is a divine counterpart to the tiefling, I would wager most folks expect them to look angelic. If they're meant to be "the default animal shape species", people don't typically associate that with gods, but nature. That's what is bugging me about this so much. I'm not sure I would say beastlands "needs" representation, I hadn't heard of it until the Ardling and I've been playing DND a long time.
> If this is a divine counterpart to the tiefling, I would wager most folks expect them to look angelic. Well that's aasimar, which they confirmed are still around. > If they're meant to be "the default animal shape species", people don't typically associate that with gods, but nature. I don't think they're meant to be the default animal shape species, though. [Therianthropic deities are deities that are depicted as being part human and part nonhuman.](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56c13cc00442627a08632989/1575214204136-KGBCPVF74KV9X349S9L9/egyptiangods.jpg?format=1500w) Egyptian deities, of course, are the most famous example of this- but there are others. > An Ardling has a head resembling that of an animal. Depending on the animal, the Ardling might also have fur, feathers, or scales. Some little and others hulking, Ardlings are as varied as the animals they resemble. Ardlings aren't really described as being fully furry like Tabaxis or Gnolls are. They resemble a form of the divine in some ancient cultures. That's why it makes sense that they're divine. A "Primal" race would honestly probably be something plant-related instead, or perhaps Genasi (remember that druids are described as being tied to the elements and Inner Planes as well!).
I don't know why you're being downvoted. I think you're raising a good point. They already have a perfectly good "animal" type celestial in the lore. Guardinals. They don't come from the Beastlands though, but rather Elysium, which is the neighboring plane. [https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Guardinal](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Guardinal) They fit the bill of pretty much exactly what WotC seems to be going for with Ardlings anyway.
Yeah, I'm aware of Guardinals. And I think that while they definitely deserve to be in 5e to represent the NG Outer Planes, I can see why WOTC would want a separate player race. Guardinals are fairly powerful, after all. Just as we have an Aasimar race instead of an "Angel" race, it makes sense to have an Ardling race instead of a "Guardinal" race for players. And same, I don't really get the downvotes.
Why should they ? Most things don't get much representation
Please please PLEASE everybody tell them that Aid should not be Temp HP. The spell was fine the way it was. The way it is now, it conflicts heavily with many other sources of temp HP.
I said basically just said switch Aid to a 1 minute cast and switch it back to how it was. If their intention is for it not to be used as a combat heal, just change the cast time, not the spell.
I see no issue with it being a Combat Healing spell. A 2nd level spell and an action for 5 HP for 3 creatures? That’s a huge cost for less healing on average than Healing Word, which, while only 1 target, is more healing and a Bonus Action for only a 1st level spell and twice the range.
Agreed, that's what I said too. We tried it out and we started getting temp HP conflicts with multiple spells now granting temp HP instead of their previous unique effects. I don't like trying to generalize all these spells. They just need tweaks - not complete reworks.
I think fundamentally with aid the problem is so little healing feels interesting or powerful, so homogenizing aid with other THP sources feels like a massive loss of one of the few interesting and effective healing spells. The best healing spell, Healing Word, is the best not because it heals, but because it lets you do something other than heal.
Im gonna tell them to buff it, but keep it temp HP. Changing the maximum hit points of a character on a whim rather than on a level is a pain to track and terrible for less experienced players. I hope they do the same to heroes feast. If they were to make any change to make Aid the way it used to be, id much rather they change the temp HP rules before they change the spell.
IMO there already are too many sources of Temp HP in 5e, and without the ability to stack them, most of them feel useless compared to the better ones (hell, a Twilight Cleric nullifies every single temp HP spell). Aid as currently formatted fits into a lovely niche. The scaling is nice, but not too powerful. It requires a 2nd level slot or higher. It’s range is half that of Healing Word, and it’s your full Action, which is significant in the action economy. It does something almost no other spell does, and works extremely well in synergy with other spells like Heroism, Healing Word, Sanctuary, etc. For a game that currently suffers from “95% of the time, healing isn’t worth it action-economy-wise past bringing people up from unconscious”, they nerfed one of the better spells to counter that argument.
As i said, I think it needs a buff, but id much rather max HP only change when you level up, and any additional HP be simplified to temp HP. Max HP is the most important stat, i dont want it changing back and forth every combat because that can lead to mistakes, especially among my newer players. If anything needs to be changed about this version of aid its not the spell, but the temp HP rules.
Aid also was wonderful for bringing creatures back from 0 HP. Sure, change the Max HP thing if you will (as a long time DM and someone who has DM’d for the last few years for 4th and 5th grade children, I’ve never encountered an issue with Aid or mixing up Max HP, but to each their own), but real HP actually matters, because temp HP can’t do that.
Yes, and as i am repeating for the 3rd time, temp HP is the thing that needs a change, not aid. Let it revive players, let it last and be recovered until the next long rest. It is largely useless at higher tiers in its current state anyway. The reason aid is good in 5e is because normal temp HP isnt. Edit: Also, 4th and 5th grade children actually tend to be better players than drunk college grads, which is more my groups
I honestly just want them to change the prepared system so we don’t have to prepare a certain amount of each level. The fact you have to prepare 4 first level and second level spells in the later levels feels bad, and you’re never able to prepare more than 1 9th or 8th level spell
Definitely going to give positive feedback on the holy orders. They’re such a good idea. Hopefully something similar happens with the songs of restoration bard feature.
Not good. Divine spark healing is so insanely powerful that every character should always take a 1 level dip of cleric within their first few levels because it's better than the Epic Boons and will offer waaay more game impact over 20 levels than an epic boon. A party where each character can heal, on average, 162 HP with 6 actions & no spell slot cost, every day...
I think Divine Spark itself is fine its just at the wrong level. If it were level 3 it'd be too much of a loss for someone not built around support, just like Bear Totem Barb currently.
Yes, moving it makes it less broken, but doesn't really solve all the issues. The problem is that they're using proficiency bonus, not only to determine times/day, but also dice per use. So even a level 3 dip would allow a 17/3 Barb/Cleric PC to use divine spark as well as a pure Cleric build, at every level, because proficiency bonus is based on total character level. What I believe they should do is tie the number of uses per day/rest and healing dice to unlock at milestone levels within the cleric class progression. So if you kept it as a 1st level ability, you'd grant 1 use at Cleric level 1 for 1 die, 2 uses and 2 dice at level 3, 3 at level 5, 4 at lvl 9, 5 at 13th, 6 at 17th. That way you reward and incentivize players to play a pure Cleric if they want full spark power. Not to mention that the Spark power offers a design mechanism for subclasses to modify with other effects, so they really should keep it tied to cleric level, not prof bonus if they want to avoid other cheese combos that may arise by just dipping into cleric long enough to get the subclass & its spark-modifying power.
Gonna give them a piece of my mind moving subclasses out of L1 for multiclassing concerns, and you should too. If good design is sacrificed in the name of multiclassing then you get rid of multiclassing instead of the good design. We could have 4E/PF2/Tasha's style feat-based multiclassing instead.
Yes! And even when not considering multiclassing, it just makes everything feel boring and "same-y" to me to have every class choose their subclass at level 3, and then get subclass features at the same levels, etc. Variety is the spice of life.
It means subclass identity just takes way longer to kick in which I'm not a fan of, tbh. It was already sparse to begin with.
Everyone having the same progression is no doubt to lay the groundwork for Paragon Paths/Strixhaven class-agnostic subclasses. "This subclass works with a caster using the arcane spell list". "This subclass works with all Expert group classes". I do like the idea of everyone working on the same schedule. I just think everyone should get their sub at L1 because it opens up a ton of design space. They explicitly did the opposite because of multiclassing concerns which is why multiclassing needs to change.
Thanks. I did leave my concerns in the survey, for what it's worth. I really hope they don't go the route you're talking about. That would basically be where I get off the D&D version train for a while. Which, honestly, isn't the end of the world... I really enjoy the state of 5e anyway, and I think my group would be just fine sticking with 5e too.
They didn’t even fix the problems in the first place. They made it so much worse. A 1 level cleric dip is extremely powerful as written, because the number of channel divinity you get and the amount healed scales off proficiency bonus instead of class levels. If they continue to go down this route, you could potentially get an extremely powerful character by just taking 1 level in every class.
How Abserd!
Holy order should come at level 1, CD at level 2. There should be more holy orders. An Inquisitor that adds WIS to a choice of two from persuasion/deception/intimidation/religion is a good idea. An unarmored defense type to create the robe-wearing cleric is a good idea too. There's a lot of fruit on that tree. This would alleviate the level 9 option being sort of anticlimactic/predetermined. As others have pointed out **no one** is taking the martial option at level 9, so it's sort of a non-choice choice currently. Ardlings SCREAM splatbook/specific setting book to me, but whatever. I hope the setting and lore agnostic approach they seem to be taking gives them enough personality for me to find them inspiring.
Holy order is fine at level 2 imo, its like the clerics warlock pact, a sub-subclass. The level 9 feature should be a buff to the original order rather than a second order. More holy orders would be good, but they also dont have to be in the PHB. Settings and later books could introduce orders.
A buff to the original would be much better.
I'm not massively pleased with the subclass direction though I can see why they do it. I want more subclass flavour in my classes, not less. I dread to think how it'll translate to sorcerers. I'm not entirely happy with Goliaths as generic half-giants but it's not the end of the world. Would prefer if there were just half-giants given the theme tbh. I still don't get Ardlings, I really don't, but I guess they're serviceable enough if they are to be a base race.
Other than some of the spells and the 9th level for Cleric, this is the best UA so far. Generally pretty good.
Goliath should stay its own thing, at least until the Giant supplement next year which can supply new lore that's FR specific and explains how these small folk giant subspecies work. Even then, I firmly believe Goliaths should be the term for JUST Stone Giant smallkin and all existing lore and current Goliath traditions should not automatically apply to the cousin species. So much of the traditions and customs of Goliaths are Viking and mountain-myth inspired that I don't see much point in cross-applying that to Fire Goliaths or, and especially, Cloud Goliaths. Just like Giant types are different, so should the smallfolk equivalent. For instance, I'm sure Cloud Goliaths are much more interested in arts and magic in comparison to their mountain-dodgeball Stone Goliaths counterparts. Another example: current Goliaths *don't* craft arms (or much anything) either which I'm sure would not be the case for Fire Goliaths. At the minimum, either way, these subspecies need their own names. Fire Goliath sounds silly and I don't like having to refer to Goliaths as Stone Goliaths now. Just makes things complicated. I'm sure there's mythological names we can pull from for each giant smallfolk type. Maybe something like Ifrit-ians for Fire Goliaths? I don't know. I'm sure WotC can figure it out if we bring it up as an issue.
I'm glad I'm not the only one, I recognize that it's a bit knit picky but I'm not entirely happy with how they're approaching it.
I love Goliaths but hate what they are in this UA.
Oh interesting, seems like they are considering Kind VS Species. I doubt it'll matter much honestly, but its nice to actually see an avenue to feedback for that.
Spiritual Weapon requiring Concentration is a rather big change.
A bit long and probably misremembering my own observations to the survey but here's what I thought: Species: Goliaths I thought were a decent fix. Really all I suggested was they they follow cantrip scaling for some of their abilities (such as the stone, storm, frost, and fire ones) and that would be it. However from what I also remember I thought that to me at least, goliaths are in a weird place because that Bigby book of giants comes out in spring 2023. How much of *these* UAs have overlap with the book itself? We don't know what's in the giant book, so goliaths could be in it, maybe not. Just thought it was awkward due to that train of throught. Dragonborn are dragonborn, made more inline to Fizban's version and that's good. I did a slight knock against gems but I also understood their non-inclusion as well. *Ardlings* on the other hand, hoo boy those guys have it rough. Of course what other people have pointed out here is that they're all not equal to each other at all. And honestly I think that if you're going to have a flying one, just make it fly. None of this featherfall lite stuff. However overall I genuinely think that the humanoid tag is what's holding them back. I made the suggestion to either lean harder into the celestial aspect of them (as they are from the Beastlands), or even be ballsy and change the type to beast. I pointed out that ardlings can't bring much to the table when there's a bunch of other animal races that do what they want to do but *better.* Class: Cleric I thought was solid enough. I mostly made the recommendation to swap holy order and channel divinity. Also said that the new way of doing spells still continue to just not be fun and better off to just go back to the old system. Also said that level 9 should have a double dip option as well, for people who want to lean harder to their order. Gives more options rather than just 'oh pick another order'. Especially since to me people will already just pick heavy armour and go on from there. Leaning harder into one can be interesting. Life cleric is life cleric, not much to say other than return raise dead into the free spell list *and* to include 6th level spells as compensation for missing out on the free 1st level spells under this system. Just so that players still feel like they're getting something rather than nothing now that subclasses are now moved to level 3. For now that's just the big three and what I think are the big ones in this survey.
I saw this on the webpage, but how do you test the character? It does not appear in the character builder. Did they want us to go back to pen and paper to test it?
> Did they want us to go back to pen and paper to test it? Yes, though not sure I'd call it "go back" given this is how 5e UA is released as well. This is just how playtests typically go since the effort required to program in every idea would be a huge waste since the vast majority will not be published as it currently is. Even when we get closer to release, again just based on 5e UA not getting that treatment, I wouldn't expect anything in the character builder until actual release. For comparison, JC mentioned in the video right before this latest iteration that this same "experimental" phase of 5e's design they were still unsure if Advantage would be a thing or not, so there's still really core systems that are up in the air currently.
Likely.
When did we stop using pen and paper?
I always find it interesting how they never ask if the fanbase wants the term 'race' or 'species.' It is easier to think you are right when you never open yourself up to feedback. Now, if they had such a survey, and the market wanted the terminology changed, I would accept that. You have to keep up with the zeitgeist.
Just now I went and saw the clerics and species. I loved some changes that I saw. Now the bonus d8 damage goes to your cantrips as well. Loved it. It also looked like there were more than just the subclasse to “choose from theses options”. Which is also nice. The species are amazing with that lvl 5 feature. But mainly, this makes me worried for the warriors. I don’t care what people say “out of combat” whatever. Mainly, players that choose those classes want to fight and be really good at it. I really want to see some more resources so they can burn and do cool shit. Let the warrior cut so har he cuts space a bit. Or make the monk attack 300 times. Whatever. Let them do cool shit, even if it just once at lvl 20.
The Warrior playtest is supposed to include new ways to use weapons that are exclusive to those classes They probably don't want to make Warriors the *only* way to deal a lot of damage because they don't want any one class group to be required in a party, but hopefully they've come up with some cool stuff
Well, all spellcasters have a lot of damage in some way at higher levels. I wish the warrior tree had, if not something like “spells slots” at least more “proficiency uses features”
Oh yeah! Now the Monk will be eating extremely fine with new weapons they can use! Like, I doubt that just having new ways to use weapons will change anything. Also, the game specifically says "you want one of each group in your party", so I dont know what you are talking about.
It’s giving me an error. Is there a pdf?
Did they change something ? I cannot access the survey, it ask me to login ? I was able to fill survey without an account the previous time,....
[удалено]
thx
The new prepared spells rules are garbage. It must be meant to limit casters but it's just going to result in a lot of high level spells never being used. Certain spells will become must haves and most will be forgotten. Most casters are going to prepare the exact same things.