I think you missed a massive nerf. Probably already pointed out but Hunter's Mark, as in the playtest, only deals damage the FIRST TIME you hit a creature on your turn. So unlike the previous 1d6 to every attack, it's a maximum of 1d6 per turn on the first hit only. Even when the damage increases to 2d6 it is just on par with previous and 3d6 just makes it what any Two-Weapon Fighting Ranger could do at lvl 5 (besides the first turn to set it up). So even if they removed the need for a Bonus Action to Two-Weapon Fight the fact it is once per turn still renders the spell very subpar.
You’re absolutely right! I missed that change in the playtest. Though, we can’t be sure that’s the version that’ll be in print. It does at least mean that the extra upcast damage I was hoping for likely wont help us out here, though. We’ll probably either see the once per turn version with scaling damage or the old version with a static 1d6 per hit.
Personally, I think this is a buff and not a nerf, because you only have to hit once, but you do all the damage. Before, if you missed one of the two attacks, you only got 1d6, now it's 2d6
One thing I don’t see anyone talking about. With Wotc changing smite to a spell paladins can no longer smite high cr creatures unless they remove monsters with immunity to spells below 6th level. Which just seems wrong
There's actually very few cases in the MM of monsters immune to low level spells. And one would hope that if wotc reintroduces it they change things with Paladin in mind
@justinanderson1705 you are putting a lot of faith in a company ran by hasbro the same company that sent mercenary group to someone's house because they got a MTG card a little early
@@kenave1 oh trust me I know it's silly to place any amount of faith in them. But I feel like in this case it makes sense. Like they enforce the limit on any non Melee spells for example. If all else fails its extremely easy for a DM to handwave Djvine Smite being an actual spell
@@justinanderson1705 Raksashas are a clear example of what they said... Unless you use a bow or crossbow and bless the arrow/bolt in some way... Still, is kinda of an issue unless you use a moon touched sword too
Given that rogues don't gain extra attack, it feels like a very simple houserule of gaining an extra sneak attack dice at lvl 5 and 11 would be a safe and easy boost. Also, why not let them use cunning strike proficiency bonus times per long or short rest and then they can spend sneak dice to use it after that? Just some fixes that would go a long way towards bringing the rogue at the table up to par.
One option, although it would be more difficult for table play, would be to increase the size of sneak attack from d6 to d8, and then to d10 at lvl 14 or so. Same number bigger dice. Problem is not many people have that many d8's and d10's lying around...
@@snakept69Yeah, the d6 is also just synonymous with the Rogue at this point. Justin's suggestion is already really close to what I plan on doing. I'll also be granting them another Bonus Action at level 10 that can only be used for Cunning Actions, and giving all subclasses their own special Cunning Action.
Fine I'll that guy rogues are not a dps class they are a utility class losing out on 3 damage to poison or knock prone someone is huge they have an at will topple weapon mastery and the nick property gives them.extra attack and frees up their bonus action it's a buff
@@druxusthemage9806 a utility class that have less utility than bard or artificer. Yeah right. They NEED the DPS. The fighter can self heal. As well as monks. A barbarian can rage so much that their HP essentially doubles. Especially on the totem barbarian. What self healing or sustain that a rogue have. To keep themselves in the fight.
Paladin: most of this needed to happen, but since when are all paladins riding horses? Ranger: lot of the flavor was lost only to make a whole class rely on a 1st level spell that requires concentration. Rogue: mostly fine with new as is
You don't really have to ride your steed (I know, sounds weird). At worst you have a cost-free mean of transport. At best? You have a concentration -free scaling summon that can act independently and that you can summon before combat.
Pretty much my thoughts on the matter. Poor ranger can't catch a break. I do think paladins having horses makes sense, they're based on holy knights, but I would rather if it was an option like it was before all the same.
I honestly like the faithful steed ability for paladin. It works from a flavor standpoint and they certainly made it mechanically attractive enough that more people should actually use it now.
Paladin is most definitely not weak, overall, I would say they are better than before, because they can now use lay on hands as a bonus action, giving you effectively second health bar. And of course they also get weapon mastery which is a massive buff too. And you still get the best ability of any class in the game with the aura of protection. Also, it seems people are still thinking rangers are weak just because they have one ability that isn't great? Just because you get hunter's mark as free preparation doesn't mean it's the only spell you ever should cast. You can still cast any other better spells you have at higher levels. Think of Hunter's Mark more like something to cast when you don't have anything better to do.
@@lukorama10 Sure, you don't have to use faithful steed, but when it was a spell you could choose to take, it told you "some do this, others don't". By having it auto prepared, it says "not all have to use it... but you kind of should because we think it defines a paladin as much as being able to smite"
Maybe it's just me, and I by no means say this like I know more than WOTC or DnD content creators, but I only really thought Paladin was a problem with regards to Mid-Maxers. I've played as and DM'd multiple Paladins and multi-class Paladin dips (With different groups of varying experience) and it was never really an issue. Whether it be a 1st Level or 15th Level (Were most players realistically play) Paladins. I could count on one hand the number of times it was a mild problem, but never a game breaking or over exhausting problem even with the "meta" builds. I realize this is anecdotal, but I say this to illustrate that I have experience on both sides of the DM screen through multiple one-shots and longer campaigns. So this isn't coming from a place of ignorance of rules, meta/mid-max builds, muti-classing, etc. Just a place of confusion and concern about the changes to Paladin and players/DM's reasonings. Now, if you told me that Paladins needed some nerfs I would 100% agree. There are many things you could do to nerf them, while still keeping them strong and in-line with what they're good at. However, nerfing their ability to Smite, in my opinion, into the ground is not a good change. It's fundamental part to what the class is and can do. Changing it to this degree just seems off, mechanically and overall class wise. If you told me Paladins we're TOO OP or TOO strong, I would respectfully disagree. They are definitely a strong top 3 class in 5E, however, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Look at all the things Wizards and Clerics can do, or Warlock and Sorcerer dips, yet the Paladin is the problem and needs an overall overhaul to one of their main gimmicks? They CAN be too much, if the DM and the players don't communicate and agree on expectations. Like, "Hey DM, I want to make this OP Paladin multi-class build, can I?" or "For this campaign/one-shot we're not going to be doing "meta" builds, and if you REALLY want to, talk to me about it 1st." Personally, I think many people are too eager to nerf 1st, plan and communicate around it later. Again, this is just my thoughts and shouldn't be taken too seriously, because at the end of the day, people can still default to the 5E Paladin or patch together what they want between 5E and 6E Paladins.
@@jerrypickins I get the only smiting once a turn. But why in the Nine Hells did they make it a Bonus Action? So many options are gone now. Why would you ever do a Polearm Master Paladin now, for example? It feels like that single part is the worst nerf they could have done. It's like if they made Sneak Attack take away your Bonus Action.
I have a Lvl 2 Pal/Lvl 12+ Sword Bard, we have a lvl 2 Warlock/ Lvl 12+ Paladin in a 6 person game. The Lvl 14 Warlock, Druid, Artificer and Lore Bard have all shone in their many moments. There is NO balance ISSUE.
Complaining that the rogue has to give up damage for utility when other classes have spells and features that do the same without sacrificing damage sort of misses the part where those spells and features have finite resources, whereas the rogue can do it all the time. The only close comparison comes from weapon mastery effects, which the rogue also has access to.
My annoyance is that the dc isn’t mentioned and I pray it scales like a spell save dc(preferably with dex) because if not then there’s really no sense in using an ability that requires you to hit, sacrifice damage, and then the enemy still has to fail a low dc save on saving throws they’ll likely have proficiency in to use said ability.
@@haerdalis84 possibly intelligence for poisoning, I find it hard to understand how else when ki save dcs are based off of wisdom and not dex. Since intelligence is the rogues other mainline stat I feel it should be given some love
@@TechnicalTactician My only issue is that this limits rogues to an int/dex build if they want to use any of those features. I get that it's meant to be their other main stat but a high wisdom or charisma rogue is also super common and shouldn't be left out. Obviously one could easily ask for DM approval to adjust the scaling stat but the number of DMs that would say no to swapping casters' main stat makes me believe it will limit players.
@@soldierbreed haha I’ve made that point in the subclass video I referenced in the rogue portion. But others have pointed out that we don’t actually know for sure that this will still be the case with new monsters in the PHB and MM!
@@ConstructedChaos even if they cut in half the amount of monsters with strong con saves it would still be a weak save t9 target. And thats not hyperbole
@@soldierbreed that’s one thing that really annoys me too. When it comes to the animal kingdom we have one of the best constitutions out there. We can chase a deer or horse until it can’t run anymore and keep going. And in reality our dexterity is one of the best. But dexterity tends to include celerity and reflexes in dnd. So I give that a pass.
I played a Ranged Gloom Stalker Lvl 5/ Samauri Lvl 4. As someone who had only played once, after a 20 year break, I fell into the Hunter's Mark trap. After watching a few videos, I started to use Zepher Strike much more. If all I had left was 1 spell, then MAYBE I might cast Hunter's Mark. The play style got better, the damage got better, the fun meter went way up. I didn't go Ranger/Rogue, because we had a Rogue (Soul Knife), and I felt that it would be rude. This dependence on Hunter's Mark SUCKS. I thought the idea was to allow imagination/creativity/choice? But don't say this on a WOTC Facebook post, the corporate lovers will attack like 12-year-old trolls in their basement bedroom, waiting for Mom to get back from the store with Pizza Rolls.
I think what's a bit frustrating about Paladin is how bad both their "new" features are. Paladin's Smite: A free preparation and one free daily casting of Divine Smite (spell) at level 1. Faithful Steed: A free preparation and and one daily casting of Find Steed (spell) at level 2. Paladin's Smite and Faithful Steed are LAZY features. They're preparing spells already on the Paladin spell list, neither changes how those spells work for the Paladin, and neither upcasts the spell cast as that Paladin player progresses. What value does Find Steed have cast at level 2, once per day, for a level 10, 15 or 20 Paladin? It scales with the spell-slot expended (so for a flying mount, you are not using a 2nd level spell slot) and the mount summoned has an infinite duration (meaning the once-per-day value is NONexistent). It doesn't help that Find Steed creates a controlled mount in combat (meaning it literally can't use ANY of its features unless the Paladin is unconscious). ... And anyone with Wish can cast it as an action at 8th level. Yeah, the Paladin exclusive Find Steed is infinitely better on Clerics, Wizards and Bards. Divine Smite doesn't fair much better, despite being Paladin "action surge" given its level placement... because the feature doesn't do anything beyond do a free-level 1 casting of Divine Smite. Its so frustrating that the design team basically decided to give Paladins bad features and call them buffs, some of which don't work with PHB's mounted combat rules. The most absurd thing about this saga of dumb is seeing Warlocks keep their Eldritch Smite invocation, as is, making them have the only free action Smite, nonspell in game.
Find Steed is busted, what the hell are you smoking, permanent 60ft movement speed while also always able to disengage... Maybe read mounted combat rules before saying stupid shit
I absolutely agree. It just feels like they took it a little too far for my liking. I could have lived with it just being once per turn. But making it a spell AND a bonus action is a big change.
But how many times could you actually do that, though? You’d burn through all your slots in a few turns and have nothing left for the rest of the day. It was a big gamble and not always the best option, so I don’t think it was overpowered at all.
@@darthmalicex4118 You could do it enough times that there wasn't anything left to smite haha. No, but seriously, I get that it was always limited by resources but it went way too crazy in a lot of multiclass builds. I have a player running swords bard, hexblade warlock, paladin in a game right now. It's a blender haha.
@@vortigern7021 True, but it is comparable in the sense that it is a spell and also requires a bonus action, which is why the Smite spells were rarely used in actual play. Personally, I'm ok with the once per turn limitation, but there was no need to make it a spell and bonus action. Those changes hamstring the Paladin and lead to many other negative side effects. Hopefully, WotC will reconsider those changes.
Until we have full details, it’s hard to judge anything. I know that I’m not a fan of having one low level concentration spell tied to class features, that’s for sure. Also, not a fan of the new wildshape for druids. Trying to hold off on judgements until I can see the book.
@@saqwana25 I don't know about that. Homebrews that allow for concentrating on two spells at a time are notoriously OP. But I do think they could ease up on concentration at least a little.
If your DM counterspells all your smites your DM is the problem, not the new rule. Plus, with the counterspell nerf I don’t know if the Paladin will be too afraid of a Con save
Wasting counterspell slot on a Smite sounds like a very poor tactical decision to me, so if your DM does that then stay positive because not only you're not losing a spell slot with how counterspell works now, but that counterspell slot could've been spent on countering something much more dangerous than Smite.
So from the future a bit here, having seen the leaked book. It looks like a good few of the ranger combat spells lost concentration. At least Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow, and Magic Weapon. So the concentration sink really comes into play if you are trying to crowd control or deal damage. If you're trying to deal damage, then Hunter's Mark with Lightning Arrow or Hail of Thorns is probably your choice of spell usage. In which case, I don't really mind the sink. If you are trying to crowd control like with entangle or spike growth. Or single target crowd controls like ensnaring strike, you're a bit more limited on the concentration. Ultimately i think ranger got buffed in this but the buffs are... frustrating. Ill be playing a returning character as we're returning to our first campaign setting with this new book. The level sequence is 17 Hunter Ranger / 3 Scout Rogue (new rogue, using the old scout from tashas) Poisoner feat, so the pattern is to mark a creature, see if theyre immune to my poison, and if they arent hope they enjoy that DC 17 con save 😂
@@felltactician yeah I saw the same thing. Magic weapon looks like it’ll be the best bet in helping out the Ranger but I just don’t understand why they tied it to hunter’s mark like this again. It basically rules out most spells that do use concentration.
@ConstructedChaos yeah it is mildly frustrating as someone who's been playing rangers all throughout 5e. However I am noticing that Playtest 6; 13th level didnt have a feature which has the Relentless Hunter now, the 17th level feature had Conjure Volley always prepared; that got replaced with the Accurate Hunter one. The 20th level feature was a lot better though. When you miss your Hunter's Mark target you can add your wisdom modifier to turn it into a hit, and when you hit you can add wisdom to your damage. So when looking at the previous UA for Ranger... this update is a bit better in that regard. I'd rather have the Hunter's Mark features than Nothing at 13th and Conjure Volley just prepared at 17th... Though I really wish they kept us with favored terrain. Thats really disappointing that they took it away.
Don't really get the hype around magic weapon. Unless magic items are rarer in the new DMG, or your dm is stingy. Most martials will have a +1 weapon by lvl 5. And Magic Weapon don't stack or even work on magic weapons, so it's only good when you don't have a magical weapon already. It's definitely way better as a spell in a vacuum but I doubt it'll have much impact unless ur upcasting
no smite in silence area no smite on reaction attacks no smites on bonus action attacks smite can be counterspelled smite costs more resources and is generally weaker than a bonus action attack. smite is now a trap feature.
@@ConstructedChaos a paladin who picks up polearm master or gains access to another bonus action attack would have to spend at least a 2nd level spell slot to start out damaging a single bonus action attack. Divine Favor spell seems to be better than level 1, 2, and 3 spell slots dedicated to a smite. only time to smite now basically seems to be a crit. This seems to make it a much more expensive version of the old bad version of brutal critical for barbarian.
@@binolombardi You make a solid argument here. I think they nerfed it too hard but I agree with their sentiment of making the rest of the class and other spells more appealing by comparison.
Its fine. Smite on reaction was kinda of bs levels of pression on your enimeis to not even try to move (which then stopped the paladin from actually having OAs) Counterspell is much worst and gives the slots back if it counters, so waaaaaaay less of a problem than people are making it out to be. RAW it seems the extra smite (the one you use without expending a slot) can't even be countered. Once a turn is not really that bad either. Paladins are nowhere close to how bad rangers are. They are just not super sayin nova class anymore
I play rangers almost exclusively and at first was upset with HM but then I looked at my usual spell lists and it is not a bad “feature” since the core class mimics the spell guardian of nature. I’m also not tied into using HM since other spells are situationally better. It comes down what the new spell list looks like. If they removed the concentration requirements for some of the single use spells, it will be a boost.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment. I just don't like that, if an encounter doesn't call for HM, we lose out on like half of our class features by extension.
@@ConstructedChaos I thought the same thing at first. It took me really looking at the class as well as the Paladin and Artificer to really figure out what I think they intended to do with it. I had to separate all three from full martials and casters to figure it how they will probably be played by those of us who will play it. The 2014 version was a miss and Tasha’s changed it to a linguist and explorer in the flavor of Indiana Jones, they carried it forward in 2024. They could have went further down that rabbit hole in 2024. I’m guessing they wanted to keep some of the core feel of the old ranger vs redirecting into a different type of expert Druidic half caster. I believe the emphasis on HM is more for the classic Hunter and Beast Master sub classes to keep the feel of the older editions for those who want to play that version. We won’t really know until it’s released but the biggest issue with HM is that it was a tracking spell with a minimal damage boost. If the damage boosts based on the spell slot then it will be comparable to if not better than searing smite which is on the Ranger’s expanded spell list as of right now. Also I’m not sure it’s really fair to call it the ranger since it’s not really the core of the class based on its 5e design but calling it the generic “explorer” or “adventurer” doesn’t have the same historical feel in game terms I suppose. The 2024 Ranger looks more like a pure adventurer class without looking at the sub classes and the tie in features for HM that “force” its use don’t come into play until most campaigns have come to a close.
Yeah, I get people are disappointed, but no one is forcing you to use HM. I think all the Rangers have to be concentrating in something and use their bonus action, which is only a shift in gameplay, but not necessarily bad
@@laelnascimento7487 The class has always been a concentration and BA heavy class, so there is no real change. I think people wanted to shift away from that but I don’t see an issue with it since the spell list and features is full of “You can’t see me” and “you can’t stop me either” that does not require concentration like the freedom of movement spell. Those of us who actually play rangers, and I’ve talked to a few, see this as an evolution to the explorers we play with free spell slots for a spell we hardly use. We used Tasha’s favored foe as a last line for the damage boost once we were out of spell slots….. this is no different with the added advantage at high levels if our campaigns get that far. At lvl 20 I’m going to use Nature’s wraith (if we don’t have a druid or oath of the ancients Paladin in the party) before I do anything else to control the map if we do have a druid or Ancients Paladin, I’m going full chaos monkey with summons including my free non concentration Fey summon since I usually play a Fey Wanderer.
I feel like Hunter’s Mark being a concentration spell forces the Ranger to decide if they want the extra damage on attacks or another effect from a different concentration spell. I think it makes sense. The nerfs the Paladin and the Rogue received align them better with other classes.
My ranger Hex fix: dual concentration. "You can concentrate on this spell and another spell or effect, but if you lose concentration, you lose both effects."
I was thinking about fixing Tasha's favorite foe by taking out it's concentration, but then I was concerned with my players using it along hunter's mark, for some reason it never crossed my mind to do this thing you just said instead of using favorite foe
@OldWorldGalaxy I usually made fighters, but when I wanted to do fun builds for the hell of it, I liked Paladin for the smite explicitly. With this nerf, the class is dead to me. Fight got even better, and the onenthing that made paladin fun got nerfed into the ground so hard it's not even worth using anymore. Just about any BA attack is instantly better and more consistent damge output.
As a Paladin fan, the class was super busted in 2014 rules as a nova damage dealer and I’m glad to see it get reigned in and focused more on support and sustained damage… these changes are good for them, also the rogue was never meant to be a major damage dealer, they’re meant to be a utility class and this also lets them lean more into their identity, the Ranger might as well have just not been changed though rather than this change
Regarding hunters mark vs favored foe in 5e, there is a pretty good reason to use favored foe over hunters mark: marking as part of the attack. Lots of rangers would like to make use of their bonus action, whether it be a drakewarden or beastmaster commanding their pet, a melee ranger using 2 weapon fighting, or a STRanger with PAM. All of these rangers really don't want to dedicate their turn 1 BA to setting up hunter's mark when they will probably only get 2 turns of using it, and then have to use another BA if their marked enemy dies to move it to a new target. Favored foe, by virtue of this factor, was a better option for a ranger who wanted to make good use of their bonus action.
People are overreacting to paladin. Worst class? Not even close... It needed to be toned down. Now it's a spell but it can be used in ranged attacks. You're not going to find rakshasas often and if your DM counterspells every smite, you have a bad DM. The ranger spells don't require concentration as much anymore, so it's not as bad as you all think. And the rogue has a lot of utility! Why does everyone need to be a killing machine?
Ranger needs a full rework, and Hunter's Mark needs to be removed from the game. Realistically, the Ranger class needs to be focused on making the party better at overland travel and the exploration pillar of play without depending on ribbon abilities that simply make those aspects of play not matter. Unfortunately, WotC has decided that 5e isn't going to have overland travel or exploration. So it's up to homebrew. Pick a set of homebrew or third-party travel rules and rewrite the ranger to make their entire party better at those travel rules. My ranger starts with the travel rules in Web DM's Weird Wastelands. The class itself keeps everything in Tasha's and the 2014 phb, except hunter's mark, favored creature types, and favored terrain. Those three things are replaced with favored mana. At the levels the 2014 ranger would gain a favored enemy creature type, they instead pick one color of mana from Magic the Gathering. They also pick one color out of two themed after their subclass at level 3. All creature types, terrain types, classes, backgrounds, and factions are tied to one or more mana colors. Favored mana picks give the ranger their int mod in languages, one extra damage dice on all weapon attacks made against any creature tied to their mana colors, advantage on all dex, int, and wis checks made in relation to anything tied to their mana colors, travel distance/speed is doubled over terrain tied to their mana colors, and combat encounters are rolled half as often while treasure and social encounters are rolled twice as often in terrain tied to their mana colors.
I'm going to withhold my opinion on the Ranger until I see the final spell list. It's possible Spells lost concentration. in UA a lot of the smite spells like Thunderous Smite lost the contrition requirement. Which makes sense for a smell that ends after you complete your attack. I'd like to see spells like Hail of Thorns and Barkskin get this treatment. Hunters Mark needs concentration otherwise it would be very busted. Paladin got Balanced. I wasn't surprised by these changes now it's more on the same level with other classes.
My takes. * Pal was VERY good before, so letting them have the same ability for smite damage but not letting them instakill anything on crit feels like it is not a huge hit. Pal got nerfed, and it's probably for the best. Ranger is fine mathematically speaking. They feel like their personality has been gutted which .... I've been saying this was the path ranger changes were taking since Tasha's, so I'm just happy to be validated finally as the community realizes what ranger feels like when you take out all abilities related to hunting, tracking, and specialization for certain enemy types. Rouge is just given more fun stuff to do, and that's ok with me, rouge has always been meh on math high on fun, they increased the fun and that's good for me honestly. Plus cunning strikes have some really fun potential for future subclasses. My most hoped for mechanic is for a more brawler/melee rouge that can spend sneak attack dice for temp hp. Less damage, more survivability. Stacks well with uncanny dodge.
I'll not be changing the smite in any game I run. I'll keep it at "on hit" and "not a spell that can be countered" as in the past. I'll also use my house rule from 2015. You can only smite on one (1) hit per turn. I used that for years. We have a vengeance paladin in our group that just retired a 20th level paladin after playing him for 8 years. It all worked out just fine. And he had some sick spike damage. I think he had a critical strike that hit for over 200 damage once or twice. Good times.
For those wondering, he had a stone with a single use 9th level spell slot that he pumped up his smite with. He also had a boon in effect that maxed his crit damage, and he did roll a natural 20. And the thing he was hitting was an undead demon, so he got an extra few dice to max out. The stone turned to dust afterwards, and the party wizard was pissed because he'd planned to use a wish from it. But the paladin didn't care, and had an ear to ear grin the rest of the night.
A 5th lv Rogue with a shortbow and sharpshooter can trip opponents from 320ft away. And unlike all 90% of trip effects in the game, theirs force a Dex save, which most lumbering brutes like Ogres, Trolls, and even Golems suck ass at. Same goes for blindness. Dex save or the creature can't see for an entire turn. At lv14, going unconscious and automatically failing saves is an instant L. So, the rogue is an excellent alternative to casters wasting spell slots or class features to burn through a creature legendary resistances. And yes, Con saves are way easier to resist. But unlike casters the Rogue loses nothing. He can force that save every single turn of every single encounter he is in. Also, they still make the best skill monkeys as well. 7th lv Rogue+ skilled origin feat+ observant feat. 7 skills, 6 with expertise, reliable talent, and perception and investigation checks as bonus actions. If all of the above means nothing and you only care about dps, that's fine. But saying they are now bottom 3 in the game is crazy to me.
I think it’s too early to jump to conclusions. Let’s see the full rules and try them at the table before deciding that something is good or bad. Often there are subtleties in game play that aren’t apparent until experienced that make something better or worse than first envisioned. I think you should re-visit this video in a years time when we have all the new rules and have had a chance to try them at the table and see if your opinions have changed. I don’t have a worst class in 2014 and I don’t expect to have one in 2014. Any class can shine in the right circumstances and subclasses make so much of a difference that you can’t judge best or worst by class alone.
My entire "____ is broken" series from 5e was geared at showing that any class can be broken and that there are no wrong choices so I love your outlook here. I still feel largely the same--that most classes have specific use cases within their identity. But I'm having a hard time seeing the ranger's use case with the proposed rules currently.
@@ConstructedChaos I don’t know if you watch any of treantmonk’s content but he seems to be much more optimistic about the new ranger than the general zeitgeist around the class would have you believe.
Happy to share my thoughts on this! Looks like you and I are of like mind as usual haha. That said, I do feel like this is the more balanced than 5e. I just feel like they could have gotten a lot closer.
Instead of buffing characters, they nerfed the most powerful ones to make them suck more. That’s never good game design and shows just how lazy they’re getting.
@@alphastronghold715No. Simply, no. Paladin was waaaay to good. The fact that the heaviest hitting builds in 5e usually included paladin dips was an indicator enough that paladin was far too unbalanced compared to its other weapon wielding counter parts. The fact that everyone acts like paladins only good feature is smiting every hit is ludicrous. The truth of the matter is that it was seen as "THE" feature by most becuase it was the most unbalanced. The weakest paladin subclass was still leagues above the best monk or even fighter subclass! They have aura of protection, Auras in general, biggest burst potential in 5e, best burst healing of every class until high level casters have a say, Access to fighting styles and all armor and weapons, has the potential to (if in a game with only straight classing) have the highest AC at base, best defensive tank thats comparable to barb at higher levels, third stat to level being charisma that lets a paladin have good utility outside of combat (which other martials struggle with), access to phenomenal spells for both combat and utility, and just having a spell list in general which is huge as 5e has shown... and people are acting like its ruined now just becuase they lost the abillity to do over 200 damage, which is difficult to manage for most DMs in reality. The complaints of the change shows certain people haven't been paying attention. The fact that Paladin looks so above and beyond better than other half caster counterparts like the ranger and artificer, which are vastly more balanced and manageable, on top of all else stated is all the evidence we needed that the featured needed tuning. Paladin isn't trash, it's just more in line with everyone else. It's still likely the class everyone is glad to have in their team
Smite being a spell is rough. The other changes to paladin are great, but you won't be able to use it regularly due to Smite requiring the same bonus action. My personal fix is make it an action weapon attack, half the damage dice for a first level slot, but when you reach 5th level, Smite spells gain the benefits of the Extra Attack feature. This leaves the counterspell aspect of Smite as a spell and resolves the paladin multi class problem because it is such a large level sink to make Smite spells worth using.
Homebrew rule here for the Ranger, Hunter's Mark doesn't cost a spell slot and it doesn't require concentration. That's it, already make it better and reliable, Wotc where is my pay check?
Druidic warrior is underrated here. It allows you to take shillelagh (I can never spell that) which in turn allows you to use medium armor and focus on a higher wisdom.
Ranger is the worst, by a landslide. Rogue 'maneuvers' are still optional and feels fair in exchange, for instance you could use hit and run on a weaker enemy, get rid of it and get some utility out of a single attack action without needlessly wasting it on an overkill, they are thought provoking. Ranger on the hand, and I am surprised you didn't mention it, overtly reliant on his wisdom for his features to work effectively and stretched even thinner between different stats like dex, con, str for various reasons you can surely imagine. I like the first few level changes and new spellcasting but It was already subpar to begin with so it doesn't take much to improve on garbage, and they removed the actually unique things like the Land stride and tasha's free Primal awareness spells which made ranger feel different, not that it was super useful, but it was unique nonetheless. Yet they force feed different set of spells in exchange and now it feels stuck with these so called 'brand new features equal to your wisdom modifier' but they made some of them worse? Which is absurd for a class that was supposed to be a versatile and adaptive force of nature.
@leerubin4303 Beast Master is a problem again, but Ranger is not nerfed within itself. Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk may have finally caught back up to it though, but it got plenty of important changes on it's own that will keep it relevant.
One thing you didn't highlight - a number of the more flavourful (though admittedly not mechanically great) features of the ranger have just been removed and not replaced, making it not only mechanically incoherent but also less interesting. Ranger and rogue are now among the few classes that don't have a slowly growing daily number of some kind of points to use for several different cool things (other than spell slots; I'm talking about rages, bardic inspiration, channel divinity, wild shape, second wind, focus points, sorcery points). I think if they had something like that, rather than "times you can cast a first-level concentration spell for free" and "things you can swap your limited amount of damage for," the classes would be a lot better. (I mean, who cares if you have more than two free castings of Hunter's Mark if you don't have more than two encounters per day, unless they have also removed the ability to transfer it to a new target?)
I like all of the changes tbh. I used to have problems with the Ranger and Paladin but the Paladin needed the nerf and even still at level 20 with a magic item +3, Great Weapon Master feat, and 20 STR the Paladin can still do 80 damage each turn, only the Fighter can do more. As for the Ranger i will just add that at 13th level when they can't lose con from damage the damage die of the mark also becomes a d8, and if they have the mark do 3d6 damage if cast as a 5th level spell its pretty good at level 20 doing 3d10 damage. And the Rogue is fine, i don't think they need Extra Attack or any other change. Rogues are all about being steady and hitting a weak point in a way and thr new Cunning Strikes make up for it. Also i disagree with you, the Cunning Strikes need to have a damage tradeoff otherwise they would be very unbalanced or you would be able to do them like proficiency amount of times per short rest, while now you can do them every turn xd.
The problem with your logic here is very, very few games make it past level 10 and even fewer to 20 so that math is nearly pointless and should not be what things are balanced around. Something being "pretty good" at level 20 should not be a metric even spoken about when the vastly overwhelming number of players will see their characters make it to 5-10.
I actually don't think so haha. The version in the playtest was insane and the printed version isn't bad either. But it isn't as good as everyone remembers from the playtest.
I think most of the new rogue class is quite good. I don't see it being voted the worst at all. The Ranger class, however, seem to have been nerfed into the ground. And that's saying something, since it was already in a shallow grave to begin with.
I think all the changes in these classes are fine. Smite spells per Jeremy are stronger. The ranger thing is overblown until we play it. It is the first new class I am going to play and try out. The rogue gets a lot of cool, versatile, etc. It is slightly easier compared to other classes if you only use dpr as your measure. I think they are going to be fine with all their updates.
Ranger got beat up. Even gloom stalker is nerfed. Hunter is the truest ranger now and the other paths are just blah. Disappointed wholly in this class.
If I were to use the new version, I would take liberties as a DM to improve the classes' cons. I don't play paladins much, but I would undo the smite change. HM would lose concentration for rangers, and rogues would not have to sacrifice damage for the added effects of a failed save. All in all, I agree some changes are needed for balancing, but to nerf classes or make them more reliant on spells that don't level as well as others is a wrong move.
Did combat rules get changed ? Because if not the smite nerf even more severe. In 5e you can't take a bonus action between your attacks in one attack action which means if the paladin chooses to smite on the first strike they won't be getting a second strike.
So paladins went from amazing to mid, and rangers went from mid ( except for gloom stalkers) to meh at best. Rogues needed a small boost but just got some cool options for even less damage
You’re right! It’s an easy detail to miss since it’s touted as a replacement for the “vanish” feature but it is coming online later than the old version we got at level 10. Yucky…
As a paladin player I feel that should be when needed not bound to spell slot it works better has a class feature that let's do what it needs. The free mount is nice. Rouge could use a extra d6 per level with sneak attack.
Did you really compare the OPTION to give up a damage die on any sneak attack to having to expend Ki points or spell slots. Cunning Strikes is one of the coolest neutral (not a nerf or boost) features they added. Steady Aim already took care of one of rogues major problems of not being able to get to do sneak attack damage and since Rogues also got weapon masteries their damage is going up along with their ability to make meaningful choices each round. Also let’s not forget that Rogue subclasses have increased their damage potential. Arcane Trickster with no spell restrictions means GFB and BB are options if they make the PHB. Assassin is good beyond a surprise rounds, but I don’t know if they offer a damage increase since there has been another noted change not seen in the playtest that lowered damage of some of its features to insure they can be used more reliably. Soulknife has vex and a bonus action second attack which also has vex, so after the first attack you should always be attacking with advantage. Thief is OP depending on your DM. Activating a magic items as a bonus action can be really strong depending on what items you have. Rangers I completely agree with you. Paladins having to use a bonus action to smite is really bad. It kills pole arm master and TWF as options.
@@lamarwashington2718 I did compare it to ki, yes. You had the option not to spend ki points as well haha. When the other classes are also getting upgrades and you get mostly neutral abilities, these are valid comparisons to make IMO. Still, like I said in the video, I think the rogue fulfills its paradigm as a skill expert extremely well so I’m not that worried about the lack of damage output.
@@ConstructedChaos bard literally gets expertise, plus they get enhance ability and spells, as well as inspiration to help other players succced better than profiency
@@xolotltolox7626 you are correct. Lots of classes get expertise. However the bard does not get reliable talent and it gets expertise later than the rogue does in both rounds of the feature. I’d argue that this makes the rogue a far more effective skill expert. Does that make it better than the bard overall? Definitely not.
@ConstructedChaos ultimately yes, but that's why I talked to my DM about changing some things, so for more info I played an offensive ranger, sword and sheild build with the druidic warrior as a Halfling. So I picked up zyphrs strike along with the entangled spell. So I tried my best to make it work. I will say, I had lots of fun with the whole concept. But hearing about the new ranger was a let down.
@@joshuabarrientes5477 I'm with ya there. I played a drakewarden a while back for a one shot and felt a bit disappointed by the amount of setup I needed to do to make it competitive. Still, there is still hope for the new ranger. If the version of hunter's mark with upcasting made it through, it could actually be pretty good.
Not sure how well my argument here will go over, but I am willing to make it. I don’t think that Rogues will be behind other martials in damage anymore, even with Cunning Strikes siphoning off sneak attack dice. You have to remember that martials got major damage boosts from Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter and early playtest versions of these feats had removed the -5 to hit, +10 to damage ability entirely. Between that and Paladins only getting one Smite per turn, the only Martial character that will be dealing more damage than their 2014 version will be the Monk, and even with that boost, I think it will only put Monks in line with the rest of those classes. I know, “Rogues are better because everyone else deals less damage now” is not the best argument, but I’m honestly fine with this change given that monster stat blocks often felt a bit underpowered. The problem arises when WoTC just decides that Bards should not only get Power Word Kill for free, but can cast it on two creatures at once and decide that Clerics should get a free Wish spell as their capstone. The principal of bringing everyone up or down to reasonable levels is only applied to the martials and half casters.
These are my three favorite classes 😅 I was worried about Paladin but I felt so relieved when the Channel Divinity options often activate upon attack. Ranger feels like it bottlenecks you into Hunter’s Mark to much. But as long as it scales with spell level then I think it will be fine for me. Rogue I feel like is changing it’s role from a damage dealer to a utility role, which I do appreciate the added utility in and out of combat. Overall I’m still excited for my favorite classes!
Paladin seem good now. They were so unbalanced before. Tasha's already "fixed" the Ranger, especially with the recent nerfs to other martials. Rogue is now more than just "hide and sneak attack". They have tactics. I like it.
I agree with most of this but I do still think that the ranger needed more love than it got and that the rogue should be able to do what is on the tin without sacrificing sneak attack damage.
@@ConstructedChaos You might be right about Ranger, but I like that Rogue’s are now competitive in damage (with smite and GWM getting nerfed) if they want to do that, but can also shift to tactical play, depending on the moment. I like that it gives them options, especially now that light weapons can attack twice, but doesn’t make them the new overpowered choice.
@@RyanMDanks I'm actually not sure the rogue is that competitive with damage but I don't really need it to be. I'm still happy regardless that they doubled down on the skill expert bit with reliable talent at level 7.
Can I just say, I really don’t get why people hate Ranger. I love Ranger. Like why, cause it’s too similar to “other classes?” I hope not. That’s not a good reason in my opinion. Honestly, my least favorites are sorcerer, druid, and warlock.
@@ConstructedChaos Oh no, I get it! It wasn’t targeted towards you in particular, I’m just like in general, I see all of these hate comments towards ranger, and I’m like “Why?!” Lol. So glad you like the class though!
@@Soulknight-jw8ht haha I feel ya! I think a lot of hate for Ranger comes from not fully understanding what it’s all about. That wilderness guide with a bit more knowledge than usual about the world and the monsters in it is always going to appeal to me.
@@ConstructedChaos Same! I feel like the purpose of ranger is to be the explorer/tracker/tamer kind of guy. Last time I checked, fighters, rouges, and not even Druids can track anything as well.
On Paladin, I think the changes to Divine Smite were mostly good and or neutral. Divine Smite always should have been limited to once per turn and I almost no reason why a DM would ever counterspell a Divine Smite when full casters exist. The real negative is the bonus action requirement which hurts GWM and PAM build. Also because Divine Smite is a spell, you can’t cast a buff spell like Bless or Shield of Faith if you want to smite. Overall, I plan on running Divine Smite (and Hunter’s Mark too) as and ability you can activate using a spell slot on a weapon hit, but I’ll keep a once per turn restriction. A fair nerf to Divine Smite while allowing for spellcasting and fun builds.
Ranger is poorly designed still but not in a way that makes it weak. They should have changed HM to a d4 that you can add to attack or damage rolls as well as survival and perception checks. Have the dice grow as you lvl up and, yes, get rid of concentration at least at some point Rogue it the real loser here. If cunning strike was just an add on and not costing damage then it would be mostly fine. Maybe still the weakest but not in a way where it feels like an outlier
I agree that Paladin before was too strong, but they should have replaced the stacking smite strat with something else, not just taken it away with nothing to show.
the mechanical design choice is bad. Almost every other class was was streamlines to try to make use of iconic features while reducing bonus action clog. Literally did the exact opposite with the paladin and introduced more clog. Divine Smite should have just been “once per turn”. Thats all they had to do.
Oddly all three of these are the classes I already avoided. Although rogue at level seven looks awesome for breaking the game through role play, too bad DnD is a combat oriented TTRPG or else it’d be in a top three list.
Sure as hell isn’t Paladin, the buffs to their 3rd level is nutty, and yeah Smite is a bonus action now, but they were one of the best classes in the game. For my money- rogue. They aren’t BAD, but their damage falls off and lack of spellcasting hurts, even if the Ranger has shit design. Ranger also picks up better multiclassing opportunities.
I was never super fond of paladins in 5e. I only really liked oath of glory. Now though, the additional ability to smite on unarmed attacks so you can crank out divine pimp slaps, and keeping a free horse make it sound really fun.
Half-caster players looking at divine smite, hunter’s mark, and the lack of an artificer be like “Hey WotC, come over here. I just want to talk, WotC..”
Ranger's is good. essentially enhanced Tasha's. Hunter's Mark is homogenized with Tasha's "Favored Foe" + Buffs. Rogue is good. A flying dragon's worst nightmare (borrowing Trip Attack from Battlemaster) + other conditions. The new "worst" is Paladin & their nerfed Divine Smite, 1/turn that takes a Bonus Action to use. That's limited to your turn only, unlike Hunter's Mark that could work with Attack of Opportunity.
@@ConstructedChaosThanks! I tried to come in with strong and condensed points. Ranger's only received buffs. When you take a look at when Favored Enemy gets bonuses, on the 2014 progression, there were no new features EXCEPT for those were the levels your Ranger's Spellcasting leveled up (13th & 17th) level. In theory, not using Favored Enemy is just like when Tasha's Rangers didn't use Favored Foe. As a matter of fact, you didn't need to use either Hunter's Mark or Favored Foe, they're no longer in stiff competition of each other. I'm hoping Hunter's Mark kept its Playtest Version where when it upcasted, it also added damage dies every other Spell Slot above 1st. At 5th level, 1d6 --> 3d6. And with the capstone, d10 --> 3d10. In a way, Hunter's Mark will function almost parallel to Paladin's bread and butter, Divine Smite. With damage being the majority of Concentration breaking, it will be harder to break. And advantage, it will be easier to deliver. Besides, Rangers with the updated rules, now have these benefits to enjoy: 1. Ritual Casting (rule change) 2. Spellcasting Focus (Tasha) 3. All Fighting Styles (was limited) 4. Weapon Masteries (new) 5. Swap a Spell/Long Rest (instead of level up) 6. Three total Expertise (2 new) 7. Roving +10 Speed (was +5) 8. 2 more languages And Ranger's, compared to Paladin's, have more Rituals to work with. 12 vs 5. In Paladin's defense, they updated "how" Aura's trigger, making it more effective, as well as an easier time both using & Channel Divinity. But they lost their main power to be in line in power because they powered through everything.
Paladin Smite overnerf is bad for sure. Rogue can at least ignore the cunning strike options and just go for max dmg as in 5e. But O think that Ranger is still the worse class in D&D...
Rogue is the worst power-wise, but with a great design. Rangers are the worst design-wise, but are fine for power. Give Rogues an extra sneak attack dice at cantrip scaling levels and a feature to allow then to more reliably get Sneak Attack. I've like the idea of giving them a limited "Reliable Talent" but for saves and attack rolls, and if you use it on an attack you get guaranteed sneak attack even if you didn't meet the previous criteria. Rangers... I don't know. Wait for 6e (the new edition is more like 5.2e) and pray they get a total rework that only holds onto the basic half-caster chassis and maybe one or two features. The climb/swim speed with bonus movement and blindsense seem neat and flavorful, but the rest is a total mess.
Yeahhh it’s really just a slight improvement from the old ranger so I can see what they were going for but it feels pretty terrible. Give me truesight at level 18 at least haha
oh ranger is the worst by far no contest. rogues damage can be fixed by like having higher damage guys next to you and what they do they still do well (also id probably homebrew just giving them more sneak attack dice). paladin smites can be fixed imo by a simple homebrew of ok divine smite doesnt take a bonus action. although the horse identity is a bit shoehorned in. but ranger is just mediocre damage on top of design failure after design failure. and their one niche of "pick a guy and hes dead" got gutted. so like their ceiling is much lower than 2014.
Could Smites be counterspelled? Sure, but that leaves an opening for other stronger spells to be used by the other party member especially. Good trade if that's the case.
I feel the same way depending on what level of smite you're casting. However, someone else also pointed out that silence now turns off smites and that can be pretty rough!
I still think Rogue needs extra attack. That said, the goal as stated by WotC wasn't to make a rogue a powerhouse damage dealer but rather a debuff specialist. Personally I'm ok w/the trade off since they're essentially getting battle master maneuvers that aren't tied to a limited resource...especially since the ones that are going to be getting the most use are the initial set which all cost a single die of damage which means their value is only going to increase as the rogue levels. Even so, I would have preferred if the rogue could just use these abilities at all times and had the abilities themselves buffed by using them in conjunction w/sneak attack. Would have been very nice to allow the rogue to spend additional Sneak Attack die to boost the DC for each ability.
@@druxusthemage9806 That is definitely a nice mastery and not complaining about it at all but that's also tied to specific weapons as opposed to being a class feature.
Now, folks won't simply pick paladin as the most powerful martial class. Paladin went from over-powered boss monster slayers to merely good. It was time
@ConstructedChaos I was tired of having paladins destroy my enemies jn one or two turns (unless I gave them mysterious resistance to radiant). And playing BG3 with friends...paladins, paladins, paladins. And like you said, paladins abusing smite were at the heart of nearly all powergame multiclass builds.
Rogues lack in damage but with early reliable talent they are a real good utility power house. Rangers are actually really strong its just taht the design is ass and thats why ppl complain. HM as a spell needed a major overhaul to be a decent main class feature and that it would have allowed no concentration. But WotC chose a wack spell over decent design and now ranger doe snot want to use one of their main features most of the time. And pally just got adjusted. Personally i think a readtion for smite would have been better, but its goo. for the game. All the good stuff is still there and they even got some buffs.
Haha I felt the same when I first saw the reveal video. But, as I've had more time to think about it, I'm left wondering why we felt the need to sack damage for abilities instead of just allowing them to be used a certain number of times per long rest.
An issue with the new Paladin is that you get massive diminishing returns if you put more than an absolute maximum of 6 levels into the class. A Paladin is able to upcast Find Steed to give it a fly speed at level 13, while one that multiclasses Sorcerer or Bard can do it as early as level 9 (Paladin 5/Sorcerer or Bard 4). Making Divine Smite a spell also means Sorcerers can apply Metamagic to it, like Empowered Spell to reroll damage dice or Subtle Spell to prevent Counterspell or cast it while Silenced. And the damage cap for Divine Smite was removed, meaning that multiclassing Paladin with a full caster means your Divine Smites hit harder than a Paladin could ever manage. If you somehow get to maximum level, a Paladin 6/Sorcerer 14 has all of the signature Paladin abilities plus their entire Sorcerer subclass and 9th level spell slots (though no 9th level spells). On the Bard front, Valor Bard also got an improved Extra Attack akin to the Bladesinger, where they can replace an attack with a cantrip when they take the Attack action (with True Strike being redesigned to be a weapon attack that deals Radiant damage and uses the caster's spellcasting stat). And since Divine Smite is a 1st level spell now, and Paladins get spellcasting at level 1, a Valor Bard only needs a single level dip into Paladin to be able to prepare Divine Smite, only missing out on the one free casting of Divine Smite at its lowest level. So a Paladin 1/Valor Bard 19 will be able to smite harder than a Paladin 20 could ever manage, while also getting 9th level spells. As for Warlock, Pact of the Blade now grants Charisma for weapon attacks regardless of Patron, the Thirsting Blade and Devouring Blade invocations allow the Warlock to attack three times a turn instead of twice, and Eldritch Smite still works like the old Divine Smite where it's not a spell and doesn't cost a bonus action. In fact, a Pact of the Blade Warlock with a single level Paladin dip can smite twice on the same attack, once with Divine Smite and once with Eldritch Smite. And if you go Celestial Warlock, you can add your Charisma modifier to the damage of a spell that deals Radiant or Fire Damage (and oh look, Divine Smite is a spell that deals Radiant damage), and you get a pool of d6s that you can use to heal people as a bonus action (it's like the new Lay on Hands, but with more variable healing, a slightly lower average amount of healing, but a 60 foot range instead of requiring touch), and they buff the entire party with temporary HP after every rest, and their level 14 ability is an improved version of the Oath of Ancients Paladin level 15 ability, because it also damages and blinds enemies with no save. They get fewer spell slots overall, but those slots still recharge on a short rest, and they can hit a target with a 5th level smite at level 9, while a Paladin can't do that until level 17, and with their Mystic Arcana they also get a 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell. Basically, with a 1-6 level investment in Paladin, every other Charisma caster can use the most iconic Paladin features they get better than the single-class Paladin.
It's a shame for rogues. Theyre the only class that has to play by the rules and rely on others, yet thematically they were the loners. Sigh. At least they did something with the monk
New Ranger's reliance on Hunter's Mark should be a Magic Item, not a Class's Core Feature. This is an amplified version of the Question "What if I made a Subclass based of of a spell?" It just works better as a magical Item
My friends are dropping DnD, and are loving the tactical possibilities that PF2e allow. Wizards are just bought bi***** from Hasbro now, mercenary s***.
Make cunning strikes fueled by something like focus, give them proficiency bonus amount per short rest and allow them to exchange sneak attack die during the attack. This way they ll get ample uses without feeling like they sacrifice power and give more party members something that ties to a short rest is good for other classes that want short rests and often have to battle the party for them. Potentially also a save for more damage (even if its a small amount) cunning strike, so its like a gamble for those who want to go for more damage
Turnning a roll into a 20 is quite busted at least. But Ranger seems the worse of the 3 you mentioned. Strangely enough the new rogue base fits a certain anime character to a T as they always self claim to be no good in combat. Yet they were skilled in so much that you figured it was a lie born of ignorance.
ranger is the worse class in my opinion not only because there generally weak (altho i think any class can be good if you have ideas and can build characters) but there just boring and this is coming from someone who plays alot of rangers and is currently playing a ranger build in a long term campaign and i got a opinion about it i wanna see what people think. i think rangers are bad and boring because they have no signature ability a ability that alters how you play the game and can be built apon by other options and ability's every other class has one barbarian-rage, bard-bardic inspiration, cleric-channel divinity, druid-wild shape, fighter-action surge, monk-martial arts and ki, paladin-smites and auras, rogue-sneak attack, sorcerer-metamagic, warlock-invocations and pactboons, wizard-spellbook ranger doesn't have any unique ability that the class is focused around so it struggles to have appeal or keep up withy the rest of the party doing cool stuff that's why it feels so subclass focused for ability's and playstyles it needs something base to define the class not be based around spamming a spell(hunters mark)
To be Absolutely and Brutally honest: din needed a nerf in smites, so they got a side grade and a side nerf. Yes, your NOVA is weaker, but thats not a problem.
just because it is a spell don't mean it can be counterspelled...cause you do need to see the spell being casted...and since the spell ain't casted it just happens....i can't be counterspelled... but we would need to see the new smite spell to be sure...
Comparing DnD 5.5’s (or whatever WOTC is calling it) class reworks to Pathfinder 2.0’s Class Remasters is like night and day. Pathfinder generally received improvements across the board, making them more thematic, flavorful, and just more fun to play. DnD has been a broad simplification inundated with unnecessary nerfs and restrictions, topped with a loss of flavor or really anything interesting.
Smite would be really good if the nerf was "once per turn". The ranger could have a favorit terrain basead on short rest studing area (with initiative, perception, investigation an hide bonus... and some benefits around dificult terrain). Hunters mark concentration free between 9th and 11 levels would be really ok (paladin have +1d8 every melee attack. Why not grants ranger a +1d6 with anny weapon for some minutes a day?)
My pitch for ranger would have been to keep the old favored foe feature from tasha's and remove concentration for that ability. Add in some more flavorful abilities in later levels. Done.
I think you missed a massive nerf. Probably already pointed out but Hunter's Mark, as in the playtest, only deals damage the FIRST TIME you hit a creature on your turn. So unlike the previous 1d6 to every attack, it's a maximum of 1d6 per turn on the first hit only. Even when the damage increases to 2d6 it is just on par with previous and 3d6 just makes it what any Two-Weapon Fighting Ranger could do at lvl 5 (besides the first turn to set it up). So even if they removed the need for a Bonus Action to Two-Weapon Fight the fact it is once per turn still renders the spell very subpar.
You’re absolutely right! I missed that change in the playtest. Though, we can’t be sure that’s the version that’ll be in print. It does at least mean that the extra upcast damage I was hoping for likely wont help us out here, though. We’ll probably either see the once per turn version with scaling damage or the old version with a static 1d6 per hit.
In Ranger's article in D&D Beyond it says the damage will be per hit, although I not sure if it scales
@@laelnascimento7487 Maybe a recent change (undo), because it did recieve backlash, it's a big nerf to the spell.
Personally, I think this is a buff and not a nerf, because you only have to hit once, but you do all the damage. Before, if you missed one of the two attacks, you only got 1d6, now it's 2d6
@@laelnascimento7487 which parte of the text says that ? not rly finding it
One thing I don’t see anyone talking about. With Wotc changing smite to a spell paladins can no longer smite high cr creatures unless they remove monsters with immunity to spells below 6th level. Which just seems wrong
There's actually very few cases in the MM of monsters immune to low level spells. And one would hope that if wotc reintroduces it they change things with Paladin in mind
@justinanderson1705 you are putting a lot of faith in a company ran by hasbro the same company that sent mercenary group to someone's house because they got a MTG card a little early
@@kenave1 oh trust me I know it's silly to place any amount of faith in them. But I feel like in this case it makes sense. Like they enforce the limit on any non Melee spells for example.
If all else fails its extremely easy for a DM to handwave Djvine Smite being an actual spell
@@justinanderson1705 Raksashas are a clear example of what they said... Unless you use a bow or crossbow and bless the arrow/bolt in some way...
Still, is kinda of an issue unless you use a moon touched sword too
Paladin didn’t need to be nerfed, all these changes suck. Stuff is allowed to be strong
Given that rogues don't gain extra attack, it feels like a very simple houserule of gaining an extra sneak attack dice at lvl 5 and 11 would be a safe and easy boost. Also, why not let them use cunning strike proficiency bonus times per long or short rest and then they can spend sneak dice to use it after that? Just some fixes that would go a long way towards bringing the rogue at the table up to par.
Absolutely. I think these are pretty balanced ideas and I may end up borrowing them if rogue doesn't stack up well enough.
One option, although it would be more difficult for table play, would be to increase the size of sneak attack from d6 to d8, and then to d10 at lvl 14 or so. Same number bigger dice.
Problem is not many people have that many d8's and d10's lying around...
@@snakept69Yeah, the d6 is also just synonymous with the Rogue at this point. Justin's suggestion is already really close to what I plan on doing. I'll also be granting them another Bonus Action at level 10 that can only be used for Cunning Actions, and giving all subclasses their own special Cunning Action.
Fine I'll that guy rogues are not a dps class they are a utility class losing out on 3 damage to poison or knock prone someone is huge they have an at will topple weapon mastery and the nick property gives them.extra attack and frees up their bonus action it's a buff
@@druxusthemage9806 a utility class that have less utility than bard or artificer.
Yeah right. They NEED the DPS.
The fighter can self heal. As well as monks. A barbarian can rage so much that their HP essentially doubles. Especially on the totem barbarian.
What self healing or sustain that a rogue have. To keep themselves in the fight.
Paladin: most of this needed to happen, but since when are all paladins riding horses?
Ranger: lot of the flavor was lost only to make a whole class rely on a 1st level spell that requires concentration.
Rogue: mostly fine with new as is
You don't really have to ride your steed (I know, sounds weird).
At worst you have a cost-free mean of transport.
At best? You have a concentration -free scaling summon that can act independently and that you can summon before combat.
Pretty much my thoughts on the matter. Poor ranger can't catch a break.
I do think paladins having horses makes sense, they're based on holy knights, but I would rather if it was an option like it was before all the same.
I honestly like the faithful steed ability for paladin. It works from a flavor standpoint and they certainly made it mechanically attractive enough that more people should actually use it now.
Paladin is most definitely not weak, overall, I would say they are better than before, because they can now use lay on hands as a bonus action, giving you effectively second health bar. And of course they also get weapon mastery which is a massive buff too. And you still get the best ability of any class in the game with the aura of protection.
Also, it seems people are still thinking rangers are weak just because they have one ability that isn't great? Just because you get hunter's mark as free preparation doesn't mean it's the only spell you ever should cast. You can still cast any other better spells you have at higher levels. Think of Hunter's Mark more like something to cast when you don't have anything better to do.
@@lukorama10 Sure, you don't have to use faithful steed, but when it was a spell you could choose to take, it told you "some do this, others don't". By having it auto prepared, it says "not all have to use it... but you kind of should because we think it defines a paladin as much as being able to smite"
Maybe it's just me, and I by no means say this like I know more than WOTC or DnD content creators, but I only really thought Paladin was a problem with regards to Mid-Maxers. I've played as and DM'd multiple Paladins and multi-class Paladin dips (With different groups of varying experience) and it was never really an issue. Whether it be a 1st Level or 15th Level (Were most players realistically play) Paladins. I could count on one hand the number of times it was a mild problem, but never a game breaking or over exhausting problem even with the "meta" builds. I realize this is anecdotal, but I say this to illustrate that I have experience on both sides of the DM screen through multiple one-shots and longer campaigns. So this isn't coming from a place of ignorance of rules, meta/mid-max builds, muti-classing, etc. Just a place of confusion and concern about the changes to Paladin and players/DM's reasonings.
Now, if you told me that Paladins needed some nerfs I would 100% agree. There are many things you could do to nerf them, while still keeping them strong and in-line with what they're good at. However, nerfing their ability to Smite, in my opinion, into the ground is not a good change. It's fundamental part to what the class is and can do. Changing it to this degree just seems off, mechanically and overall class wise. If you told me Paladins we're TOO OP or TOO strong, I would respectfully disagree. They are definitely a strong top 3 class in 5E, however, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Look at all the things Wizards and Clerics can do, or Warlock and Sorcerer dips, yet the Paladin is the problem and needs an overall overhaul to one of their main gimmicks?
They CAN be too much, if the DM and the players don't communicate and agree on expectations. Like, "Hey DM, I want to make this OP Paladin multi-class build, can I?" or "For this campaign/one-shot we're not going to be doing "meta" builds, and if you REALLY want to, talk to me about it 1st." Personally, I think many people are too eager to nerf 1st, plan and communicate around it later.
Again, this is just my thoughts and shouldn't be taken too seriously, because at the end of the day, people can still default to the 5E Paladin or patch together what they want between 5E and 6E Paladins.
@@jerrypickins I get the only smiting once a turn. But why in the Nine Hells did they make it a Bonus Action? So many options are gone now. Why would you ever do a Polearm Master Paladin now, for example? It feels like that single part is the worst nerf they could have done. It's like if they made Sneak Attack take away your Bonus Action.
I have a Lvl 2 Pal/Lvl 12+ Sword Bard, we have a lvl 2 Warlock/ Lvl 12+ Paladin in a 6 person game. The Lvl 14 Warlock, Druid, Artificer and Lore Bard have all shone in their many moments. There is NO balance ISSUE.
@@tiagomarx5072 I used to play a Harengon Polearm Paladin. That build is here and gone...
Complaining that the rogue has to give up damage for utility when other classes have spells and features that do the same without sacrificing damage sort of misses the part where those spells and features have finite resources, whereas the rogue can do it all the time. The only close comparison comes from weapon mastery effects, which the rogue also has access to.
My annoyance is that the dc isn’t mentioned and I pray it scales like a spell save dc(preferably with dex) because if not then there’s really no sense in using an ability that requires you to hit, sacrifice damage, and then the enemy still has to fail a low dc save on saving throws they’ll likely have proficiency in to use said ability.
@@Thomas-zt7dm it will most definitely scale the same way spell DC does but with Dex. I can't see them doing anything else.
@@haerdalis84 possibly intelligence for poisoning, I find it hard to understand how else when ki save dcs are based off of wisdom and not dex. Since intelligence is the rogues other mainline stat I feel it should be given some love
@@haerdalis84 Like they pointed it might scale w/ int
@@TechnicalTactician My only issue is that this limits rogues to an int/dex build if they want to use any of those features. I get that it's meant to be their other main stat but a high wisdom or charisma rogue is also super common and shouldn't be left out. Obviously one could easily ask for DM approval to adjust the scaling stat but the number of DMs that would say no to swapping casters' main stat makes me believe it will limit players.
Ah con saves....not like monsters Excel at that
@@soldierbreed haha I’ve made that point in the subclass video I referenced in the rogue portion. But others have pointed out that we don’t actually know for sure that this will still be the case with new monsters in the PHB and MM!
@@ConstructedChaos even if they cut in half the amount of monsters with strong con saves it would still be a weak save t9 target. And thats not hyperbole
@@soldierbreed That's fair enough! I'm just saying we don't know for sure. I didn't mention it in the video for that reason.
@@ConstructedChaos thats fair we shall see. Honestly id probably just do full damage 90% of the time
@@soldierbreed that’s one thing that really annoys me too. When it comes to the animal kingdom we have one of the best constitutions out there. We can chase a deer or horse until it can’t run anymore and keep going. And in reality our dexterity is one of the best. But dexterity tends to include celerity and reflexes in dnd. So I give that a pass.
I played a Ranged Gloom Stalker Lvl 5/ Samauri Lvl 4. As someone who had only played once, after a 20 year break, I fell into the Hunter's Mark trap. After watching a few videos, I started to use Zepher Strike much more. If all I had left was 1 spell, then MAYBE I might cast Hunter's Mark. The play style got better, the damage got better, the fun meter went way up. I didn't go Ranger/Rogue, because we had a Rogue (Soul Knife), and I felt that it would be rude. This dependence on Hunter's Mark SUCKS. I thought the idea was to allow imagination/creativity/choice? But don't say this on a WOTC Facebook post, the corporate lovers will attack like 12-year-old trolls in their basement bedroom, waiting for Mom to get back from the store with Pizza Rolls.
I think what's a bit frustrating about Paladin is how bad both their "new" features are.
Paladin's Smite: A free preparation and one free daily casting of Divine Smite (spell) at level 1.
Faithful Steed: A free preparation and and one daily casting of Find Steed (spell) at level 2.
Paladin's Smite and Faithful Steed are LAZY features. They're preparing spells already on the Paladin spell list, neither changes how those spells work for the Paladin, and neither upcasts the spell cast as that Paladin player progresses.
What value does Find Steed have cast at level 2, once per day, for a level 10, 15 or 20 Paladin? It scales with the spell-slot expended (so for a flying mount, you are not using a 2nd level spell slot) and the mount summoned has an infinite duration (meaning the once-per-day value is NONexistent).
It doesn't help that Find Steed creates a controlled mount in combat (meaning it literally can't use ANY of its features unless the Paladin is unconscious).
... And anyone with Wish can cast it as an action at 8th level. Yeah, the Paladin exclusive Find Steed is infinitely better on Clerics, Wizards and Bards.
Divine Smite doesn't fair much better, despite being Paladin "action surge" given its level placement... because the feature doesn't do anything beyond do a free-level 1 casting of Divine Smite.
Its so frustrating that the design team basically decided to give Paladins bad features and call them buffs, some of which don't work with PHB's mounted combat rules.
The most absurd thing about this saga of dumb is seeing Warlocks keep their Eldritch Smite invocation, as is, making them have the only free action Smite, nonspell in game.
Find Steed is busted, what the hell are you smoking, permanent 60ft movement speed while also always able to disengage...
Maybe read mounted combat rules before saying stupid shit
I feel like the paladin smiting every hit they make (pray they didn’t dip into fighter) is kinda nuts and should be patched.
I absolutely agree. It just feels like they took it a little too far for my liking. I could have lived with it just being once per turn. But making it a spell AND a bonus action is a big change.
But how many times could you actually do that, though? You’d burn through all your slots in a few turns and have nothing left for the rest of the day. It was a big gamble and not always the best option, so I don’t think it was overpowered at all.
@@darthmalicex4118 You could do it enough times that there wasn't anything left to smite haha.
No, but seriously, I get that it was always limited by resources but it went way too crazy in a lot of multiclass builds. I have a player running swords bard, hexblade warlock, paladin in a game right now. It's a blender haha.
@@ConstructedChaos it makes divine smite more comparable to the other smite spells, which have been buffed.
@@vortigern7021 True, but it is comparable in the sense that it is a spell and also requires a bonus action, which is why the Smite spells were rarely used in actual play. Personally, I'm ok with the once per turn limitation, but there was no need to make it a spell and bonus action. Those changes hamstring the Paladin and lead to many other negative side effects. Hopefully, WotC will reconsider those changes.
Until we have full details, it’s hard to judge anything.
I know that I’m not a fan of having one low level concentration spell tied to class features, that’s for sure.
Also, not a fan of the new wildshape for druids.
Trying to hold off on judgements until I can see the book.
@@michaelmuirhead910 I almost put Druid in this video but I honestly feel like it’s just a step above these three.
I will say I would have just made hunter's mark is to an ability like ranger's bane. Than have work like hexblade's curse.
@@saqwana25 That's *almost* what they did in tasha's but then they went back and added concentration for the ability.
Yeah I would get rid of concentration on like 80% of concentration spell.
@@saqwana25 I don't know about that. Homebrews that allow for concentrating on two spells at a time are notoriously OP. But I do think they could ease up on concentration at least a little.
If your DM counterspells all your smites your DM is the problem, not the new rule. Plus, with the counterspell nerf I don’t know if the Paladin will be too afraid of a Con save
Wasting counterspell slot on a Smite sounds like a very poor tactical decision to me, so if your DM does that then stay positive because not only you're not losing a spell slot with how counterspell works now, but that counterspell slot could've been spent on countering something much more dangerous than Smite.
So from the future a bit here, having seen the leaked book.
It looks like a good few of the ranger combat spells lost concentration. At least Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow, and Magic Weapon.
So the concentration sink really comes into play if you are trying to crowd control or deal damage.
If you're trying to deal damage, then Hunter's Mark with Lightning Arrow or Hail of Thorns is probably your choice of spell usage. In which case, I don't really mind the sink.
If you are trying to crowd control like with entangle or spike growth. Or single target crowd controls like ensnaring strike, you're a bit more limited on the concentration.
Ultimately i think ranger got buffed in this but the buffs are... frustrating.
Ill be playing a returning character as we're returning to our first campaign setting with this new book.
The level sequence is 17 Hunter Ranger / 3 Scout Rogue (new rogue, using the old scout from tashas)
Poisoner feat, so the pattern is to mark a creature, see if theyre immune to my poison, and if they arent hope they enjoy that DC 17 con save 😂
@@felltactician yeah I saw the same thing. Magic weapon looks like it’ll be the best bet in helping out the Ranger but I just don’t understand why they tied it to hunter’s mark like this again. It basically rules out most spells that do use concentration.
@ConstructedChaos yeah it is mildly frustrating as someone who's been playing rangers all throughout 5e.
However I am noticing that Playtest 6; 13th level didnt have a feature which has the Relentless Hunter now, the 17th level feature had Conjure Volley always prepared; that got replaced with the Accurate Hunter one.
The 20th level feature was a lot better though. When you miss your Hunter's Mark target you can add your wisdom modifier to turn it into a hit, and when you hit you can add wisdom to your damage. So when looking at the previous UA for Ranger... this update is a bit better in that regard. I'd rather have the Hunter's Mark features than Nothing at 13th and Conjure Volley just prepared at 17th...
Though I really wish they kept us with favored terrain. Thats really disappointing that they took it away.
Don't really get the hype around magic weapon. Unless magic items are rarer in the new DMG, or your dm is stingy. Most martials will have a +1 weapon by lvl 5.
And Magic Weapon don't stack or even work on magic weapons, so it's only good when you don't have a magical weapon already. It's definitely way better as a spell in a vacuum but I doubt it'll have much impact unless ur upcasting
no smite in silence area
no smite on reaction attacks
no smites on bonus action attacks
smite can be counterspelled
smite costs more resources and is generally weaker than a bonus action attack.
smite is now a trap feature.
I wouldn't call it a trap feature but I do think they went to far and it's definitely a lot less attractive for multiclass builds.
@@ConstructedChaos a paladin who picks up polearm master or gains access to another bonus action attack would have to spend at least a 2nd level spell slot to start out damaging a single bonus action attack.
Divine Favor spell seems to be better than level 1, 2, and 3 spell slots dedicated to a smite.
only time to smite now basically seems to be a crit. This seems to make it a much more expensive version of the old bad version of brutal critical for barbarian.
@@binolombardi You make a solid argument here. I think they nerfed it too hard but I agree with their sentiment of making the rest of the class and other spells more appealing by comparison.
*Divine Smite* is a trap feature. Every other smite is now functional and not almost always a suboptimal choice.
Its fine. Smite on reaction was kinda of bs levels of pression on your enimeis to not even try to move (which then stopped the paladin from actually having OAs)
Counterspell is much worst and gives the slots back if it counters, so waaaaaaay less of a problem than people are making it out to be. RAW it seems the extra smite (the one you use without expending a slot) can't even be countered.
Once a turn is not really that bad either.
Paladins are nowhere close to how bad rangers are. They are just not super sayin nova class anymore
I play rangers almost exclusively and at first was upset with HM but then I looked at my usual spell lists and it is not a bad “feature” since the core class mimics the spell guardian of nature. I’m also not tied into using HM since other spells are situationally better. It comes down what the new spell list looks like. If they removed the concentration requirements for some of the single use spells, it will be a boost.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment. I just don't like that, if an encounter doesn't call for HM, we lose out on like half of our class features by extension.
@@ConstructedChaos I thought the same thing at first. It took me really looking at the class as well as the Paladin and Artificer to really figure out what I think they intended to do with it. I had to separate all three from full martials and casters to figure it how they will probably be played by those of us who will play it.
The 2014 version was a miss and Tasha’s changed it to a linguist and explorer in the flavor of Indiana Jones, they carried it forward in 2024. They could have went further down that rabbit hole in 2024. I’m guessing they wanted to keep some of the core feel of the old ranger vs redirecting into a different type of expert Druidic half caster.
I believe the emphasis on HM is more for the classic Hunter and Beast Master sub classes to keep the feel of the older editions for those who want to play that version. We won’t really know until it’s released but the biggest issue with HM is that it was a tracking spell with a minimal damage boost. If the damage boosts based on the spell slot then it will be comparable to if not better than searing smite which is on the Ranger’s expanded spell list as of right now.
Also I’m not sure it’s really fair to call it the ranger since it’s not really the core of the class based on its 5e design but calling it the generic “explorer” or “adventurer” doesn’t have the same historical feel in game terms I suppose. The 2024 Ranger looks more like a pure adventurer class without looking at the sub classes and the tie in features for HM that “force” its use don’t come into play until most campaigns have come to a close.
Yeah, I get people are disappointed, but no one is forcing you to use HM. I think all the Rangers have to be concentrating in something and use their bonus action, which is only a shift in gameplay, but not necessarily bad
@@laelnascimento7487 The class has always been a concentration and BA heavy class, so there is no real change. I think people wanted to shift away from that but I don’t see an issue with it since the spell list and features is full of “You can’t see me” and “you can’t stop me either” that does not require concentration like the freedom of movement spell.
Those of us who actually play rangers, and I’ve talked to a few, see this as an evolution to the explorers we play with free spell slots for a spell we hardly use. We used Tasha’s favored foe as a last line for the damage boost once we were out of spell slots….. this is no different with the added advantage at high levels if our campaigns get that far. At lvl 20 I’m going to use Nature’s wraith (if we don’t have a druid or oath of the ancients Paladin in the party) before I do anything else to control the map if we do have a druid or Ancients Paladin, I’m going full chaos monkey with summons including my free non concentration Fey summon since I usually play a Fey Wanderer.
@@laelnascimento7487 Half of the features are for Hunter's Mark. If you don't use it, half of the class becomes useless.
Fighter bros:
We’re so back!
Absolutely! I'm actually excited to play a fighter for once! I'll be working them into another video here shortly.
Paladin Player, it's my favorite class. Smite change was good, I didn't like my holy supportive warriors power was in a nova hit. I like to use spells
I feel like Hunter’s Mark being a concentration spell forces the Ranger to decide if they want the extra damage on attacks or another effect from a different concentration spell. I think it makes sense. The nerfs the Paladin and the Rogue received align them better with other classes.
My ranger Hex fix: dual concentration. "You can concentrate on this spell and another spell or effect, but if you lose concentration, you lose both effects."
I like this solution. It even makes that 13th level ability that much better!
I was thinking about fixing Tasha's favorite foe by taking out it's concentration, but then I was concerned with my players using it along hunter's mark, for some reason it never crossed my mind to do this thing you just said instead of using favorite foe
Just wanted to add I don't remember you covered it RIP to Primal Awareness for the ranger. Having free casting to utilty spells was so cool.
I mostly played paladin and honestly smites were the only reason I didn’t make more fighters. Now? My list of fighters is about to increase
@OldWorldGalaxy I usually made fighters, but when I wanted to do fun builds for the hell of it, I liked Paladin for the smite explicitly. With this nerf, the class is dead to me. Fight got even better, and the onenthing that made paladin fun got nerfed into the ground so hard it's not even worth using anymore. Just about any BA attack is instantly better and more consistent damge output.
As a Paladin fan, the class was super busted in 2014 rules as a nova damage dealer and I’m glad to see it get reigned in and focused more on support and sustained damage… these changes are good for them, also the rogue was never meant to be a major damage dealer, they’re meant to be a utility class and this also lets them lean more into their identity, the Ranger might as well have just not been changed though rather than this change
I am happy with all of these changes. I am looking forward to doing a Rogue Ranger multiclass to be kind of like a smuggler/bounty hunter.
Regarding hunters mark vs favored foe in 5e, there is a pretty good reason to use favored foe over hunters mark: marking as part of the attack. Lots of rangers would like to make use of their bonus action, whether it be a drakewarden or beastmaster commanding their pet, a melee ranger using 2 weapon fighting, or a STRanger with PAM. All of these rangers really don't want to dedicate their turn 1 BA to setting up hunter's mark when they will probably only get 2 turns of using it, and then have to use another BA if their marked enemy dies to move it to a new target.
Favored foe, by virtue of this factor, was a better option for a ranger who wanted to make good use of their bonus action.
People are overreacting to paladin. Worst class? Not even close... It needed to be toned down. Now it's a spell but it can be used in ranged attacks. You're not going to find rakshasas often and if your DM counterspells every smite, you have a bad DM.
The ranger spells don't require concentration as much anymore, so it's not as bad as you all think.
And the rogue has a lot of utility! Why does everyone need to be a killing machine?
I reached all of the same conclusions! I completely agree!
Ranger needs a full rework, and Hunter's Mark needs to be removed from the game.
Realistically, the Ranger class needs to be focused on making the party better at overland travel and the exploration pillar of play without depending on ribbon abilities that simply make those aspects of play not matter.
Unfortunately, WotC has decided that 5e isn't going to have overland travel or exploration. So it's up to homebrew.
Pick a set of homebrew or third-party travel rules and rewrite the ranger to make their entire party better at those travel rules.
My ranger starts with the travel rules in Web DM's Weird Wastelands. The class itself keeps everything in Tasha's and the 2014 phb, except hunter's mark, favored creature types, and favored terrain. Those three things are replaced with favored mana.
At the levels the 2014 ranger would gain a favored enemy creature type, they instead pick one color of mana from Magic the Gathering. They also pick one color out of two themed after their subclass at level 3.
All creature types, terrain types, classes, backgrounds, and factions are tied to one or more mana colors.
Favored mana picks give the ranger their int mod in languages, one extra damage dice on all weapon attacks made against any creature tied to their mana colors, advantage on all dex, int, and wis checks made in relation to anything tied to their mana colors, travel distance/speed is doubled over terrain tied to their mana colors, and combat encounters are rolled half as often while treasure and social encounters are rolled twice as often in terrain tied to their mana colors.
I'm going to withhold my opinion on the Ranger until I see the final spell list. It's possible Spells lost concentration. in UA a lot of the smite spells like Thunderous Smite lost the contrition requirement. Which makes sense for a smell that ends after you complete your attack. I'd like to see spells like Hail of Thorns and Barkskin get this treatment. Hunters Mark needs concentration otherwise it would be very busted.
Paladin got Balanced. I wasn't surprised by these changes now it's more on the same level with other classes.
My takes.
* Pal was VERY good before, so letting them have the same ability for smite damage but not letting them instakill anything on crit feels like it is not a huge hit. Pal got nerfed, and it's probably for the best.
Ranger is fine mathematically speaking. They feel like their personality has been gutted which .... I've been saying this was the path ranger changes were taking since Tasha's, so I'm just happy to be validated finally as the community realizes what ranger feels like when you take out all abilities related to hunting, tracking, and specialization for certain enemy types.
Rouge is just given more fun stuff to do, and that's ok with me, rouge has always been meh on math high on fun, they increased the fun and that's good for me honestly. Plus cunning strikes have some really fun potential for future subclasses.
My most hoped for mechanic is for a more brawler/melee rouge that can spend sneak attack dice for temp hp. Less damage, more survivability. Stacks well with uncanny dodge.
You can still make your extra attack if you use your bonus action to smite right?
@@ddurst1 absolutely you can!
I'll not be changing the smite in any game I run. I'll keep it at "on hit" and "not a spell that can be countered" as in the past. I'll also use my house rule from 2015. You can only smite on one (1) hit per turn. I used that for years. We have a vengeance paladin in our group that just retired a 20th level paladin after playing him for 8 years. It all worked out just fine. And he had some sick spike damage. I think he had a critical strike that hit for over 200 damage once or twice. Good times.
For those wondering, he had a stone with a single use 9th level spell slot that he pumped up his smite with. He also had a boon in effect that maxed his crit damage, and he did roll a natural 20. And the thing he was hitting was an undead demon, so he got an extra few dice to max out. The stone turned to dust afterwards, and the party wizard was pissed because he'd planned to use a wish from it. But the paladin didn't care, and had an ear to ear grin the rest of the night.
A 5th lv Rogue with a shortbow and sharpshooter can trip opponents from 320ft away.
And unlike all 90% of trip effects in the game, theirs force a Dex save, which most lumbering brutes like Ogres, Trolls, and even Golems suck ass at.
Same goes for blindness. Dex save or the creature can't see for an entire turn.
At lv14, going unconscious and automatically failing saves is an instant L. So, the rogue is an excellent alternative to casters wasting spell slots or class features to burn through a creature legendary resistances.
And yes, Con saves are way easier to resist. But unlike casters the Rogue loses nothing. He can force that save every single turn of every single encounter he is in.
Also, they still make the best skill monkeys as well.
7th lv Rogue+ skilled origin feat+ observant feat.
7 skills, 6 with expertise, reliable talent, and perception and investigation checks as bonus actions.
If all of the above means nothing and you only care about dps, that's fine. But saying they are now bottom 3 in the game is crazy to me.
I think it’s too early to jump to conclusions. Let’s see the full rules and try them at the table before deciding that something is good or bad. Often there are subtleties in game play that aren’t apparent until experienced that make something better or worse than first envisioned. I think you should re-visit this video in a years time when we have all the new rules and have had a chance to try them at the table and see if your opinions have changed.
I don’t have a worst class in 2014 and I don’t expect to have one in 2014. Any class can shine in the right circumstances and subclasses make so much of a difference that you can’t judge best or worst by class alone.
My entire "____ is broken" series from 5e was geared at showing that any class can be broken and that there are no wrong choices so I love your outlook here. I still feel largely the same--that most classes have specific use cases within their identity. But I'm having a hard time seeing the ranger's use case with the proposed rules currently.
@@ConstructedChaos I don’t know if you watch any of treantmonk’s content but he seems to be much more optimistic about the new ranger than the general zeitgeist around the class would have you believe.
they never get the ranger right , and it's kinda criminal what they did to paladin & rogue . thanks for the awesome video .
Happy to share my thoughts on this! Looks like you and I are of like mind as usual haha. That said, I do feel like this is the more balanced than 5e. I just feel like they could have gotten a lot closer.
Rogue is mostly improved, really could've been better though
@@shadow-faye what hurts the most is coming so close. Amiright?
Instead of buffing characters, they nerfed the most powerful ones to make them suck more.
That’s never good game design and shows just how lazy they’re getting.
@@alphastronghold715No. Simply, no. Paladin was waaaay to good. The fact that the heaviest hitting builds in 5e usually included paladin dips was an indicator enough that paladin was far too unbalanced compared to its other weapon wielding counter parts. The fact that everyone acts like paladins only good feature is smiting every hit is ludicrous.
The truth of the matter is that it was seen as "THE" feature by most becuase it was the most unbalanced. The weakest paladin subclass was still leagues above the best monk or even fighter subclass! They have aura of protection, Auras in general, biggest burst potential in 5e, best burst healing of every class until high level casters have a say, Access to fighting styles and all armor and weapons, has the potential to (if in a game with only straight classing) have the highest AC at base, best defensive tank thats comparable to barb at higher levels, third stat to level being charisma that lets a paladin have good utility outside of combat (which other martials struggle with), access to phenomenal spells for both combat and utility, and just having a spell list in general which is huge as 5e has shown... and people are acting like its ruined now just becuase they lost the abillity to do over 200 damage, which is difficult to manage for most DMs in reality. The complaints of the change shows certain people haven't been paying attention.
The fact that Paladin looks so above and beyond better than other half caster counterparts like the ranger and artificer, which are vastly more balanced and manageable, on top of all else stated is all the evidence we needed that the featured needed tuning. Paladin isn't trash, it's just more in line with everyone else. It's still likely the class everyone is glad to have in their team
Smite being a spell is rough. The other changes to paladin are great, but you won't be able to use it regularly due to Smite requiring the same bonus action.
My personal fix is make it an action weapon attack, half the damage dice for a first level slot, but when you reach 5th level, Smite spells gain the benefits of the Extra Attack feature.
This leaves the counterspell aspect of Smite as a spell and resolves the paladin multi class problem because it is such a large level sink to make Smite spells worth using.
I kinda just feel like it either needs to be a spell or be a bonus action--not both. As is, it's fine enough though.
Homebrew rule here for the Ranger, Hunter's Mark doesn't cost a spell slot and it doesn't require concentration.
That's it, already make it better and reliable, Wotc where is my pay check?
Hahaha I really feel like this could have been a feature the Ranger gets a little later so they could at least consider other spell options too
Druidic warrior is underrated here. It allows you to take shillelagh (I can never spell that) which in turn allows you to use medium armor and focus on a higher wisdom.
Ranger is the worst, by a landslide. Rogue 'maneuvers' are still optional and feels fair in exchange, for instance you could use hit and run on a weaker enemy, get rid of it and get some utility out of a single attack action without needlessly wasting it on an overkill, they are thought provoking.
Ranger on the hand, and I am surprised you didn't mention it, overtly reliant on his wisdom for his features to work effectively and stretched even thinner between different stats like dex, con, str for various reasons you can surely imagine. I like the first few level changes and new spellcasting but It was already subpar to begin with so it doesn't take much to improve on garbage, and they removed the actually unique things like the Land stride and tasha's free Primal awareness spells which made ranger feel different, not that it was super useful, but it was unique nonetheless. Yet they force feed different set of spells in exchange and now it feels stuck with these so called 'brand new features equal to your wisdom modifier' but they made some of them worse?
Which is absurd for a class that was supposed to be a versatile and adaptive force of nature.
Ranger was the worst class in the game BEFORE they nerfed Hunter's Mark 😭
What? Ranger was never the worst class in the game.
Sorry Gloomstalker is an exception.
@leerubin4303 Gloomstalker isn't the exception, it's the proof that Ranger isn't even in the bottom 4.
@@malmasterson3890 Beast master SUCKS.As a whole Ranger is nerfed.
@leerubin4303 Beast Master is a problem again, but Ranger is not nerfed within itself. Barbarian, Fighter, and Monk may have finally caught back up to it though, but it got plenty of important changes on it's own that will keep it relevant.
One thing you didn't highlight - a number of the more flavourful (though admittedly not mechanically great) features of the ranger have just been removed and not replaced, making it not only mechanically incoherent but also less interesting.
Ranger and rogue are now among the few classes that don't have a slowly growing daily number of some kind of points to use for several different cool things (other than spell slots; I'm talking about rages, bardic inspiration, channel divinity, wild shape, second wind, focus points, sorcery points). I think if they had something like that, rather than "times you can cast a first-level concentration spell for free" and "things you can swap your limited amount of damage for," the classes would be a lot better. (I mean, who cares if you have more than two free castings of Hunter's Mark if you don't have more than two encounters per day, unless they have also removed the ability to transfer it to a new target?)
I like all of the changes tbh. I used to have problems with the Ranger and Paladin but the Paladin needed the nerf and even still at level 20 with a magic item +3, Great Weapon Master feat, and 20 STR the Paladin can still do 80 damage each turn, only the Fighter can do more.
As for the Ranger i will just add that at 13th level when they can't lose con from damage the damage die of the mark also becomes a d8, and if they have the mark do 3d6 damage if cast as a 5th level spell its pretty good at level 20 doing 3d10 damage.
And the Rogue is fine, i don't think they need Extra Attack or any other change. Rogues are all about being steady and hitting a weak point in a way and thr new Cunning Strikes make up for it. Also i disagree with you, the Cunning Strikes need to have a damage tradeoff otherwise they would be very unbalanced or you would be able to do them like proficiency amount of times per short rest, while now you can do them every turn xd.
The problem with your logic here is very, very few games make it past level 10 and even fewer to 20 so that math is nearly pointless and should not be what things are balanced around. Something being "pretty good" at level 20 should not be a metric even spoken about when the vastly overwhelming number of players will see their characters make it to 5-10.
Can we just admit that we all are going to have to bow to the school of dance bard?
I actually don't think so haha. The version in the playtest was insane and the printed version isn't bad either. But it isn't as good as everyone remembers from the playtest.
I think most of the new rogue class is quite good. I don't see it being voted the worst at all. The Ranger class, however, seem to have been nerfed into the ground. And that's saying something, since it was already in a shallow grave to begin with.
Thank you for making it even more clear that D&D2024 is not something worth buying.
I think all the changes in these classes are fine. Smite spells per Jeremy are stronger. The ranger thing is overblown until we play it. It is the first new class I am going to play and try out. The rogue gets a lot of cool, versatile, etc. It is slightly easier compared to other classes if you only use dpr as your measure. I think they are going to be fine with all their updates.
Ranger got beat up. Even gloom stalker is nerfed. Hunter is the truest ranger now and the other paths are just blah. Disappointed wholly in this class.
If I were to use the new version, I would take liberties as a DM to improve the classes' cons. I don't play paladins much, but I would undo the smite change. HM would lose concentration for rangers, and rogues would not have to sacrifice damage for the added effects of a failed save. All in all, I agree some changes are needed for balancing, but to nerf classes or make them more reliant on spells that don't level as well as others is a wrong move.
Did combat rules get changed ? Because if not the smite nerf even more severe. In 5e you can't take a bonus action between your attacks in one attack action which means if the paladin chooses to smite on the first strike they won't be getting a second strike.
So paladins went from amazing to mid, and rangers went from mid ( except for gloom stalkers) to meh at best. Rogues needed a small boost but just got some cool options for even less damage
You also missed that Ranger's Nature's Veil is FOUR levels later. Plus, they lost Land's Stride and Vanish
You’re right! It’s an easy detail to miss since it’s touted as a replacement for the “vanish” feature but it is coming online later than the old version we got at level 10. Yucky…
As a paladin player I feel that should be when needed not bound to spell slot it works better has a class feature that let's do what it needs. The free mount is nice. Rouge could use a extra d6 per level with sneak attack.
Did you really compare the OPTION to give up a damage die on any sneak attack to having to expend Ki points or spell slots. Cunning Strikes is one of the coolest neutral (not a nerf or boost) features they added. Steady Aim already took care of one of rogues major problems of not being able to get to do sneak attack damage and since Rogues also got weapon masteries their damage is going up along with their ability to make meaningful choices each round. Also let’s not forget that Rogue subclasses have increased their damage potential. Arcane Trickster with no spell restrictions means GFB and BB are options if they make the PHB. Assassin is good beyond a surprise rounds, but I don’t know if they offer a damage increase since there has been another noted change not seen in the playtest that lowered damage of some of its features to insure they can be used more reliably. Soulknife has vex and a bonus action second attack which also has vex, so after the first attack you should always be attacking with advantage. Thief is OP depending on your DM. Activating a magic items as a bonus action can be really strong depending on what items you have.
Rangers I completely agree with you.
Paladins having to use a bonus action to smite is really bad. It kills pole arm master and TWF as options.
@@lamarwashington2718 I did compare it to ki, yes. You had the option not to spend ki points as well haha. When the other classes are also getting upgrades and you get mostly neutral abilities, these are valid comparisons to make IMO. Still, like I said in the video, I think the rogue fulfills its paradigm as a skill expert extremely well so I’m not that worried about the lack of damage output.
@@ConstructedChaosI am, because being a skill expert is bot nearly as valuable as people think it is, and bards are better at it anyways
@@xolotltolox7626 I think it depends on the table you play at and a bard is NOT a skill expert. They're a jack of all trades. This is very different.
@@ConstructedChaos bard literally gets expertise, plus they get enhance ability and spells, as well as inspiration to help other players succced better than profiency
@@xolotltolox7626 you are correct. Lots of classes get expertise. However the bard does not get reliable talent and it gets expertise later than the rogue does in both rounds of the feature. I’d argue that this makes the rogue a far more effective skill expert. Does that make it better than the bard overall? Definitely not.
As someone who just played a drakewarden I'm use to taking Ls
Oh lord hahaha. I did really like the flavor of the drakewarden at least but it failed to live up to the hype, eh?
@ConstructedChaos ultimately yes, but that's why I talked to my DM about changing some things, so for more info I played an offensive ranger, sword and sheild build with the druidic warrior as a Halfling. So I picked up zyphrs strike along with the entangled spell. So I tried my best to make it work. I will say, I had lots of fun with the whole concept. But hearing about the new ranger was a let down.
@@joshuabarrientes5477 I'm with ya there. I played a drakewarden a while back for a one shot and felt a bit disappointed by the amount of setup I needed to do to make it competitive. Still, there is still hope for the new ranger. If the version of hunter's mark with upcasting made it through, it could actually be pretty good.
Not sure how well my argument here will go over, but I am willing to make it.
I don’t think that Rogues will be behind other martials in damage anymore, even with Cunning Strikes siphoning off sneak attack dice. You have to remember that martials got major damage boosts from Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter and early playtest versions of these feats had removed the -5 to hit, +10 to damage ability entirely. Between that and Paladins only getting one Smite per turn, the only Martial character that will be dealing more damage than their 2014 version will be the Monk, and even with that boost, I think it will only put Monks in line with the rest of those classes.
I know, “Rogues are better because everyone else deals less damage now” is not the best argument, but I’m honestly fine with this change given that monster stat blocks often felt a bit underpowered. The problem arises when WoTC just decides that Bards should not only get Power Word Kill for free, but can cast it on two creatures at once and decide that Clerics should get a free Wish spell as their capstone.
The principal of bringing everyone up or down to reasonable levels is only applied to the martials and half casters.
Power word kill/heal is at 20 no body ever see that lvl but for one shots and a handful of campaign in a life time
These are my three favorite classes 😅
I was worried about Paladin but I felt so relieved when the Channel Divinity options often activate upon attack.
Ranger feels like it bottlenecks you into Hunter’s Mark to much. But as long as it scales with spell level then I think it will be fine for me.
Rogue I feel like is changing it’s role from a damage dealer to a utility role, which I do appreciate the added utility in and out of combat.
Overall I’m still excited for my favorite classes!
Paladin seem good now. They were so unbalanced before.
Tasha's already "fixed" the Ranger, especially with the recent nerfs to other martials.
Rogue is now more than just "hide and sneak attack". They have tactics. I like it.
I agree with most of this but I do still think that the ranger needed more love than it got and that the rogue should be able to do what is on the tin without sacrificing sneak attack damage.
@@ConstructedChaos You might be right about Ranger, but I like that Rogue’s are now competitive in damage (with smite and GWM getting nerfed) if they want to do that, but can also shift to tactical play, depending on the moment. I like that it gives them options, especially now that light weapons can attack twice, but doesn’t make them the new overpowered choice.
@@RyanMDanks I'm actually not sure the rogue is that competitive with damage but I don't really need it to be. I'm still happy regardless that they doubled down on the skill expert bit with reliable talent at level 7.
Paladins were absolutely busted in 2014. They made martials worthless. I wanted nothing to do with them.
I might actually play one now.
Can I just say, I really don’t get why people hate Ranger. I love Ranger. Like why, cause it’s too similar to “other classes?” I hope not. That’s not a good reason in my opinion. Honestly, my least favorites are sorcerer, druid, and warlock.
@@Soulknight-jw8ht oh I love ranger! Not sure if I made that clear enough in the video. It’s definitely one of my favorites!
@@ConstructedChaos Oh no, I get it! It wasn’t targeted towards you in particular, I’m just like in general, I see all of these hate comments towards ranger, and I’m like “Why?!” Lol. So glad you like the class though!
@@Soulknight-jw8ht haha I feel ya! I think a lot of hate for Ranger comes from not fully understanding what it’s all about. That wilderness guide with a bit more knowledge than usual about the world and the monsters in it is always going to appeal to me.
@@ConstructedChaos Same! I feel like the purpose of ranger is to be the explorer/tracker/tamer kind of guy. Last time I checked, fighters, rouges, and not even Druids can track anything as well.
On Paladin, I think the changes to Divine Smite were mostly good and or neutral. Divine Smite always should have been limited to once per turn and I almost no reason why a DM would ever counterspell a Divine Smite when full casters exist.
The real negative is the bonus action requirement which hurts GWM and PAM build. Also because Divine Smite is a spell, you can’t cast a buff spell like Bless or Shield of Faith if you want to smite.
Overall, I plan on running Divine Smite (and Hunter’s Mark too) as and ability you can activate using a spell slot on a weapon hit, but I’ll keep a once per turn restriction. A fair nerf to Divine Smite while allowing for spellcasting and fun builds.
Ranger is poorly designed still but not in a way that makes it weak. They should have changed HM to a d4 that you can add to attack or damage rolls as well as survival and perception checks. Have the dice grow as you lvl up and, yes, get rid of concentration at least at some point
Rogue it the real loser here. If cunning strike was just an add on and not costing damage then it would be mostly fine. Maybe still the weakest but not in a way where it feels like an outlier
Honestly new Paladin is fine. The Bonus Action Smite is there to make you choose between Lay on Hands or Smite still
I think it’s fine *enough* but I don’t think a bonus action was necessary. Definitely, it’s the least worrisome of the three for me.
Enemy within the area of effect of a Silence spell = NO SMITE.
@@marcducorsky8736 ohhhhh boy I didn’t even consider that context
I agree that Paladin before was too strong, but they should have replaced the stacking smite strat with something else, not just taken it away with nothing to show.
the mechanical design choice is bad. Almost every other class was was streamlines to try to make use of iconic features while reducing bonus action clog. Literally did the exact opposite with the paladin and introduced more clog.
Divine Smite should have just been “once per turn”. Thats all they had to do.
Oddly all three of these are the classes I already avoided. Although rogue at level seven looks awesome for breaking the game through role play, too bad DnD is a combat oriented TTRPG or else it’d be in a top three list.
So paladin is not the worst class in the phb then?
Correct, it is not! I'm actually playing one in a new campaign right now haha.
Sure as hell isn’t Paladin, the buffs to their 3rd level is nutty, and yeah Smite is a bonus action now, but they were one of the best classes in the game. For my money- rogue. They aren’t BAD, but their damage falls off and lack of spellcasting hurts, even if the Ranger has shit design. Ranger also picks up better multiclassing opportunities.
I was never super fond of paladins in 5e. I only really liked oath of glory. Now though, the additional ability to smite on unarmed attacks so you can crank out divine pimp slaps, and keeping a free horse make it sound really fun.
Half-caster players looking at divine smite, hunter’s mark, and the lack of an artificer be like “Hey WotC, come over here. I just want to talk, WotC..”
Ranger's is good. essentially enhanced Tasha's. Hunter's Mark is homogenized with Tasha's "Favored Foe" + Buffs.
Rogue is good. A flying dragon's worst nightmare (borrowing Trip Attack from Battlemaster) + other conditions.
The new "worst" is Paladin & their nerfed Divine Smite, 1/turn that takes a Bonus Action to use. That's limited to your turn only, unlike Hunter's Mark that could work with Attack of Opportunity.
I disagree with you but I can see where you're coming from here! All solid points!
@@ConstructedChaosThanks! I tried to come in with strong and condensed points.
Ranger's only received buffs. When you take a look at when Favored Enemy gets bonuses, on the 2014 progression, there were no new features EXCEPT for those were the levels your Ranger's Spellcasting leveled up (13th & 17th) level. In theory, not using Favored Enemy is just like when Tasha's Rangers didn't use Favored Foe. As a matter of fact, you didn't need to use either Hunter's Mark or Favored Foe, they're no longer in stiff competition of each other.
I'm hoping Hunter's Mark kept its Playtest Version where when it upcasted, it also added damage dies every other Spell Slot above 1st. At 5th level, 1d6 --> 3d6. And with the capstone, d10 --> 3d10.
In a way, Hunter's Mark will function almost parallel to Paladin's bread and butter, Divine Smite. With damage being the majority of Concentration breaking, it will be harder to break. And advantage, it will be easier to deliver.
Besides, Rangers with the updated rules, now have these benefits to enjoy:
1. Ritual Casting (rule change)
2. Spellcasting Focus (Tasha)
3. All Fighting Styles (was limited)
4. Weapon Masteries (new)
5. Swap a Spell/Long Rest (instead of level up)
6. Three total Expertise (2 new)
7. Roving +10 Speed (was +5)
8. 2 more languages
And Ranger's, compared to Paladin's, have more Rituals to work with. 12 vs 5.
In Paladin's defense, they updated "how" Aura's trigger, making it more effective, as well as an easier time both using & Channel Divinity. But they lost their main power to be in line in power because they powered through everything.
Paladin Smite overnerf is bad for sure. Rogue can at least ignore the cunning strike options and just go for max dmg as in 5e.
But O think that Ranger is still the worse class in D&D...
Just make smite once a turn, not a bonus action if you want to limit it.
Rogue is the worst power-wise, but with a great design.
Rangers are the worst design-wise, but are fine for power.
Give Rogues an extra sneak attack dice at cantrip scaling levels and a feature to allow then to more reliably get Sneak Attack. I've like the idea of giving them a limited "Reliable Talent" but for saves and attack rolls, and if you use it on an attack you get guaranteed sneak attack even if you didn't meet the previous criteria.
Rangers... I don't know. Wait for 6e (the new edition is more like 5.2e) and pray they get a total rework that only holds onto the basic half-caster chassis and maybe one or two features. The climb/swim speed with bonus movement and blindsense seem neat and flavorful, but the rest is a total mess.
Oh man I didn’t even think about counter spellings smite wow just wow
Sorcadin smiting twice and then casting a spell had to be balanced somehow.
Blindsight at lvl 18 for the ranger… wow
Yeahhh it’s really just a slight improvement from the old ranger so I can see what they were going for but it feels pretty terrible. Give me truesight at level 18 at least haha
Thank you for being reasonable about paladin it sounds like an interesting class now as opposed to broken
oh ranger is the worst by far no contest. rogues damage can be fixed by like having higher damage guys next to you and what they do they still do well (also id probably homebrew just giving them more sneak attack dice). paladin smites can be fixed imo by a simple homebrew of ok divine smite doesnt take a bonus action. although the horse identity is a bit shoehorned in. but ranger is just mediocre damage on top of design failure after design failure. and their one niche of "pick a guy and hes dead" got gutted. so like their ceiling is much lower than 2014.
Could Smites be counterspelled? Sure, but that leaves an opening for other stronger spells to be used by the other party member especially. Good trade if that's the case.
I feel the same way depending on what level of smite you're casting. However, someone else also pointed out that silence now turns off smites and that can be pretty rough!
I still think Rogue needs extra attack. That said, the goal as stated by WotC wasn't to make a rogue a powerhouse damage dealer but rather a debuff specialist. Personally I'm ok w/the trade off since they're essentially getting battle master maneuvers that aren't tied to a limited resource...especially since the ones that are going to be getting the most use are the initial set which all cost a single die of damage which means their value is only going to increase as the rogue levels.
Even so, I would have preferred if the rogue could just use these abilities at all times and had the abilities themselves buffed by using them in conjunction w/sneak attack. Would have been very nice to allow the rogue to spend additional Sneak Attack die to boost the DC for each ability.
They got it in the nick weapon mastery frees up the bonus action
@@druxusthemage9806 That is definitely a nice mastery and not complaining about it at all but that's also tied to specific weapons as opposed to being a class feature.
Now, folks won't simply pick paladin as the most powerful martial class.
Paladin went from over-powered boss monster slayers to merely good. It was time
@@jameswhite3043 I think I agree with you. It needed to be calmed down, but I don’t know if I love the method.
I absolutely agree that a nerf was necessary. I just think they took it too far.
@ConstructedChaos I was tired of having paladins destroy my enemies jn one or two turns (unless I gave them mysterious resistance to radiant). And playing BG3 with friends...paladins, paladins, paladins.
And like you said, paladins abusing smite were at the heart of nearly all powergame multiclass builds.
@@jameswhite3043now eldritch knights can do that with 0 spellcost or multiclass requirements.
Sooo…. The new monk outclasses the new paladin? I like the new monk, but I can’t see it being better than the paladin. On par maybe, but not better.
Rogues lack in damage but with early reliable talent they are a real good utility power house.
Rangers are actually really strong its just taht the design is ass and thats why ppl complain. HM as a spell needed a major overhaul to be a decent main class feature and that it would have allowed no concentration. But WotC chose a wack spell over decent design and now ranger doe snot want to use one of their main features most of the time.
And pally just got adjusted. Personally i think a readtion for smite would have been better, but its goo. for the game. All the good stuff is still there and they even got some buffs.
😢 my paladin with polearm mastery just got destroyed....
Oof, yeah... RIP
Incorporating optional features from other books into the core is still an improvement to the class.
I think the rogue is getting far too much negative attention
Haha I felt the same when I first saw the reveal video. But, as I've had more time to think about it, I'm left wondering why we felt the need to sack damage for abilities instead of just allowing them to be used a certain number of times per long rest.
I dont mind the situational sacrifice BUT your suggestion does feel better for sure
An issue with the new Paladin is that you get massive diminishing returns if you put more than an absolute maximum of 6 levels into the class.
A Paladin is able to upcast Find Steed to give it a fly speed at level 13, while one that multiclasses Sorcerer or Bard can do it as early as level 9 (Paladin 5/Sorcerer or Bard 4). Making Divine Smite a spell also means Sorcerers can apply Metamagic to it, like Empowered Spell to reroll damage dice or Subtle Spell to prevent Counterspell or cast it while Silenced. And the damage cap for Divine Smite was removed, meaning that multiclassing Paladin with a full caster means your Divine Smites hit harder than a Paladin could ever manage. If you somehow get to maximum level, a Paladin 6/Sorcerer 14 has all of the signature Paladin abilities plus their entire Sorcerer subclass and 9th level spell slots (though no 9th level spells).
On the Bard front, Valor Bard also got an improved Extra Attack akin to the Bladesinger, where they can replace an attack with a cantrip when they take the Attack action (with True Strike being redesigned to be a weapon attack that deals Radiant damage and uses the caster's spellcasting stat). And since Divine Smite is a 1st level spell now, and Paladins get spellcasting at level 1, a Valor Bard only needs a single level dip into Paladin to be able to prepare Divine Smite, only missing out on the one free casting of Divine Smite at its lowest level. So a Paladin 1/Valor Bard 19 will be able to smite harder than a Paladin 20 could ever manage, while also getting 9th level spells.
As for Warlock, Pact of the Blade now grants Charisma for weapon attacks regardless of Patron, the Thirsting Blade and Devouring Blade invocations allow the Warlock to attack three times a turn instead of twice, and Eldritch Smite still works like the old Divine Smite where it's not a spell and doesn't cost a bonus action. In fact, a Pact of the Blade Warlock with a single level Paladin dip can smite twice on the same attack, once with Divine Smite and once with Eldritch Smite. And if you go Celestial Warlock, you can add your Charisma modifier to the damage of a spell that deals Radiant or Fire Damage (and oh look, Divine Smite is a spell that deals Radiant damage), and you get a pool of d6s that you can use to heal people as a bonus action (it's like the new Lay on Hands, but with more variable healing, a slightly lower average amount of healing, but a 60 foot range instead of requiring touch), and they buff the entire party with temporary HP after every rest, and their level 14 ability is an improved version of the Oath of Ancients Paladin level 15 ability, because it also damages and blinds enemies with no save. They get fewer spell slots overall, but those slots still recharge on a short rest, and they can hit a target with a 5th level smite at level 9, while a Paladin can't do that until level 17, and with their Mystic Arcana they also get a 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell.
Basically, with a 1-6 level investment in Paladin, every other Charisma caster can use the most iconic Paladin features they get better than the single-class Paladin.
It's a shame for rogues. Theyre the only class that has to play by the rules and rely on others, yet thematically they were the loners.
Sigh. At least they did something with the monk
New Ranger's reliance on Hunter's Mark should be a Magic Item, not a Class's Core Feature. This is an amplified version of the Question "What if I made a Subclass based of of a spell?" It just works better as a magical Item
My friends are dropping DnD, and are loving the tactical possibilities that PF2e allow. Wizards are just bought bi***** from Hasbro now, mercenary s***.
Make cunning strikes fueled by something like focus, give them proficiency bonus amount per short rest and allow them to exchange sneak attack die during the attack. This way they ll get ample uses without feeling like they sacrifice power and give more party members something that ties to a short rest is good for other classes that want short rests and often have to battle the party for them.
Potentially also a save for more damage (even if its a small amount) cunning strike, so its like a gamble for those who want to go for more damage
Turnning a roll into a 20 is quite busted at least. But Ranger seems the worse of the 3 you mentioned.
Strangely enough the new rogue base fits a certain anime character to a T as they always self claim to be no good in combat. Yet they were skilled in so much that you figured it was a lie born of ignorance.
They someone made Ranger worse.
The overriamce on the incredibly shitty spell that is hunters mark has made my favkrite 5e class unplayable for me.
ranger is the worse class in my opinion not only because there generally weak (altho i think any class can be good if you have ideas and can build characters) but there just boring and this is coming from someone who plays alot of rangers and is currently playing a ranger build in a long term campaign and i got a opinion about it i wanna see what people think. i think rangers are bad and boring because they have no signature ability a ability that alters how you play the game and can be built apon by other options and ability's every other class has one barbarian-rage, bard-bardic inspiration, cleric-channel divinity, druid-wild shape, fighter-action surge, monk-martial arts and ki, paladin-smites and auras, rogue-sneak attack, sorcerer-metamagic, warlock-invocations and pactboons, wizard-spellbook ranger doesn't have any unique ability that the class is focused around so it struggles to have appeal or keep up withy the rest of the party doing cool stuff that's why it feels so subclass focused for ability's and playstyles it needs something base to define the class not be based around spamming a spell(hunters mark)
“Why do these ones taste funny” Is accurate😂
I think Rogue looks good....Paladin looks okay but smite could be tweaked....Ranger looks like ass.
Oh great, three of my favorite classes in a "worst classes" video...
Soo... no rapier rogue anymore?
Spellschool restriction removal for arcane Trickster = best change ever.
Why nick says if you have a weapon in your off hand with it's properties the can make a free attack without extending a bonus action
Yes, I think if you chose that one you can get Vex, which gives advantage on your next attack
If Rogue is tglhr worst class now, nothing has changed. It was the worst before as well.
To be Absolutely and Brutally honest: din needed a nerf in smites, so they got a side grade and a side nerf.
Yes, your NOVA is weaker, but thats not a problem.
just because it is a spell don't mean it can be counterspelled...cause you do need to see the spell being casted...and since the spell ain't casted it just happens....i can't be counterspelled...
but we would need to see the new smite spell to be sure...
The playtest version has a verbal component. So not only can it be counterspelled, but silence also shuts it down.
@@ConstructedChaos that's funny XD thanks for the clarification....that sucks ass
Comparing DnD 5.5’s (or whatever WOTC is calling it) class reworks to Pathfinder 2.0’s Class Remasters is like night and day. Pathfinder generally received improvements across the board, making them more thematic, flavorful, and just more fun to play. DnD has been a broad simplification inundated with unnecessary nerfs and restrictions, topped with a loss of flavor or really anything interesting.
Smite would be really good if the nerf was "once per turn".
The ranger could have a favorit terrain basead on short rest studing area (with initiative, perception, investigation an hide bonus... and some benefits around dificult terrain). Hunters mark concentration free between 9th and 11 levels would be really ok (paladin have +1d8 every melee attack. Why not grants ranger a +1d6 with anny weapon for some minutes a day?)
My pitch for ranger would have been to keep the old favored foe feature from tasha's and remove concentration for that ability. Add in some more flavorful abilities in later levels. Done.