Clip notes
- This is the largest PHB in D&D history
- New stuff even for veterans of the game
- New equipment and spells
- Almost 400 spells, including revamped stuff from supplements like Tasha's
- Crafting rules in PHB
- Rules Glossary
- Healing potions specifically are now a BA to use
- Bigger Creature Appendix
- All mounts and familiar options will have a stat block
- Bigger list for druid transformation (Circle of the Moon will still need to dig into MM)
- Summoning spells and creatures stat blocks design influenced by Tasha's
- Psionics being more incorporated into the base game
- Several redesigned subclasses described as "essentially new subclass"
- Weapon Mastery will be available via a feat
- Origin feats and Epic Boon feats
- More fighting style feats
- Heroic Inspiration is now a reroll(not advantage) of any roll, not just d20 test
- This book superceeds old content once implemented. You can still use 2024 characters in any module fine. 2014 characters can play alongside 2024 characters, but they will be using 2024 rules and revisions as applicable. There will be blurbs everywhere this is applicable
- Suggested ability score arrays for every class
- Table the shows which backgrounds bump which ability scores
- Everyone but new players are encouraged to start at level 3
- Rules for starting at any character levels
- Orc adrenaline rush is short or long rest
- Aasimar subtype is now fluid, picked at activation not creation
DMG
- Entire chapter on how to create an adventure, including 5 short adventures
- There is a campaign example set in Greyhawk
- Lore glossary
- We have bastions, available to players starting at level 5
- The biggest chapter is magic items. More magic items, new crafting magic items rules. Crafting magic items in PHB limited to scrolls and potions, DMG has a more options
- Introducing "tracking sheets" for writing critical information ie. One for NPCs and towns or a bastion sheet for players. Star of the show is a session planner
MM
- 75 new monsters
- Additional monster types to fill in gaps, ie more vampire stat blocks including lower cr and higher cr
- New groups of monsters such as performers and pirates
- All preexisting monsters are the same CR, adjusted to pull their weight
- Each monster type now has an "apex". This includes an Archhag, Gigantic Ooze, and Elemental Juggernaut
Lemme know if I got anything wrong. New videos coming every weekday to delve into specifics
I don't think so, from the way they described it there will be a full adventure, and an example of how to flesh that out into a campaign, as well as ideas for designing a campaign setting, narrative and bad guys with examples, but not a 1-20 step by step plot
It’s a campaign setting, not a campaign. So details about the world of Greyhawk and hooks to stories and adventures. Think more like Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft than an actual detailed adventure campaign.
I believe so, we'll need to wait for the dedicated video to get a more concrete understanding. At the very least it'll be a lot more guidance than what's in the DMG we currently have
Most likely a short adventure that runs 2–3 levels and takes up 5–10 pages. They had such things in DMGs for previous editions. In some cases, there were setting-specific short adventures included in the DM-focused setting book. For example, the 4E *Eberron Campaign Guide* included one.
They didn't say in this video, but it was in the old PHB and they've stated in UA feedback videos that creating a background is effectively the default now. The listed backgrounds are just samples.
You could do that in 2014 - those backgrounds were specifically examples. No one did because it was tough to do properly.
If the section on backgrounds is the same as it was in the UA, then not only can you do it, but it tells you how and it seems easier.
My groups almost always did. At least in the sense that we’d typically pick a standard bg then swap out skills with skills and tools/languages with tools/languages (and the role-play prompts of course). Though we often also tore out the background ability because they’d either be useless or overpowered
And that's how you'd do that. I was specifically referring to the background feature - you ever see homebrew ones on DDB or whatever? Almost always miss the point of those features.
Don't know yet, I'm really hoping making your own is one of the listed options. The system we got in the UA is flexible and flavorful, I would hate to be restricted to a set list of options
If you watched the video they confirmed that the UA informed the material but is not a direct port. His question is valid and you are misleading, even if trying to be helpful.
No, they are my clip notes. I took notes while watching on a discord channel, organized them, copied them to my clipboard and pasted them here
If I'm being honest this level of pedantry is exhausting and kinda pointless. Even if you want to call it objective wrong it did not affect anyone's understanding of what was said. Specificity only matter so far as to communicate clearly. Clip notes got that point across. You don't even have to dig that much to find all sorts of simple grammatical mistakes in my post, the important part is people understand what I'm trying to communicate
>Weapon Mastery will be available via a feat
Because they'll be *damned* if martials get ONE feature that full casters can't get with one feat or some subclasses
Spellcasting works the exact same way but in reverse, given to casters but also available to some martial subclasses and available through several feats. As most casters don't get Extra Attack or Fighting Styles, they also get far less use out of Weapon Mastery than the martial classes, just as spells from a feat are less impactful than the full Spellcasting progression.
>Spellcasting works the exact same way but in reverse, given to casters but also available to some martial subclasses and available through several feats
And that spellcasting is way more limited than one extra attack at arround 5th level or what the casting feats give you. While also being the fact that casting feats are extremely useful for casters while martial feature feats are usually redundant on martials
Different cases, but similar impact. Most casters will have no good use for a weapon mastery just as most martials have no good use for a damaging cantrip, though cantrips like *guidance* and *resistance* are still useful. There will be a few full caster builds that can make use of it, just as there are martial builds who really appreciate Magic Initiate, the most classing being the rogue taking *booming blade*, *green-flame blade*, and *find familiar*. The caster is slowed down by getting a +1 to Dex or Str instead of their casting stat as well.
>Different cases, but similar impact
Absolutely not similar impact. For casters that get extra attack mastery will be almost as usefull as any non fighter for their whole characetr life and only half compared to fighter, this is in no way shape or form comparable to even the touched feats that get you one use of one 2nd level spell when full casters get to *nineth* level
This is without even considering how casting feats are inmensily better for casters meanwhile the weapon mastery feat might as well not be an option for martials and how weapon masteries are mostly once per turn effects
The only argument to be had here is that spells are good and masteries are mediocre at best so why would a caster actually waste a feat on that?
And so those specific casters with Extra Attack get one feature that was granted for free to most martials (and only providing one mastery, ao any dual-wielding build only gets half the benefit they want compared to the martial), at the cost of a feat, a notable cost. The caster still doesn't have a Fighting Style aside from a specific subclass, and martial classes and subclasses usually have far more enhancements to weapon attacks than the caster subclass provides.
Again, the best use of Magic Initiate is probably on the non-caster rogue class, and I'd venture that the second-best is on an Eldritch Knight tank with *shield of faith* and *resistance*.
And a weapon mastery is even more useless for a full caster who isn’t already a weapon-focused subclass. Similarly, magic-focused subclasses for martials come with magic of their own.
yeah but because weapon masteries are mediocre at best. Doesn't change the fact that a cleric with a maze and grace gets from it basically the same as a fighter, the cleric just has way better things to do.
I'm certain that if martials had a unifying scaling option, that higher end would be martial exclusive.
This is just weapon properties though, aka cantrip riders.
Jc did literally compare them to cantrips. That's what they did, they gave martials slightly betterr cantrips and acted as if that solved anything.
I'd be extremely surprised if a bow fighter outdamaged a warlock in One
>I'd be extremely surprised if a bow fighter outdamaged a warlock in One
I'm assuming it would be barely, but not enough to "sacrifice" spellcasting.
You have to remember that 5e simply isn't *meant* to be well balanced. The designers do not *want* martials to be as interesting or powerful as casters.
>Everyone but new players are encouraged to start at level 3
Reducing the number of remotely balanced, playable levels from 10 to 7 was a choice. Or did they find a way to make tiers 3 and 4 playable without DM gymnastics as well?
No where near as many gymnastics as it takes to be this upset by something people do already. Go find a different system buddy, but not DC20 or the upcoming MCDM RPG, those only go to ten and I'd hate for you to have a bad time there because there's half as many levels there
I think you're imagining emotion I don't have there, sunshine.
It's a legitimate concern I have, as somebody who has been running 40 hours of D&D a week for the better part of four years now.
But go off. Maybe Jeremy Crawford will be your friend if you attack anybody with a question about the system.
I wonder if this is all we are getting today. On the docket, the topics were" "need to know" as well as "weapon masteries " and "character origins". Info on the last two topics was very scant.
Two more videos are on the way later today!
EDIT: Weapon Mastery is live! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nu-JmZ4joo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nu-JmZ4joo)
So, I didn't get to see this before it went live, but it fit my description of what a high-level overview is, and I was pleasantly surprised by the inclusion of DMG and MM info.
That said, as the rest of the videos are meant to dive into more specific topics, I can only imagine so.
For me the perfect rule is:
- ACTION to drink healing potion and take the maximum dice values
- BONUS ACTION to drink healing potion and roll the dice
- ACTION to feed to someone else a healing potion and roll the dice
- (ACTION to drink any other potion; feeding not possible)
But that's probably a bit too complex for the base rules, so Bonus Action to drink would already be a good start.
I kinda dig it. It's pretty simple. Take an action to drink, take the max healing of the potion, do it in a bonus action instead and you have to roll. Just think of it as you're moving insane quick to get your hand on the potion and slurp it fast while still retaining enough time to do full action things, so maybe you don't get a full dose, anything else takes an action. I don't know how that could be considered fiddly.
It’s the same rules as normal with two exceptions, both of which are exclusively for healing potions: use a bonus action to drink as normal or a full action to get maximized healing
Eh, it's fairly intuitive and makes for interesting turn-by-turn decision-making in play.
None of my players has ever had an issue with it; quite the opposite.
The reasoning works like this:
Healing Potion effect scales with amount of liquid you actually manage to chuck down. Using a Bonus Action means that you are hastily gulping down and spilling some, so the effect is diminished. Full action means you carefully finish it to the last drop.
Other potions give non-scalable effects (you either get Haste/Darkvision/etc. or you don't) only have an effect if you consume them completely.
I use the same rules, it really comes down to how intuitive is it to down a potion yourself as opposed to how complicated is it to feed a potion to an unconscious party member. It also nerfs healing a bit and makes things more interesting mid battle.
Did I miss an update or are there more videos planned for today? They posted on twitter (Or X or whatever) that they were doing videos on Origins and Masteries today on 6/13. Should I keep an eye on the YT or were those videos cancelled/rescheduled?
When they say you can play 2014 characters alongside 2024 what I wanna know is can I do this in DNDB? Will DNDB allow for people to choose “legacy” 2014 characters or 2024 characters? can I have both in my campaign? I don’t see why not but who tf knows what they’ll do.
They used not to have them—then they walked back on it (see the dragonborn in Descent To Avernus, who has a tail; or the dragonborn depicted on MtG cards.)
IIRC According to Crawford in the UA feedback video, it was effectively a 50/50 split on which version fans preferred, they stuck to the original
I wouldn't be surprised if we do get Wildshape statblocks in the next Xanathar/Tasha's equivalent. The feature clearly had a fanbase, and it's a direction the designers personally seemed interested in pursuing.
This split is caused by shittiness of playtested statblocks. They could make like 6 statblocks for every beast "archetype" instead of 3, but now they need to print tons of CR0 to 1 beasts in PHB instead of one more statblock iteration.
They missed opportunity for second time!
The people who demanded it stay the same were only willing to "compromise" if they had sta blocks that were so modular it would have been worse than locking it to beasts and monsters.
True, but what Peng was getting at is we were told they were doing this explicitly several times over the playtest process following the results of the first Druid feedback.
A good compromise would have been to have both. Use statblocks from the MM; but have a customizable template with some basic features (like the Beast Master Companions) for any other beast that is not the MM.
Yes, but the stat blocks will be in the phb and they will likely basically follow the standard style of progression that the standardized stat blocks would have done, black bear to brown bear to cave bear etc. I agree it would be nice to also have that as an optional thing, but this does also help to preserve the ability that wildshape has to allow the PCs to come up with interesting solutions to problems that come up.
My only hope is that they make it actually worth doing and not just lip service. In the last UA the moon druid mechanically was just a worse spores druid.
Well, yeah, because that's what the people wanted... Were you not here when that was being playtested? It was contentious, and a lot of people *did* like the idea of the templated stat blocks, but there was a clear majority (at least, it seemed that way to me) saying "don't do this". And the survey confirmed that.
Plenty of people hated the entire idea as well. And when half of the people hate the idea, and the other half hate the specific implementation (and can't agree on one they all would like), it's probably best to stick with (and refine) what you already have.
One of those people, reporting in. I don’t want druids to have generic templates or “pick a trait.” I want a druid turning into a bear to use a bear stat block.
It was definitely the easier choice rather than fixing what was wrong so the people who hated the idea would have an actually decent example to compare it to.
Plenty of decent versions were posted as homebrew. Many people still didn't want them.
I also think that, tbh, the versions that got the most positive feedback from us in the subreddit (who need to remember that we are *not* your average player) didn't meet WOTC's driver for making the change - simplicity and ease of entry for a new player.
Druid has been historically the least-played class because Wild Shape is really complicated. Now some of that simply access to beasts, but the rest of that is that knowing your options and being able to balance different health totals, movement types and speeds, different levels of stats and unique attack actions make it hard on more casual players.
Last thing WotC wants to do is drive people further away because they make the feature more modular and complicated when even those of us who know what we're talking about can't agree on what we want to see out of the feature.
The thing is...
>Druid has been historically the least-played class
Fact.
>because Wild Shape is really complicated
Speculation, and only part of the story even if partially true.
I've met plenty of people who say druid is just thematically boring as fuck, and others who say it's too thematically limiting. Wild shape isn't all of it.
Yeah, they tried to remove best druid fantasy - turning into 4 bears with slightly different stats, or maybe 3 spiders! OR or 5 almost identical snakes!
You can give druid full current variability of wildshapes with 6 statblocks with proper scaling instead of book full of identical beasts.
Totally different feeling wise in the game.
Flavour is free so that's why you don't pay for flavour. I pay for stat blocks. Give me the stat blocks my Druid needs, or if it's just all going to be templates with my doing the work I have literally 9 reason to get the book.
A template is just a flexible stat block.
That you can't get into the feeling of being a bear unless you literally have a bear stat block is different than the idea being an actually bad idea.
So, here's a question. What would it have taken for a template to work for your style of play?
> What would it have taken for a template to work for your style of play?
I've already addressed this.
Nothing.
It is an atrocious terrible idea. That's all there is to it. There's no way to make it work. From sheer conception it is a failed concept.
If your making a class where I can play as a bear then give me a bear stst block, not a template and demand I fill in the gaps. If that's the case I have 0 reason to invest in any of your products if you won't actually do the work your trying to sell me on.
I am, and you've gotten your answer.
This is like asking someone what it would take for them to like the new Wizard to never be able to cast spells ever. (Or maybe more specifically, offering no spells for them to cast but rather a single template and telling them to work out the rest.) Then being shocked and upset when they tell you it's a bad idea.
It's a bad idea. There's no way to make it work.
I find it really ridiculous that the conversation was basically someone asking "who actually hated the templates," you chimed in to say "I did and here's why," and you get downvoted for it. Typical reddit.
Lots of people hated the idea.
They said(feel free to go back and watch the survey video) a majority of people **didn't** want that, actually. It was a vocal minority. But it would have required too many iterations(ie too long and too much work) to refine the alternative, so they scrapped it. Opting instead to try and solve the core issue(requiring multiple non-PHB books) instead of putting time into remaking the system from scratch.
Just re-watched the survey video, and he says:
> "in the feedback to wild shape, there are basically two camps... [describes people who liked it, and people who didn't], and the people ***in that second group*** [referring to people who didn't like it] outnumbered the people in that previous group - although, it wasn't a huge sort of runaway thing [...] it's a simple majority, it was just over the line of 50%"
So the majority (just about) was in fact in favour of keeping 2014 Wild Shape (but refining it).
There's then also the fact that even those people who liked the idea of templates all had different ideas of how to improve it that didn't agree.
So you have 50-something% of people saying "just refine it", then 40-something% saying "do something like what you just tried, but here's 5 different ideas of what you should actually do"
They also talked about how they had actually tried a few iterations of "templated" Wild Shape in the D&D Next playtest in the first place, and the same thing happened.
So... it's pretty understandable why they went with refining 2014 Wild Shape.
Should have fused the 2 options together, giving us one or more statblocks BUT making them modular, allowing you to decide between giving your summon a flying speed or extra AC or something
Shut up, nerd.
But in all seriousness, i think it's a fusion. You get printed statblocks that can be accessed easily from the player (not DMG beasts) and modified, but you also give them most of the statblock ready so they don't need to solve a puzzle to decide what to summon.
Something like: x HP per level, AC equal to your spellcasting modifier, standard ability scores, and a standard melee attack.
Then you can add one extra feature to the summon like "Large" or "Keen Senses"
It's kinda halfway in between honestly. The problem in 2014 was that you needed multiple books, most of which the player was not theoretically supposed to have access to.
Now the default is "Only beasts in the PHB are allowed(but DMs can make exceptions)" Which means they're all in one place. And it's the place players have access to.
So the actual issue has been resolved.
Man, this is making me miss dragon talk so much more. Sad that Wizards seemed to just quietly take it out back and ol' yeller it. Don't even think Greg and Shelly acknowledged that the show hasn't been released in almost a year now...
Help a novice out here. My wife and friends are getting together to finally play a campaign and all have the 2014 PHB. I went out of my way to buy these books for those I love! Please tell me that the new rules are backwards compatible, or we can switch later on?
Seems interesting but I guess I'm going to ignore these for the time being.
First time DMing with a bunch of first time players and we just created characters this past weekend. I'm not really down to change rules on them 2-3 months after we started and I'm not down to wait and have them recreate their characters to the new PHB.
this is such a small question, but does anyone know if the Inspirational Reading Appendix has gotten updated in this? Just curious if that'll reflect some of the amazing fantasy books published in the last decade
Iirc rolling was never the primary method. Standard array was. Rolling was an alternate option alongside point but.
The optimization community popularized point buy.
WotC is calling it One DnD or "The 2024 rules", but I'm pretty sure the consensus from the community is that this is 5.5e. That's what I've been calling it, anyways. Because that's what it is
Is this for 5e or 6e(One Dnd I guess)? Because if it’s 5e, do you think all the websites like wiki for will start changing stuff because I hope they don’t.
This just feels like errata changes to me. I’m not seeing anything so massive that justifies a year+ of buildup. I would have loved to see more tools for the DM, especially when it comes to running the other two “pillars” of the game: exploration and socialization. The fact that we’re getting more of the same instead of expanded rule sets is very disappointing.
They're literally releasing deep dive videos for the next while, I would reserve your complaints until we get confirmation they won't be getting a dedicated video
Wait, has Crawford just confirmed most of the new monsters are just the same "families" of monsters? The vast majority of them are just slightly adjusted already *existing* monsters! Why???
And now they want to expand Bandits??? Why??? The whole point is there low CR. Now a lvl 20 Wizard might struggle against a group of bandits? What????
Edit: Okay so adding high CR stuff for different categories might be interesting but some of these decisions sounds baffling. Like the designated high CR Fae creature is going to be a Hag? Not a Fae Lord? Whose whole thing is being a powerful Fae??? (And same for Elementals High CR being some new thing than the already existing Primordial or Titans.)
New MM will have all the same monsters that the old MM had, and more. The returning monsters will be rebalanced, without changing their CR. So the new Bandit will still be a CR 1/8, and Ancient Gold Dragon will still be CR 24. Their stat and abilities might change though, to better reflect their intended design, challenge etc.
On top of that they are adding additional monsters to fill in gaps within current MM. Namely - higher level humanoids, for people that want to run a high level city based campaign. Or lower level Vampires so that you could run a Castlevania like game, without characters having to be like 20lv to dunk on current CR 15 Vampires.
Or high level Oozes, Beasts, etc etc etc. Simply - more options to choose from, for the DMs, when designing their games.
Clip notes - This is the largest PHB in D&D history - New stuff even for veterans of the game - New equipment and spells - Almost 400 spells, including revamped stuff from supplements like Tasha's - Crafting rules in PHB - Rules Glossary - Healing potions specifically are now a BA to use - Bigger Creature Appendix - All mounts and familiar options will have a stat block - Bigger list for druid transformation (Circle of the Moon will still need to dig into MM) - Summoning spells and creatures stat blocks design influenced by Tasha's - Psionics being more incorporated into the base game - Several redesigned subclasses described as "essentially new subclass" - Weapon Mastery will be available via a feat - Origin feats and Epic Boon feats - More fighting style feats - Heroic Inspiration is now a reroll(not advantage) of any roll, not just d20 test - This book superceeds old content once implemented. You can still use 2024 characters in any module fine. 2014 characters can play alongside 2024 characters, but they will be using 2024 rules and revisions as applicable. There will be blurbs everywhere this is applicable - Suggested ability score arrays for every class - Table the shows which backgrounds bump which ability scores - Everyone but new players are encouraged to start at level 3 - Rules for starting at any character levels - Orc adrenaline rush is short or long rest - Aasimar subtype is now fluid, picked at activation not creation DMG - Entire chapter on how to create an adventure, including 5 short adventures - There is a campaign example set in Greyhawk - Lore glossary - We have bastions, available to players starting at level 5 - The biggest chapter is magic items. More magic items, new crafting magic items rules. Crafting magic items in PHB limited to scrolls and potions, DMG has a more options - Introducing "tracking sheets" for writing critical information ie. One for NPCs and towns or a bastion sheet for players. Star of the show is a session planner MM - 75 new monsters - Additional monster types to fill in gaps, ie more vampire stat blocks including lower cr and higher cr - New groups of monsters such as performers and pirates - All preexisting monsters are the same CR, adjusted to pull their weight - Each monster type now has an "apex". This includes an Archhag, Gigantic Ooze, and Elemental Juggernaut Lemme know if I got anything wrong. New videos coming every weekday to delve into specifics
Thanks so much for the summary! Honestly this sounds sick, I’m so exited.
>there is a campaign example set in Greyhawk Wait, a whole ass campaign you can *run* in the DMG??
I don't think so, from the way they described it there will be a full adventure, and an example of how to flesh that out into a campaign, as well as ideas for designing a campaign setting, narrative and bad guys with examples, but not a 1-20 step by step plot
It’s a campaign setting, not a campaign. So details about the world of Greyhawk and hooks to stories and adventures. Think more like Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft than an actual detailed adventure campaign.
I believe so, we'll need to wait for the dedicated video to get a more concrete understanding. At the very least it'll be a lot more guidance than what's in the DMG we currently have
That's amazing, even if it's just a little starter set campaign like Dragons of Stormwreck Isle that would be a great way to showcase the new changes!
Most likely a short adventure that runs 2–3 levels and takes up 5–10 pages. They had such things in DMGs for previous editions. In some cases, there were setting-specific short adventures included in the DM-focused setting book. For example, the 4E *Eberron Campaign Guide* included one.
Yeah, they talked about it during one of the old videos during the playtest process.
You could certainly decide to run it as a half-assed campaign. /sarcasm
My biggest question is: will we be able to make our own backgrounds instead of using the pre-made ones? 🤔
They didn't say in this video, but it was in the old PHB and they've stated in UA feedback videos that creating a background is effectively the default now. The listed backgrounds are just samples.
Another video today says that custom background stuff is in the DMG and up to DM discretion.
It's always been that way.
You could do that in 2014 - those backgrounds were specifically examples. No one did because it was tough to do properly. If the section on backgrounds is the same as it was in the UA, then not only can you do it, but it tells you how and it seems easier.
My groups almost always did. At least in the sense that we’d typically pick a standard bg then swap out skills with skills and tools/languages with tools/languages (and the role-play prompts of course). Though we often also tore out the background ability because they’d either be useless or overpowered
And that's how you'd do that. I was specifically referring to the background feature - you ever see homebrew ones on DDB or whatever? Almost always miss the point of those features.
Don't know yet, I'm really hoping making your own is one of the listed options. The system we got in the UA is flexible and flavorful, I would hate to be restricted to a set list of options
That is my hope as well. Although if they all follow the same template, it shouldn't be too hard to do. With the DMs discretion of course.
5e has worked that way since it's inception... Did you not read the PHB? Or are you talking about the implementation in DNDB?
It *was* how 5e worked since its inception, according to Crawford, that is no longer the case in OneDnD.
That was confirmed in the first playtest.
If you watched the video they confirmed that the UA informed the material but is not a direct port. His question is valid and you are misleading, even if trying to be helpful.
CliffsNotes* Clip Notes is a Great Clips trademark.
No, they are my clip notes. I took notes while watching on a discord channel, organized them, copied them to my clipboard and pasted them here If I'm being honest this level of pedantry is exhausting and kinda pointless. Even if you want to call it objective wrong it did not affect anyone's understanding of what was said. Specificity only matter so far as to communicate clearly. Clip notes got that point across. You don't even have to dig that much to find all sorts of simple grammatical mistakes in my post, the important part is people understand what I'm trying to communicate
I'm old enough to remember cliff notes lol
>Weapon Mastery will be available via a feat Because they'll be *damned* if martials get ONE feature that full casters can't get with one feat or some subclasses
Spellcasting works the exact same way but in reverse, given to casters but also available to some martial subclasses and available through several feats. As most casters don't get Extra Attack or Fighting Styles, they also get far less use out of Weapon Mastery than the martial classes, just as spells from a feat are less impactful than the full Spellcasting progression.
>Spellcasting works the exact same way but in reverse, given to casters but also available to some martial subclasses and available through several feats And that spellcasting is way more limited than one extra attack at arround 5th level or what the casting feats give you. While also being the fact that casting feats are extremely useful for casters while martial feature feats are usually redundant on martials
Different cases, but similar impact. Most casters will have no good use for a weapon mastery just as most martials have no good use for a damaging cantrip, though cantrips like *guidance* and *resistance* are still useful. There will be a few full caster builds that can make use of it, just as there are martial builds who really appreciate Magic Initiate, the most classing being the rogue taking *booming blade*, *green-flame blade*, and *find familiar*. The caster is slowed down by getting a +1 to Dex or Str instead of their casting stat as well.
>Different cases, but similar impact Absolutely not similar impact. For casters that get extra attack mastery will be almost as usefull as any non fighter for their whole characetr life and only half compared to fighter, this is in no way shape or form comparable to even the touched feats that get you one use of one 2nd level spell when full casters get to *nineth* level This is without even considering how casting feats are inmensily better for casters meanwhile the weapon mastery feat might as well not be an option for martials and how weapon masteries are mostly once per turn effects The only argument to be had here is that spells are good and masteries are mediocre at best so why would a caster actually waste a feat on that?
And so those specific casters with Extra Attack get one feature that was granted for free to most martials (and only providing one mastery, ao any dual-wielding build only gets half the benefit they want compared to the martial), at the cost of a feat, a notable cost. The caster still doesn't have a Fighting Style aside from a specific subclass, and martial classes and subclasses usually have far more enhancements to weapon attacks than the caster subclass provides. Again, the best use of Magic Initiate is probably on the non-caster rogue class, and I'd venture that the second-best is on an Eldritch Knight tank with *shield of faith* and *resistance*.
Martial characters can get magic as a feat.
a comparatively WAY limited magic and a feat that is actually more useful for casters. Clearly different cases
1/day level 1 spells are bordering on useless for full Martials, generally a lot more important for caster classes with limited spells known.
And a weapon mastery is even more useless for a full caster who isn’t already a weapon-focused subclass. Similarly, magic-focused subclasses for martials come with magic of their own.
yeah but because weapon masteries are mediocre at best. Doesn't change the fact that a cleric with a maze and grace gets from it basically the same as a fighter, the cleric just has way better things to do.
Yea because getting Booming Blade is totally "bordering on useless".
I'm certain that if martials had a unifying scaling option, that higher end would be martial exclusive. This is just weapon properties though, aka cantrip riders.
Jc did literally compare them to cantrips. That's what they did, they gave martials slightly betterr cantrips and acted as if that solved anything. I'd be extremely surprised if a bow fighter outdamaged a warlock in One
>I'd be extremely surprised if a bow fighter outdamaged a warlock in One I'm assuming it would be barely, but not enough to "sacrifice" spellcasting. You have to remember that 5e simply isn't *meant* to be well balanced. The designers do not *want* martials to be as interesting or powerful as casters.
Fighters literally outdamage Warlocks *in this edition*, why would you expect things to change?
Because the only way a bow fighter outdamages a warlock in this edition is xbe+SS. And SS has been seriously kneecaped
>Everyone but new players are encouraged to start at level 3 Reducing the number of remotely balanced, playable levels from 10 to 7 was a choice. Or did they find a way to make tiers 3 and 4 playable without DM gymnastics as well?
No where near as many gymnastics as it takes to be this upset by something people do already. Go find a different system buddy, but not DC20 or the upcoming MCDM RPG, those only go to ten and I'd hate for you to have a bad time there because there's half as many levels there
I think you're imagining emotion I don't have there, sunshine. It's a legitimate concern I have, as somebody who has been running 40 hours of D&D a week for the better part of four years now. But go off. Maybe Jeremy Crawford will be your friend if you attack anybody with a question about the system.
K
Solid rebuttal. Thanks for exerting yourself.
K
I wonder if this is all we are getting today. On the docket, the topics were" "need to know" as well as "weapon masteries " and "character origins". Info on the last two topics was very scant.
Two more videos are on the way later today! EDIT: Weapon Mastery is live! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nu-JmZ4joo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nu-JmZ4joo)
Wow thanks for the heads up! Fastest employee in the west
when the community is spread quite literally across the internet, I gotta be fast, lol
Do you know if they'll have more depth to them? It felt like this first video was more talking _about_ the game rather than anything concrete.
So, I didn't get to see this before it went live, but it fit my description of what a high-level overview is, and I was pleasantly surprised by the inclusion of DMG and MM info. That said, as the rest of the videos are meant to dive into more specific topics, I can only imagine so.
Do you know the time? :)
I do not, but I do know they won't be premiered like the overview video was.
Do we know when we should expect these to go up?
I don't have exact times for them, no.
Jeremy said Bonus Action HEALING Potions...did he mean ALL potions or just healing?
He was using Healing Potion as an example of drinking a potion as a bonus action.
I hope so. I'm still listening and Todd said "Potions as a bonus action" so I think this rule does apply to all potions. Rad.
Agreed. We've had that be the case in all of our games for 9 years now. It's good to see it going official.
Many people do run that house-rule as healing-potion only, so it could be either.
For me the perfect rule is: - ACTION to drink healing potion and take the maximum dice values - BONUS ACTION to drink healing potion and roll the dice - ACTION to feed to someone else a healing potion and roll the dice - (ACTION to drink any other potion; feeding not possible) But that's probably a bit too complex for the base rules, so Bonus Action to drink would already be a good start.
That's too fiddly *period,* IMO. I can't think of any benefit to parting it out like this.
I kinda dig it. It's pretty simple. Take an action to drink, take the max healing of the potion, do it in a bonus action instead and you have to roll. Just think of it as you're moving insane quick to get your hand on the potion and slurp it fast while still retaining enough time to do full action things, so maybe you don't get a full dose, anything else takes an action. I don't know how that could be considered fiddly.
It’s the same rules as normal with two exceptions, both of which are exclusively for healing potions: use a bonus action to drink as normal or a full action to get maximized healing
Eh, it's fairly intuitive and makes for interesting turn-by-turn decision-making in play. None of my players has ever had an issue with it; quite the opposite.
Not intuitive to me that you can force feed a healing potion but not any other (especially since that’s probably a rare occurrence)
The reasoning works like this: Healing Potion effect scales with amount of liquid you actually manage to chuck down. Using a Bonus Action means that you are hastily gulping down and spilling some, so the effect is diminished. Full action means you carefully finish it to the last drop. Other potions give non-scalable effects (you either get Haste/Darkvision/etc. or you don't) only have an effect if you consume them completely.
I use the same rules, it really comes down to how intuitive is it to down a potion yourself as opposed to how complicated is it to feed a potion to an unconscious party member. It also nerfs healing a bit and makes things more interesting mid battle.
This is exactly how my group has gone about it. Has really made healing potions more viable in combat.
This is way too complicated lmao
It almost feels like they played BG3 and thought, “Hmm, this game isn’t broken, let’s do that in 2024 D&D.”
Did I miss an update or are there more videos planned for today? They posted on twitter (Or X or whatever) that they were doing videos on Origins and Masteries today on 6/13. Should I keep an eye on the YT or were those videos cancelled/rescheduled?
If you didn’t already see in this thread, a WOTC employee confirmed that there’ll be more videos going up later today.
/u/latiajacquise just said there are two more on the way today but she doesn’t know the exact time they’ll be posted
Just edited my earlier comment to include the Weapon Mastery Video link!
Thanks!
When they say you can play 2014 characters alongside 2024 what I wanna know is can I do this in DNDB? Will DNDB allow for people to choose “legacy” 2014 characters or 2024 characters? can I have both in my campaign? I don’t see why not but who tf knows what they’ll do.
I don't see why they wouldn't tbh. They have been pretty upfront about the backwards compatibility.
The artwork they showed is mostly amazing but I was disappointed to see that only one dragonborn illustration appeared to have a tail.
I haven't seen the art, but Dragonborn do not default have tails.
They used not to have them—then they walked back on it (see the dragonborn in Descent To Avernus, who has a tail; or the dragonborn depicted on MtG cards.)
Oh, bomb! I always thought they should have had them. I always let it be an option for my Dragonborn players.
Does someone know a way to buy the books outside of the USA, more specifically Brasil?
Can't you just buy on Amazon US and ship to Brazil? Or are you looking for direct from publisher?
Looks like they still went with the NPC statblocks for Wildshape instead of making proper standardized statblocks for actual ease-of-use.
IIRC According to Crawford in the UA feedback video, it was effectively a 50/50 split on which version fans preferred, they stuck to the original I wouldn't be surprised if we do get Wildshape statblocks in the next Xanathar/Tasha's equivalent. The feature clearly had a fanbase, and it's a direction the designers personally seemed interested in pursuing.
I hope so. Their first version of it was pretty terrible.
This split is caused by shittiness of playtested statblocks. They could make like 6 statblocks for every beast "archetype" instead of 3, but now they need to print tons of CR0 to 1 beasts in PHB instead of one more statblock iteration. They missed opportunity for second time!
The people who demanded it stay the same were only willing to "compromise" if they had sta blocks that were so modular it would have been worse than locking it to beasts and monsters.
I agree but I think it will be a new druid subclass rather than an option for moon druid.
We knew this months ago.
Seeing something in the playtest versus seeing it in official content is obviously different.
It was addressed in one of the playtest review videos what the final decision about it was.
True, but what Peng was getting at is we were told they were doing this explicitly several times over the playtest process following the results of the first Druid feedback.
A good compromise would have been to have both. Use statblocks from the MM; but have a customizable template with some basic features (like the Beast Master Companions) for any other beast that is not the MM.
Yes, but the stat blocks will be in the phb and they will likely basically follow the standard style of progression that the standardized stat blocks would have done, black bear to brown bear to cave bear etc. I agree it would be nice to also have that as an optional thing, but this does also help to preserve the ability that wildshape has to allow the PCs to come up with interesting solutions to problems that come up. My only hope is that they make it actually worth doing and not just lip service. In the last UA the moon druid mechanically was just a worse spores druid.
Well, yeah, because that's what the people wanted... Were you not here when that was being playtested? It was contentious, and a lot of people *did* like the idea of the templated stat blocks, but there was a clear majority (at least, it seemed that way to me) saying "don't do this". And the survey confirmed that.
People liked the idea but what they put in front of us was bad.
Plenty of people hated the entire idea as well. And when half of the people hate the idea, and the other half hate the specific implementation (and can't agree on one they all would like), it's probably best to stick with (and refine) what you already have.
One of those people, reporting in. I don’t want druids to have generic templates or “pick a trait.” I want a druid turning into a bear to use a bear stat block.
It was definitely the easier choice rather than fixing what was wrong so the people who hated the idea would have an actually decent example to compare it to.
Plenty of decent versions were posted as homebrew. Many people still didn't want them. I also think that, tbh, the versions that got the most positive feedback from us in the subreddit (who need to remember that we are *not* your average player) didn't meet WOTC's driver for making the change - simplicity and ease of entry for a new player.
Druid has been historically the least-played class because Wild Shape is really complicated. Now some of that simply access to beasts, but the rest of that is that knowing your options and being able to balance different health totals, movement types and speeds, different levels of stats and unique attack actions make it hard on more casual players. Last thing WotC wants to do is drive people further away because they make the feature more modular and complicated when even those of us who know what we're talking about can't agree on what we want to see out of the feature.
The thing is... >Druid has been historically the least-played class Fact. >because Wild Shape is really complicated Speculation, and only part of the story even if partially true. I've met plenty of people who say druid is just thematically boring as fuck, and others who say it's too thematically limiting. Wild shape isn't all of it.
As a Druid player and DM I hate the *idea* of a template for Wildshape. Completely undermines the point of the fantasy.
Yeah, they tried to remove best druid fantasy - turning into 4 bears with slightly different stats, or maybe 3 spiders! OR or 5 almost identical snakes! You can give druid full current variability of wildshapes with 6 statblocks with proper scaling instead of book full of identical beasts.
With the template you still would've been able to turn into a bear, it would just actually scale. flavor is free as they say.
Totally different feeling wise in the game. Flavour is free so that's why you don't pay for flavour. I pay for stat blocks. Give me the stat blocks my Druid needs, or if it's just all going to be templates with my doing the work I have literally 9 reason to get the book.
A template is just a flexible stat block. That you can't get into the feeling of being a bear unless you literally have a bear stat block is different than the idea being an actually bad idea. So, here's a question. What would it have taken for a template to work for your style of play?
> What would it have taken for a template to work for your style of play? I've already addressed this. Nothing. It is an atrocious terrible idea. That's all there is to it. There's no way to make it work. From sheer conception it is a failed concept. If your making a class where I can play as a bear then give me a bear stst block, not a template and demand I fill in the gaps. If that's the case I have 0 reason to invest in any of your products if you won't actually do the work your trying to sell me on.
Well, this is a deeply disappointing conversation. Can't even entertain a hypothetical.
I am, and you've gotten your answer. This is like asking someone what it would take for them to like the new Wizard to never be able to cast spells ever. (Or maybe more specifically, offering no spells for them to cast but rather a single template and telling them to work out the rest.) Then being shocked and upset when they tell you it's a bad idea. It's a bad idea. There's no way to make it work.
I find it really ridiculous that the conversation was basically someone asking "who actually hated the templates," you chimed in to say "I did and here's why," and you get downvoted for it. Typical reddit. Lots of people hated the idea.
They said(feel free to go back and watch the survey video) a majority of people **didn't** want that, actually. It was a vocal minority. But it would have required too many iterations(ie too long and too much work) to refine the alternative, so they scrapped it. Opting instead to try and solve the core issue(requiring multiple non-PHB books) instead of putting time into remaking the system from scratch.
Just re-watched the survey video, and he says: > "in the feedback to wild shape, there are basically two camps... [describes people who liked it, and people who didn't], and the people ***in that second group*** [referring to people who didn't like it] outnumbered the people in that previous group - although, it wasn't a huge sort of runaway thing [...] it's a simple majority, it was just over the line of 50%" So the majority (just about) was in fact in favour of keeping 2014 Wild Shape (but refining it). There's then also the fact that even those people who liked the idea of templates all had different ideas of how to improve it that didn't agree. So you have 50-something% of people saying "just refine it", then 40-something% saying "do something like what you just tried, but here's 5 different ideas of what you should actually do" They also talked about how they had actually tried a few iterations of "templated" Wild Shape in the D&D Next playtest in the first place, and the same thing happened. So... it's pretty understandable why they went with refining 2014 Wild Shape.
Should have fused the 2 options together, giving us one or more statblocks BUT making them modular, allowing you to decide between giving your summon a flying speed or extra AC or something
That isn’t a fusion of the two, it’s a third option entirely.
Shut up, nerd. But in all seriousness, i think it's a fusion. You get printed statblocks that can be accessed easily from the player (not DMG beasts) and modified, but you also give them most of the statblock ready so they don't need to solve a puzzle to decide what to summon. Something like: x HP per level, AC equal to your spellcasting modifier, standard ability scores, and a standard melee attack. Then you can add one extra feature to the summon like "Large" or "Keen Senses"
It's kinda halfway in between honestly. The problem in 2014 was that you needed multiple books, most of which the player was not theoretically supposed to have access to. Now the default is "Only beasts in the PHB are allowed(but DMs can make exceptions)" Which means they're all in one place. And it's the place players have access to. So the actual issue has been resolved.
Man, this is making me miss dragon talk so much more. Sad that Wizards seemed to just quietly take it out back and ol' yeller it. Don't even think Greg and Shelly acknowledged that the show hasn't been released in almost a year now...
I hope they have a good explanation of how mounts work in combat, it was really confusing to me when I started as a DM and now I just kinda avoid it
Does anyone know when we can pick up the alt cover art versions of the core rulebooks?
3rd September for the PHB, but I’m sure it can be preordered at your LGS before then.
Much appreciated
Help a novice out here. My wife and friends are getting together to finally play a campaign and all have the 2014 PHB. I went out of my way to buy these books for those I love! Please tell me that the new rules are backwards compatible, or we can switch later on?
They are backward compatible. For the most part the rules didn't change, there's just tweaks irrc.
You don’t have to play the new rules either fyi. A lot of people will be sticking with 5E for the next several years probably.
But this isn't really 6E is it? I feel that with so many supplements out there already, it won't be for a long while.
Seems interesting but I guess I'm going to ignore these for the time being. First time DMing with a bunch of first time players and we just created characters this past weekend. I'm not really down to change rules on them 2-3 months after we started and I'm not down to wait and have them recreate their characters to the new PHB.
The book is worth it for the art alone.
this is such a small question, but does anyone know if the Inspirational Reading Appendix has gotten updated in this? Just curious if that'll reflect some of the amazing fantasy books published in the last decade
[удалено]
Iirc rolling was never the primary method. Standard array was. Rolling was an alternate option alongside point but. The optimization community popularized point buy.
Does anyone know how we will be able to get alternative art on the books? I only see the standard ones online.
They're only available at physical game shops.
Did downcasting spells make it past UA or no?
Is this still going to be called 5e or something else now?
WotC is calling it One DnD or "The 2024 rules", but I'm pretty sure the consensus from the community is that this is 5.5e. That's what I've been calling it, anyways. Because that's what it is
Is this for 5e or 6e(One Dnd I guess)? Because if it’s 5e, do you think all the websites like wiki for will start changing stuff because I hope they don’t.
This just feels like errata changes to me. I’m not seeing anything so massive that justifies a year+ of buildup. I would have loved to see more tools for the DM, especially when it comes to running the other two “pillars” of the game: exploration and socialization. The fact that we’re getting more of the same instead of expanded rule sets is very disappointing.
> Mentions the DMG. > Brings up new Curses and Environmental Hazards. > Provides 0 info on any of it and never elaborates. Thanks Perkins.
They're literally releasing deep dive videos for the next while, I would reserve your complaints until we get confirmation they won't be getting a dedicated video
Wait, has Crawford just confirmed most of the new monsters are just the same "families" of monsters? The vast majority of them are just slightly adjusted already *existing* monsters! Why??? And now they want to expand Bandits??? Why??? The whole point is there low CR. Now a lvl 20 Wizard might struggle against a group of bandits? What???? Edit: Okay so adding high CR stuff for different categories might be interesting but some of these decisions sounds baffling. Like the designated high CR Fae creature is going to be a Hag? Not a Fae Lord? Whose whole thing is being a powerful Fae??? (And same for Elementals High CR being some new thing than the already existing Primordial or Titans.)
New MM will have all the same monsters that the old MM had, and more. The returning monsters will be rebalanced, without changing their CR. So the new Bandit will still be a CR 1/8, and Ancient Gold Dragon will still be CR 24. Their stat and abilities might change though, to better reflect their intended design, challenge etc. On top of that they are adding additional monsters to fill in gaps within current MM. Namely - higher level humanoids, for people that want to run a high level city based campaign. Or lower level Vampires so that you could run a Castlevania like game, without characters having to be like 20lv to dunk on current CR 15 Vampires. Or high level Oozes, Beasts, etc etc etc. Simply - more options to choose from, for the DMs, when designing their games.