Well, minus if your home is border region where it would be at receiving end of Orc, Drow, and other civilizations’s invasion. Kinda like South Park but with border raids.
The feedback on Cunning Strike is so high because it offers Rogues _more choice._ Mathematically speaking, it puts them _further behind_ other classes in terms of damage output, but because it gives them tactical choices, gives players the option to *choose to do something* without a resource limit, it gets overwhelmingly positive feedback. Barbarians, Fighters, and Monks desperately need something with similar agency and efficacy.
How do I like this comment 10 times? This is exactly what we need to pursue with OneDnD. We need to focus on flavor, versatility, choice, and movement with game changes, over plain power.
Recommendation for the monk and all unarmed subclasses- when you are building a class that focuses on unarmed combat, you CANNOT make all the features just bringing it up to “as good as someone wielding weapons”. Because the other classes can wield weapons AND do other stuff. The monk needs to be as good AND have other features.
This!!!!! The monk should first use dexterity for rolls and CDs of everything involving unarmed strikes. Second, its mandatory that it has a mechanic similar to cunning action or fancy footwork (only the part about attacking opportunities) that does not depend on discipline points. Without it the class superior mobility will not be useful in combat. Furthermore, the monk needs to have access to some martial weapons to be able to get good feats (all of which are not heavy, just as rogue has access to all of them with finese) and apply good mastery peoperties. Still be able to use martial art dice in weapon damage rolls would be a good call too. This alone would make the monk constantly functional, even after running without discipline points. Talking About Discipline points, they could well be proficiency bonus+wis bonus+half level. It would change almoust nothinh in the late game, but it would make it perfectly usable in the eraly and mid game. To finish, its not mandaroey but raise his HP to d10. He is made to fight, make him good at it...
It's a mistake to not include the Bard in future UA. The previous iteration depended heavily on the group spell lists, and scored high because of it. It doesn't work the same with class spell lists.
To be fair, the biggest issue with the Playtest 6 Bard, and One D&D Bard in general, has actually been the Spell List change as it absolutely gutted part of what made Bard unique as a Caster by removing the very unique arsenal of support and control Spells not seen anywhere, so forcing Bards to use any other List just doesn't really fit. Sure, there was potential for a Variable-List Caster, but it never should have been Bard, they should've kept their old Spell List from the start and kept the actual Prepared Spells to help them actually utilize it better. Plus, Magical Secrets in Playtest 6 was a ridiculous but awful Feature because it's so clumsy to get more Spells on the 2nd List despite being such an absurd thing to get in the first place.
They could still let them pick from the Druid, Cleric, or Sorcerer list and give them a handful of unique spells. Several spells are still on multiple class spell lists. I think they could do a hybrid model with smaller general lists and each class getting a small unique list pretty easily. Any spell that is available to Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks would go on the Arcane list for example.
To be fair to Necromancer, the Animate Dead spell itself is a main reason it's not getting played. It's just not table friendly to have your army taking up half the turn order and all.
If they are dumping the school of necromancy wizard, the undying warlock, and the death domain cleric, it makes me wonder if they are priming the pump for a completely reworked necromancer class in the future.
So as a DM I've yet to have a player want to play a necromancer. Even though I've always loved the concept. Couldn't you just run swarm/mob rules at a certain point to speed things up? With exceptions/division for more powerful undead?
@@doctorthroat-punch5537 I don't want to push my image of a necromancer PC on you, since we obviously all have our own opinions about the concept. But the dark wizard leading a horde of undead has never been what I enjoyed about the necromancer, at least not from a D&D perspective.
I’m running an Elder Scrolls game and I reworked all of the Wizard school subclasses to match. In the process I wrote completely new summoning/Necromancer spells for the Conjuration school closer to the Pathfinder level 1 summons to fit the world.
With the UA Monk there were far more worrying issues than concerns regarding Discipline Points. The fact that foundational features for the Monk as a martial class are straight up incompatible and even made it into the UA is baffling to me. Like Weapon Masteries and Increased Martial Arts dice while removing the ability to use Martial Arts dice for monk weapons, and losing shortsword proficiency and no longer having access to martial feats that require martial weapon proficiency, feels like an already weak class has taken two steps backwards. I hope this gets adressed in the next version of the monk they put out.
My first comment a year ago was if you just fix monk and ranger and stealth rules, that would be enough. But I could tell they were going to dodge Monk when they didn't address it immediately. I'm confident they made Base Monk SO BAD so they could just retreat to the current 2014 monk and tell us this is an improvement.
@@theepicduck6922it doesn't help that the Necromancer Wizard is the worst at Necromancy because they don't get Revivify, Raise Dead or True Resurrection! People have to pick Spore Druid or Grave/Death Domain Cleric simply to get access to the most powerful Necromancy spells in the game...leaving the Necromancer wizard in the awkward place of being designed for one thing (building a army of undead) that is useless in most settings.
@ether4211 Yep Wizard necromancer is best for minomancy. Druid and especially cleric fit better for necromancy spells involving curses on average and raising your allies from death. Necromancer wizard has the main benefit of being a wizard: ultra versatile spell list (short of heals especially).
You guys did the survey before announcing you would be dropping shared spell lists. Bards got many positive reviews due to them being able to choose which shared spell list they start with, but you guys have done away with shared spell lists. This leaves a gap in the class that MUST be adressed. Give bards new exclusive spells. Turn countercharm into Song options. Bring Song of rest back. There was no reason for taking it away instead of improving it.
Oh man, I'm sure the haven't thought of that, and are leaving the Pt6 bard as is with nothing to account for the fact that the primal, divine, and arcane spell lists don't exist anymore.
@@ilovethelegend The question is, how do they plan on accounting for that massive of a change in that fundamental a part of the class's design in a way that they are so sure that the class will not need any more public playtesting? Are they just going to revert Bards to 2014, add the improved inspiration and the countercharm fix, and try to gaslight us into thinking it's the same as UA6 Bard? Are they going to replace Arcane/Divine/Primal in the UA6 Bard with Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid? Are they going to write three entirely new spell lists for Bard (Arcane), Bard (Divine), and Bard (Primal)? We don't know. What Crawford said in this video implies that they think Bard's UA6 design is good enough that it requires no more public playtesting, despite the fact that their changes to how spell lists work have made the core design of UA6 Bard completely incompatible with the game on a fundamental level.
Yeah, the playtest 6 bard was literally thrown into the trash. Its insane how they are wasting their time and our time with these "playtests" that are nothing but a "throw anything into the wall and lets see what sticks in".
Omg…. I can’t believe that they think the warrior of the elements is fine… people were excited bc it’s better than the 11% way of four elements. It’s still bad compared to any other martial… this is kinda crazy
I think people scored it high because it was now at least functional. The problem is that it's essentially a combination of Ascendant Dragon and Sun Soul. The mechanics are so similar that they're nearly inseparable.
@@carsonrush3352 and not interesting, and ignoring 90% of what benders did outside of their spam attacks. and scales poorly... I think they pushed monk so far back that now they are rushing to "Finish" their product and they don't have either the time or the balls to do what needs to be done to actually make a GOOD representation of a bending class
The necromancer was not popular in play because the majority of players recognized that the style of play was disruptive at the table. I think the subclass is very desirable to many players who love the theme. It just needs to be reworked to fit in with the current summon creature design.
I agree necromancer is super desirable thematically it's the execution that is the problem. The have lots of weak creatures gameplay is just not enticing. Who wants to spend all their high level spell slots maintaining a small army with hour long turns in combat that can be wiped out in an instant the second anything big and scary shows up. A swarm of zombies concentration summoning spell would fill that fantasy very easily while opening up room for necromancers to focus on fewer but more powerful minions. Maybe a feature that gives you a beast master like undead companion could be added to it as well.
It's pretty bad that a Necromancer Wizard is class restricted from being able to raise the dead as all 3 of the big necromancy spells (revivify, raise dead and true resurrection) are cleric/druid exclusive. This means that the Druid, Cleric and Bard (using magical secrets) are better at necromancy than the Wizard who is supposed to specialise in it! It would be easy to fix too - just make grim harvest able to heal a creature within 30 feet and a class feature to use spell slots to damage a target and heal another (ala vampiric touch). Give them a class feature that adds Revivify, Raise Dead and True Resurrection at the appropriate levels and now you have a necromancer that can fit into the healer role OR use grim harvest to buff up their undead army.
Necromancers should move away from undead armies and more into dealing necrotic damage, stealing and using hp, and applying conditions. Something like witchbolt but draining health. Things like ray of sickness and ray of enfeeblement but that are actually worth using. Make them a master of death, not just a master of undead.
@@oicmorez4129 at level 1, they get bardic inspiration and spell casting. These aren't subclass features. At level 6, they resemble most spell casters: they don't need many features because they've got a spell list that is ever expanding.
I think not doing Bard again in another UA is a mistake. Don’t get me wrong, the last iteration of the class was great but it really depended on universal spell lists that have been abandoned, what’s happening with the Bard now? Also the dancer subclass was really cool but also needs adjustments
The fact that there was literally no mention of the bard at all in the video! Like no info on the results it got, no mention on how will they accomodate the spell list changes, nothing.
with a little bit of luck, we might get a sidebar telling people that the bard now chooses a class spell list from the cleric, Druid or Wizard) and everywhere where a feature referred to Primal/divine or Arcane, to now replace them with Druid, Cleric or Wizard. At least this is how we are testing it at our table. Since the clerics basically have all the divine spell (since Find Steed and all the smite were paladin class feature), Druid have basically all the primal spell and Wizard all the arcane spell.
@@sohkaswifteagle2604 This would be neat, actually it would be even better if the arcane list was the sorcerer's, so the wizard's snowflakes (I'm joking) won't complain if someone else has a list longer than theirs
Excellent! I'm currently using MCDM's Stronghold's and Followers, because I think features like this are VITAL to my game! I can't wait to see what the Bastion system looks like!
If you're another MCDMer without a D&D Beyond account, here's the direct link (media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/bastions-cantrips/BRF3GSu0nTfNu8p4/UA2023-BastionsCantrips.pdf ) without signing in. The UA is way closer to older stronghold rules or to the Fortresses, Temples, & Strongholds supplement by Walrock than it is to S&F.
i think the unpopularity of the necromancer is actually BECAUSE of the low satisfaction, i.e. the rules for it are very clunky in play. but i still agree with the end result: evoker, abjurer, diviner, and illusionist make a great quartet in the new PHB and i would not replace any of those with the necromancer. perhaps some other book or set of rules could have the dark/evil specialists, like a book with the oathbreaker, death domain, necromancer, shadow sorcerer etc.
Skipping Ranger and Bard for future UA is a horrible idea! They will both see significant changes from last UA in the final print. If you truly care about players opinion allow them to test the "final" versions before they are put to print! The ranger is especially important as there really isn't a track record for us to trust that it will turn out fine.
Thank gods people actually gave accurate feedback on how bad the monk is. I was astounded when it appeared as our final playtest class with minimal changes from its lackluster 2014 form. These changes sound good but not enough; hopefully we get more.
I really hope we get the necromancy wizard in a UA for another book, it is an awesome class fantasy and it would be great if it just has a few tweaks to make it more user and table friendly.
How can Jeremy smile while claiming the bard is done in UA. The bard doesn't work without generic spell lists. And these have just been removed. There is no working version of the bard that has undergone public playtesting.
I really wanted to hear more about the monk than just about DPs. It was a mess. This class cannot survive as a martial class with a d8 HD and with AC being lower than other martials. I think it also needs its own fighting styles to give it more of an identity. The base class needs a lot of work.
The core issue with the Monk is that the value of ki points isn't consistent across subclasses. Is a ki point equal to a spell level, where you just need to spend the "spell's" level to get the effect: 1 for 1st level, 3 for 3rd level, etc? Or is it 1+the spell level of the effect? The PHB seems to go either way on that standard, but gives higher cost to combat spells. So why are we spending 1 ki for the bonus action dash and dodge features, when level 1 spells would give you either one feature for a whole minute? Spend 1 ki and dash for a minute. The flurry of blows feature follows similar issues. The single extra attack isn't strong enough to be compared to any 1st level spell, but it does compare to Spiritual Weapon. However, that's 2nd level spell, and so maybe push a 1 minute version of the feature to 5th level. Maybe you get free single uses of that feature (maybe PB +3) and can pay 1 ki for more uses during levels 1-4, and then at level 5 you can activate it for 1 minute with 2 ki points? Then you could activate all 3 features as a bonus action to get the effects of Haste for 4 ki, which follows PHB conventions. Several features are essentially just spell descriptions for a new spell they can now "cast" with their spell points.
I really think Bard and Ranger should still be in the next PHB playtest. Bard is completely changed since you're moving away from universal spell lists. Expert UA and UA 6 Ranger were very different so it would be nice to see what it ends up being after "AB testing" especially since the recent changes we not well received
How is it that bard and paladin are going forward? Both classes are based entirely around abandoned concepts. Bard on the 3 spell lists and paladins around spells as class features
Ki points costs of Monk abilities are not the only issues with this class. Even if that is fixed, monks still are a frontline class with terrible defenses, that don't have access to many combat feats (that now have a pre requisite of using martial weapons)
A monk with infinite ki points points would be able to take a dodge bonus action every turn. That's in addition to having proficiency in all saving throws, reduced damage from ranged attacks and evasion which makes you take no damage when you succeed on a dex save. And then there's other things you can do with ki points such as disengaging or becoming resistant to all types of damage except for force. What I'm trying to say is that the monk's tankiness is directly proportional with how many points they have available.
Bards and paladins have their entire class based around two abandoned design elements 3 spell list And spells as features respectively. How could you possibly go forward in design?
The Ranger definitely feels like the stepchild here. Toggling back and forth w Hunters Mark concentration is the best the creative team has for us. Very confusing. Maybe it’s the deadline that’s causing them to throw in the towel? But I haven’t seen anyone express their satisfaction w what they’ve presented. He basically concedes that Ranger isn’t one of the classes that got enthusiastic feedback, but they’re moving on regardless. Bummer!!!
I really hope the Necromancer comes back at some point. Even if in another book. I am playing a 2014 necromancer and absolutely love it. Summon Undead really made the subclass so much more fun to play. The problem pre-Tasha's was that Animate Dead meant you now have undead following you around, which is not very popular in society (unless you live in Thay). Summon spells only last an hour, and the ghostly form is REALLY good.
I would live to see a remake of the books "The Complete Arcane", "The Complete Divine", and "The Complete Martial". They might add in "The Complete Expert". Then they could do theme-by-theme reworks of each set of subclasses. I know that the Monk absolutely needs this, but so do the Ranger, Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue.
I don't know why they aren't playtesting the Bard again given Spell lists are being dumped, yet in UA picking a spell list/power source was super important to the class. What will Bard look like.
My main gripe with the new monk boils down mostly to the HUGE nerf to Stunning Strike. What was a 1 ki point per use, any amount of time you wanted which just made you BURN through those already very limited ressources in base PHB and had average to low chance of success because so many foes have constitution saving throw proficiency But the good thing with that feature was that it lasted until the end of your next turn. Now it is only ONCE per turn, needs a consitutition saving throw, and lasts until the start of your next turn. Unless you somehow manage to proc the stun, you can barely even make use of that advantage.
If they want to nerf stunning strike they should make it give the dazed condition instead of stun. Then maybe add a clause that if a creatures fails the roll by 5 or more they are stunned instead.
@@christianemerson4622 the problem with a dex save is thatit doesn't make much sense as the ability is now. You must hit for it to go off, meaning they would already failed a potential dex save since the attack was successful. The only other save i could see it being is a wisdom save.
Theres a few pain points in the UA that we won't see again based on this, why does rogue still not get any subclass features after 3 all the way until 9, especially for a class that doesnt get extra attack so encourages you to multiclass out, its really easy for rogue subclasses to not feel like a subclass and more like one spot on a skill tree.
Regarding the UA feedback, glad y'all are continuing to listen to the community for the class revisions. Even if everything hasn't landed perfectly, the rigorous attention to feedback has been a continual theme throughout the new UA.
We need to see ranger in the new UA. We don’t know what a synthesis of class features looks like and many of the features beyond favored foe need work and readjustments. Ranger spells like hail of thorns, lightning arrow, and flame arrows are still not up to par with the new design. Certain features in both UA 2 and 6 are not in accordance with the newest direction of the 2024 PHB. We need at least one more pass at it to get it right, if not a complete redesign of the class. Also, the satisfaction rating of the class would be helpful.
So new True Strike has nothing to do with hitting better. Just make it add a d4 on failed attack roll as a reaction, similar to Guidance. and it would be perfect.
I'm really not a big fan that you're not going over Paladin once more. From Divine Smite being nerfed to high hell and back to the paladin cannibalizing its own bonus action to even the divine transformations feeling underpowered compared to other subclass features that you can receive at lower levels, the class still clearly needs some work. Also, Kind of upset they didn't address that, maybe because Cunning Strike scored SO high, maybe they should think of incorporating something similar to some of the other martial classes (Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, etc); it's really dumb that fighters can't trip and disarm enemies by default but rogues can.
I’m playing a fighter battle master with the UA 7 rules, just hit level 15, so I can now use a Maneuver once per turn… which rogues have had since gaining cunning strike… would be nice to have a simple set of moves for a fighter once per turn with BETTER moves for the BM swing as I’m spending a resource
I just want to say that they never said how much satisfaction score the monk got Let's be honest, it was a complete failure, I wouldn't be impressed if it had around 45% or less, it was even weaker than the 5e version and taking into account that that version was already the weakest class in the game, they really managed to make the weakest class in the game weaker with that new monk. I just hope you realized all the bad points of the monk Because it is not just ki, it is also damage, defense, survival, the role of the monk, as it could not be any kind of control, nor damage, nor a frontlinner, nor a tank, nor a skirmisher, nor a support, because in everything he failed irremediably, and not only that, but also how it felt to play it, it is a very fun class, but many times it feels frustrating to play despite the fun, it is simply a class with problems everywhere and I hope it at least tries to fix all these sides, the ki problem was not the only problem oh, and also to mention that the barbarian, the fighter and the monk obviously need more improvements and changes, the rogue would only need improvements but not changes
I'm glad that they are going back on some of the Ranger changes that were proposed in UA6. UA2 was so much better and I hope the overall class is heading more in that direction.
Awesome video, I just don't understand how Bard is done with UA now that you're getting rid of the 3 spell list system. That was core to the new Bard, so how can you pass it through when most of those features will no longer work?
The last playtest version of the Bard was literally just: what if the current bard worked with the three spell lists and had a 1 hour Inspiration and a fixed version of countercharm. So it's just going to be the current bard with 1 hour Inspiration and a fixed countercharm.
I think that the hunters mark could be the mechanical signature of the ranger, like the rogue sacrifices damage dices to put effects the ranger could sacrifices the damage bonus of the turn if the player wants to add an effect like disadvantage/advantage, conditions, change the damage type...And could have effects outside the combats. Trapps also sounds good for rangers and rogues. Or make it the pet class that 5e haven't got yet.
While I'm pretty happy with most that is being said here we absolutely do need to see the Bard class again considering that much of their class identity came from being able to choose primal, divine or arcane spelllist which apparently isn't a thing anymore.
Here's hoping that even if Paladin doesn't get another round of UA, they do something about their redesign of Divine Smite. Having to dedicate your Action (because this version of smite only works on your turn, and you have to attack on your turn in order to cast Smite), Bonus Action, and a spell slot for every single smite is really clunky and not fun. It's an unholy marriage of the once per round (instead of once per turn) sneak attack that everyone hated along with the super restrictive Flurry of Blows design where a Monk's entire action economy is locked in for every round because otherwise their damage goes into the toilet.
I have concerns that Ranger is being fused and there’s no play test. Especially since Baldur’s Gate 3 has really shown people some great ideas that should see their way into the class. There were things I liked and disliked in both versions but I want to see how that works out ahead of time. I also agree with everyone saying Bard needs another round.
Bards better get rapiers back as a base class weapon. I know historically, not an iconic weapon, but I feel it has been in D&D for a while now. Also curious how we're supposed to continue playtesting the class now that the three spell lists are gone.
How is possible that the Bard is finished when the main feature of the last Bard (that was presumambly extremely popular) relied on the three spell lists (arcane, divine and primal) and those spell lists have now been dropped?
The reason Necromancy scores so low is because the class fantasy of the Necro (the undead army summoner) was set in place by Diablo 2 over 20 years ago. Controlling an army of the undead has never been a feasible style of play for D&D, cause it totally wrecks action economy. You would have to design a style of play around controlling multiple minions and having it NOT be a bog for the player/DM to manage during combat. I would maybe recommend some subclass-specific ability that summons up to a certain number of zombie/skeleton minions that die when hit once, but can be brought back with a bonus action. Maybe they can move independently, but all attack as one during the Necro's turn. It has to be deeply workshopped, but I'm sure it CAN be done.
A simpler fix is to give Necromancers access to Raise Dead, Revivify and True Resurrection and make Grim Harvest heal a creature within 30 feet. Add a feature to use a spell slot to cast a ranged version of Vampiric Touch to do X necrotic damage and heal a target for half and suddenly you're necromancer wizard is a great ally to have in combat if you're party is short of a healer...abet with the risk that at any time they might opt to cast Animate Dead instead - to turn you into one of their pet zombies :)
@@ether4211 well, Animate Dead needs a redo, 100% That's a spell that has so many problematic requirements (especially considering the "Summon X" spells about to transition from Tasha's into the new PHB are just miles better, in comparison). But I stand by my original assessment that Necro is a problem because it evokes a class fantasy that's better suited for the DM to use as a villain, rather than the player to use against them. You can certainly make a cleric-y offbrand healer wizard, but are they gonna FEEL like a Necromancer? Maybe in that specific respect, a Necro would be better served as the subclass for a cleric instead.
@@darkblue099 my homebrew fix is to replace the Undead Thralls ability to be 'over the course of a long rest you can perform a ritual to revive or reanimate a corpse casting either Revivify or Animate Dead'. This way it keeps the flavour that you need to carry their remains with you then set up a 8 hour dark magic ritual and allows you're necromancer to be helpful to the party while also making sure you have the ability to reliably create or heal your undead minions. The main perk of Animate Dead is that it's non concentration so you can pair it with the Tasha spells :)
How can he say that Bard is ready to go when the whole concept was centered around the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell list choice? Did they forget that they got rid of that?
In DnD you get to live out all your deepest fantasies, such as: -Get a perfect 8 hours long rest and wake up all fresh in the morning. -Travel to exciting places with all your friends. -Apply all the skills you studied/talents you naturaly had in your actual job and be properly rewarded for it. -Have a reliable healthcare system that can get you back on your feet no matter what happens. And now: -Own a house and personalize it however the hell you want! Truly a beautiful fantasy.
I'm super concerned about the Paladin, especially since they said *nothing* specific about it. If those smite changes end up in the book, I'm instantly houseruling them out. That was such a horrifically bad change.
Because I (obviously) had already turned my survey in. I want to add another voice to those calling to see another playtest Bard appearance in hopes that someone at wotc sees it. The spell list and diversity was so important to the feedback and enjoyment of that iteration of the class (much more than I ever cared about a wizard’s total spell list tbh). I also didn’t like the Experts playtest version enough to be comfortable just reverting back to that one from nearly a year ago, especially with how much it’s role seemed narrowed into a healing role. Please give us another crack at the Bard. I will be repeating this at the end of this playtest’s survey but with the delay I figured I’d put it here too in hopes it makes it in alongside the monk and Druid and whatever else needs another go from playtest 7.
I love that you talked about some of the confusion about UA7, like the necromancer and clockwork soul. I was definitely one of the people complaining about that online, so I'm glad you guys are actually reading and addressing the criticisms. I'm still holding out hope for revised dark/undead subclasses in future books, it sucks that Way of Shadow is the only one in the PHB.
Bards really need to be brought back in a future UA. The last iteration in UA 6 had them with their choice of spell lists, and since that change is being reverted any feedback that was put into that class by the community hasn't been fully addressed yet. Are the changes going to make Bards Prepared casters, like in UA 6 or Spontaneous Casters like in 5e? This alone would make for a major difference, and currently, after the push back from UA 6 on Bards, I have no idea which version you're planning on pushing out. Please put Bard back in an upcoming UA, because I'm really lost to where they're at currently and as one of my favorite classes and I'm worried at the moment.
I surprise that the ranger will be not in the next UA because I think that lacks of a mighty own identity in mecanics. And a big question is. What about the rest of subclases before Tasha that will be not in PHB 2024 like Conjurer, Enchanter, Necromancer and Transmuter?
I’ve managed a bi-weekly campaign, well two actually. One is VTT and the other is in person. I found that its easier to run the game by letting everyone know its going to happen whether they come or not as long as half the players can be there.
@@megaairsoft15 Been trying to do the same on roll20. Been playing through Witchlight and we started doing bi-weekly but life has been getting in the way too much lately.
I truly hope that Necromancer doesn't meet the chopping block. The PHB version of Necro definitely lacks in the Necromancer fantasy. But the spell vamp is such a cool feature. Hopefully they can revise it to be more Necromancer-like or maybe at least rework the spell vamp into like a Blood magic/vampire mage class in an upcoming supplemental book.
No way the monk scored higher than 50 lol. It absolutely sucked for everyone since 2014 and somehow sucked even more in the last UA. How can they keep holding this class down so much it’s just sad at this point lol.
When watching Indestructoboy’s stream I was surprised to see that WotC implemented Cunning Strike. It’s probably one of the few DnD mechanics aside from Advantage that I’ve been legitimately impressed by in terms of design. A shame Fighters didn’t get a similar treatment.
What are you talking about!?! The UA6 Bard, Ranger, and Paladin were all built around the shared spell list mechanic. There’s no way those versions can be in the 2024 PHB as is if you’re going back to class spell lists!
I'm so happy about all the changes you're planning, but actually I'm a little sad for the Ranger. I hoped to see some new features and options, instead of just get conservative and revise the older features. I hope you'll do a good job, as you're already doing, and also revise the spell list for all the classes
As a DM, what I'm most excited about with Bastions is (and I realize this might seem as a boring take) _the gold-sink._ My PF2e players are always strapped for cash; there's tons of level-appropriate loot that they want (sometimes even _need)_ and it's readily available for purchase. In 5e, money was always somewhat nebulous - enterprising players knew how to spend gold to get what they want (bribes, connections, land, hirelings, services, projects, etc.), but most other players are a lot more passive. For them, gold tended to accumulate into anxiety-inducing piles. They generally aren't averse to spending gold - they just fear squandering it, and want the game to guide them. Bastions provide a clear _structure_ on how to spend gold on a long-term project.
having a quartet doesn't necessarily mean any of them are opposites of each other (though sometimes they can be), they just fit different characteristics.
I love the bastion concept. I will definitely be playtesting it. In regards to the necromancer, I have often wondered why that was not placed alongside the Oathbreaker in chapter 4 of the DMG.
Glad to hear monk is getting another test run, but bard needs another UA to see the new spell list that it will be given now that the chosen list is gone. We need to see what choices we will get and if they are up to snuff.
I love the idea of a series of videos diving into the various class quartets and how that plays into the design of the game. That would be an awesome content series, I hope you end up coming out with them.
Some people don't seem to be able to see the document in the UA page (either an issue with propagating the update to the servers behind their load balancer, or it's just being hidden by javascript and they accidentally used local time 🤷♂). Here's the fix (I tried to post the exact link, but it got removed): Either: Go to Playtest 7, and then at the top right there's a "next" style button that will take you to UA 8 or just change the end of the URL to ua/bastions-and-cantrips
This comments section shows every reason why I don't engage with D&D discussion online anymore. No reading comprehension, no listening comprehension, jumping to conclusions, building conclusions around false information, obsession with specific content creators, no knowledge of the game's history, no knowledge of how the game actually plays.
the bastion "action" should be each 10 days, not 7 days. Everything on the downtime section of XGE and DMG are on multiples of 10 because the math is easier (and because Forgotten Realms have weeks of 10 days)
@@_aelfweard nope. MCDM got real designers designing the system, because they care of making quality work. WotC are worried only about money, making not the best system, but the best sellers. MCDM used the concept, not copying anything at all. It is a brand new system, and much better one. Bastion will surely be steps back.
That Bastion system could be a really cool thing to implement into a Spelljammer campaign. A large freighter being the bastion and each player having their own section, and the bastion housing their spelljammer or jammers;
Bastian System kinda sounds like MCDM's Strongholds and followers or am i crazy? im curious to see how they complement each other, i need to dig into the system though glancing at the cantrip, they look great, i think spare the dying should be cleric, druid, paladin, and warlock personally
MCDM's Strongholds and Followers sounds a lot like the 3e Stronghold Builder's Guide, 2e Castles Guide, and the somewhat less fleshed out castle construction rules in the 1e DMG, B/X boxed set, and OD&D boxed set. AD&D also had gaining followers as a class ability for most classes, and rules for henchmen and hirelings.
I hope you follow up with the video that Jeremy suggested: diving into the reasoning behind the subclass quartets that will appear in PHB 2024. That is very interesting!
I began noticing the quartets back in playtest 6, and when I did I thought they were really cool, interesting some people online didn't understand this direction and thought celestial warlock was extremely random in playtest 7, which, is amusing because it's obviously representing the upper planes while fiend represents the lower planes As someone who loves playing a necromancer, but someone who struggles because of how like, necromancy doesn't translate well with the necromancer class into a fun game environment, (even though the tasha's summon undead spell is a massive necromancer boon, as it's a balanced and well designed spell unlike animate dead) But still, the necromancer class features really do feel like a directionless mash of different villain archetypes which don't really synergise with eachother at all Level 3: a healing feature which only triggers on kill with a spell, something which doesn't trigger when your undead summons do anything A buff to the spell animate dead and other necromancy summon spells like summon undead and create undead and the like Necrotic resistance and immunity to having your hitpoint maximum reduced, so I guess you can't die of exactly Mummy rot while kidnapping a mummy lord at level 14 And a feature which, instead of just letting you summon a mummy lord, makes you scour the world for strong undead to control, a fun quest to be sure, definitely one which can be disruptive to the game, not unlike your 100 skeletons The biggest problem with the necromancer class actually isn't even the necromancy class features, but instead the spell animate dead, which is busted to all hell like conjure animals, and bogs down gameplay So basically, as long as the animate dead spell is addressed in the playtest, and a new level 2 aoe necromancy blast spell for my level 3 necromancer comes out, so that I can use grim harvest via backwards compatability, I will be happy (We already have wither and bloom but it's setting specific, I wouldn't have this complaint if it was in the PHB)
The reason why people don't play the PHB Necromancer is that they can't cast any of the Raise Dead spells so people get stuck needing to play a Spores Druid, Bard or Cleric if they want to be able to revive fallen party members! Even a Bard is better at Necromancy than the Wizard because they can use Magical Secrets to get Animate Dead, Revivify, Raise Dead and True Resurrection. Meanwhile the Wizard has to wait till 17th level to access Wish and can't cast the only 9th level Necromancy spell in the game! The entire class is pigeonholed into being focused on Animate Dead when necromancer spells are all about meddling with life energies for good or ill. This is easy to fix by changing Grim Harvest to heal a target within 30 feet so you have the opinion to target minions or party members. Then replace the ability to control multiple Animated Dead with being able to perform a 8 hour ritual over a long rest to either raise OR animate one dead creature. Then add more creature types and spells at higher level so you start out with Revivify OR a zombie OR skeleton then by 18th level a Necromancer could choose to use their dark ritual to either cast True Resurrection OR turn themself into a Undead until the next long rest by consuming the soul of a living creature so players have a RAW pathway to litchdom! This makes it possible to play Necromancer as a support/healer class while keeping all the creepy dark magic aspects. This simple tweak to let necromancers raise dead and heal can bring a positive benfit to the entire party by providing a means for a party without a cleric or druid to bring back a dead PC...and makes the necromancer the wizard-cleric hybrid to mirror the Divine Soul Sorcerer and Celestrial Warlock. This works to reduce the number of summons while fixing the misconception that Necromancers are always evil by making this the only Wizard subclass with access to Revivify, Raise Dead and True Resurrection - all of which are necromancy spells! But also have the fun dynamic that your necromancer can be good one day and evil the next :D
I'd love to see an updated Artificer class in the DMG (setting specific flavours needs DM permission, placed alongside the magic items). I'd also like to see a few psionic subclasses - specifically Sorcerer in the DMG (for similar reasons). I'm pretty sure that these options would dramatically raise interest in the DMG and sales of the book.
This sounds really cool. I like the almost board game like rule set. I’ll likely use a modified version for my Phandelver and Below campaign when that starts next week.
@@trappyboi8678 I tried to post the exact link, but it got removed - the document is out, they just forgot to update the list page. Either: Go to Playtest 7, and then at the top right there's a "next" style button that will take you to UA 8 or just change the end of the URL to ua/bastions-and-cantrips
I fully realize that the Barbarian's Path of the Storm Herald was released in the original edition of Xanathar's Guide to Everything, but I think that it as a subclass needs a serious buff and/or rework. I really enjoy the idea of playing a Barbarian that is infused with the element of the harsh environment that they grew up in (or at least trained in for an extended period of time). It would be awesome if the Path of the Storm Herald was buffed to the levels of the Zelot or Giant. It deserves a similar treatment to the PHB 2024's Warrior of the Elements, Monk subclass.
Compareing a Class with a Subclass in Terms of numbers of it being played is not sincere statistics. Same fore compareing Wizard subclasses with others given the sheer number of wizard subclasses.
“The fantasy of owning a home”
Truer words
American moment
Oww, that's dark but true.
@@GdKinomanBritain moment
@@GdKinomanliterally all of the Western world moment
I confirm. It´s also a Spain moment
Ah yes, the true fantasy elementd coming in now; owning a home!
The millennial and gen Z fantasy
my exact thoughts haha
Thank you for this joke. I shared it with my friends.
Well, minus if your home is border region where it would be at receiving end of Orc, Drow, and other civilizations’s invasion.
Kinda like South Park but with border raids.
@@trappyboi8678funny I am the proud progenitor of 4 15-25 year olds who have no interest in owning their own homes
The feedback on Cunning Strike is so high because it offers Rogues _more choice._ Mathematically speaking, it puts them _further behind_ other classes in terms of damage output, but because it gives them tactical choices, gives players the option to *choose to do something* without a resource limit, it gets overwhelmingly positive feedback.
Barbarians, Fighters, and Monks desperately need something with similar agency and efficacy.
How do I like this comment 10 times? This is exactly what we need to pursue with OneDnD. We need to focus on flavor, versatility, choice, and movement with game changes, over plain power.
@@carsonrush3352 The only way I figured was to like your comment as well.
it's SO funny that a big chunk of Fighters have been begging for baseline combat maneuvers, and then the devs finally implemented them..... for rogues
Monks especially so, I want to be able to choose martial arts techniques and ki techniques as I level up like casters learn spells
take bb or the new true strike
Recommendation for the monk and all unarmed subclasses- when you are building a class that focuses on unarmed combat, you CANNOT make all the features just bringing it up to “as good as someone wielding weapons”. Because the other classes can wield weapons AND do other stuff. The monk needs to be as good AND have other features.
Beserker in the current test material is a better unarmed martial than both the Brawler or the Monk!
This!!!!!
The monk should first use dexterity for rolls and CDs of everything involving unarmed strikes.
Second, its mandatory that it has a mechanic similar to cunning action or fancy footwork (only the part about attacking opportunities) that does not depend on discipline points. Without it the class superior mobility will not be useful in combat. Furthermore, the monk needs to have access to some martial weapons to be able to get good feats (all of which are not heavy, just as rogue has access to all of them with finese) and apply good mastery peoperties. Still be able to use martial art dice in weapon damage rolls would be a good call too. This alone would make the monk constantly functional, even after running without discipline points.
Talking About Discipline points, they could well be proficiency bonus+wis bonus+half level. It would change almoust nothinh in the late game, but it would make it perfectly usable in the eraly and mid game.
To finish, its not mandaroey but raise his HP to d10. He is made to fight, make him good at it...
PREACH, BROTHER
It's a mistake to not include the Bard in future UA. The previous iteration depended heavily on the group spell lists, and scored high because of it. It doesn't work the same with class spell lists.
That's the price we pay for complaining Wizards didn't have the biggest spell list anymore
@@EdibleFriend05 The Great Wizard Whinening, flet across the multiverse.
To be fair, the biggest issue with the Playtest 6 Bard, and One D&D Bard in general, has actually been the Spell List change as it absolutely gutted part of what made Bard unique as a Caster by removing the very unique arsenal of support and control Spells not seen anywhere, so forcing Bards to use any other List just doesn't really fit. Sure, there was potential for a Variable-List Caster, but it never should have been Bard, they should've kept their old Spell List from the start and kept the actual Prepared Spells to help them actually utilize it better. Plus, Magical Secrets in Playtest 6 was a ridiculous but awful Feature because it's so clumsy to get more Spells on the 2nd List despite being such an absurd thing to get in the first place.
They could still let them pick from the Druid, Cleric, or Sorcerer list and give them a handful of unique spells. Several spells are still on multiple class spell lists. I think they could do a hybrid model with smaller general lists and each class getting a small unique list pretty easily. Any spell that is available to Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks would go on the Arcane list for example.
Yeah, like what are they smoking thinking they don't need to rewrite the bard after trashing the spell lists
How is the Bard done when you dropped the 3 spell lists? The current version is unplayable now for some of their key abilities (magical secrets)
To be fair to Necromancer, the Animate Dead spell itself is a main reason it's not getting played. It's just not table friendly to have your army taking up half the turn order and all.
If they are dumping the school of necromancy wizard, the undying warlock, and the death domain cleric, it makes me wonder if they are priming the pump for a completely reworked necromancer class in the future.
So as a DM I've yet to have a player want to play a necromancer. Even though I've always loved the concept.
Couldn't you just run swarm/mob rules at a certain point to speed things up? With exceptions/division for more powerful undead?
@@doctorthroat-punch5537 I don't want to push my image of a necromancer PC on you, since we obviously all have our own opinions about the concept. But the dark wizard leading a horde of undead has never been what I enjoyed about the necromancer, at least not from a D&D perspective.
They could just expand their understanding of necromancy beyond mook mill. *Hint hint look at Diablo 2&3 Necromancer hint hint*
I’m running an Elder Scrolls game and I reworked all of the Wizard school subclasses to match. In the process I wrote completely new summoning/Necromancer spells for the Conjuration school closer to the Pathfinder level 1 summons to fit the world.
With the UA Monk there were far more worrying issues than concerns regarding Discipline Points. The fact that foundational features for the Monk as a martial class are straight up incompatible and even made it into the UA is baffling to me. Like Weapon Masteries and Increased Martial Arts dice while removing the ability to use Martial Arts dice for monk weapons, and losing shortsword proficiency and no longer having access to martial feats that require martial weapon proficiency, feels like an already weak class has taken two steps backwards.
I hope this gets adressed in the next version of the monk they put out.
My first comment a year ago was if you just fix monk and ranger and stealth rules, that would be enough. But I could tell they were going to dodge Monk when they didn't address it immediately. I'm confident they made Base Monk SO BAD so they could just retreat to the current 2014 monk and tell us this is an improvement.
I hope so too, but as a monk fan I doubt it. ):
So we're just going to pretend that the mechanics aren't a huge reason people don't even want to look at Necromancer?
This! it's so strange to me that they would look at a subclass that has low satisfaction and low play and assume that the two aren't correlated!
Part of it is: animate dead and old summon spells have a lotta issues in terms of sheer quantity compared to more contemporary design.
@@theepicduck6922it doesn't help that the Necromancer Wizard is the worst at Necromancy because they don't get Revivify, Raise Dead or True Resurrection! People have to pick Spore Druid or Grave/Death Domain Cleric simply to get access to the most powerful Necromancy spells in the game...leaving the Necromancer wizard in the awkward place of being designed for one thing (building a army of undead) that is useless in most settings.
@ether4211 Yep Wizard necromancer is best for minomancy. Druid and especially cleric fit better for necromancy spells involving curses on average and raising your allies from death. Necromancer wizard has the main benefit of being a wizard: ultra versatile spell list (short of heals especially).
Lol seems like it. Maybe that's a good hint that it's a better fit for the DMG, right after the page on running mob combat?
You guys did the survey before announcing you would be dropping shared spell lists.
Bards got many positive reviews due to them being able to choose which shared spell list they start with, but you guys have done away with shared spell lists. This leaves a gap in the class that MUST be adressed.
Give bards new exclusive spells.
Turn countercharm into Song options.
Bring Song of rest back. There was no reason for taking it away instead of improving it.
And swords bard!
Oh man, I'm sure the haven't thought of that, and are leaving the Pt6 bard as is with nothing to account for the fact that the primal, divine, and arcane spell lists don't exist anymore.
@@ilovethelegend The question is, how do they plan on accounting for that massive of a change in that fundamental a part of the class's design in a way that they are so sure that the class will not need any more public playtesting? Are they just going to revert Bards to 2014, add the improved inspiration and the countercharm fix, and try to gaslight us into thinking it's the same as UA6 Bard? Are they going to replace Arcane/Divine/Primal in the UA6 Bard with Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid? Are they going to write three entirely new spell lists for Bard (Arcane), Bard (Divine), and Bard (Primal)?
We don't know. What Crawford said in this video implies that they think Bard's UA6 design is good enough that it requires no more public playtesting, despite the fact that their changes to how spell lists work have made the core design of UA6 Bard completely incompatible with the game on a fundamental level.
Truer words have never been spoken
Yeah, the playtest 6 bard was literally thrown into the trash. Its insane how they are wasting their time and our time with these "playtests" that are nothing but a "throw anything into the wall and lets see what sticks in".
Omg…. I can’t believe that they think the warrior of the elements is fine… people were excited bc it’s better than the 11% way of four elements. It’s still bad compared to any other martial… this is kinda crazy
I think people scored it high because it was now at least functional. The problem is that it's essentially a combination of Ascendant Dragon and Sun Soul. The mechanics are so similar that they're nearly inseparable.
@@carsonrush3352 and not interesting, and ignoring 90% of what benders did outside of their spam attacks. and scales poorly... I think they pushed monk so far back that now they are rushing to "Finish" their product and they don't have either the time or the balls to do what needs to be done to actually make a GOOD representation of a bending class
The necromancer was not popular in play because the majority of players recognized that the style of play was disruptive at the table. I think the subclass is very desirable to many players who love the theme. It just needs to be reworked to fit in with the current summon creature design.
I agree necromancer is super desirable thematically it's the execution that is the problem. The have lots of weak creatures gameplay is just not enticing. Who wants to spend all their high level spell slots maintaining a small army with hour long turns in combat that can be wiped out in an instant the second anything big and scary shows up.
A swarm of zombies concentration summoning spell would fill that fantasy very easily while opening up room for necromancers to focus on fewer but more powerful minions. Maybe a feature that gives you a beast master like undead companion could be added to it as well.
Also, it didn't even really feel like a real Necromancer until level 6.
It's pretty bad that a Necromancer Wizard is class restricted from being able to raise the dead as all 3 of the big necromancy spells (revivify, raise dead and true resurrection) are cleric/druid exclusive. This means that the Druid, Cleric and Bard (using magical secrets) are better at necromancy than the Wizard who is supposed to specialise in it! It would be easy to fix too - just make grim harvest able to heal a creature within 30 feet and a class feature to use spell slots to damage a target and heal another (ala vampiric touch). Give them a class feature that adds Revivify, Raise Dead and True Resurrection at the appropriate levels and now you have a necromancer that can fit into the healer role OR use grim harvest to buff up their undead army.
Necromancers should move away from undead armies and more into dealing necrotic damage, stealing and using hp, and applying conditions. Something like witchbolt but draining health. Things like ray of sickness and ray of enfeeblement but that are actually worth using. Make them a master of death, not just a master of undead.
The bard from ua 6 is no longer possible from ua 7 as we now moved to class spells. Bard needs to come back with its spell list as well.
Until we hear otherwise, we have a bard spell list.
It's in your old PHB
@@oicmorez4129 at level 1, they get bardic inspiration and spell casting. These aren't subclass features.
At level 6, they resemble most spell casters: they don't need many features because they've got a spell list that is ever expanding.
I think not doing Bard again in another UA is a mistake. Don’t get me wrong, the last iteration of the class was great but it really depended on universal spell lists that have been abandoned, what’s happening with the Bard now?
Also the dancer subclass was really cool but also needs adjustments
The fact that there was literally no mention of the bard at all in the video! Like no info on the results it got, no mention on how will they accomodate the spell list changes, nothing.
I agree, how is possible that they totally forgot they removed the main point of the new class revision
with a little bit of luck, we might get a sidebar telling people that the bard now chooses a class spell list from the cleric, Druid or Wizard) and everywhere where a feature referred to Primal/divine or Arcane, to now replace them with Druid, Cleric or Wizard. At least this is how we are testing it at our table. Since the clerics basically have all the divine spell (since Find Steed and all the smite were paladin class feature), Druid have basically all the primal spell and Wizard all the arcane spell.
@@sohkaswifteagle2604 This would be neat, actually it would be even better if the arcane list was the sorcerer's, so the wizard's snowflakes (I'm joking) won't complain if someone else has a list longer than theirs
Yeah I agree this is a large oversight. Bard needs to be in next play test with the revision of its class spells.
Excellent! I'm currently using MCDM's Stronghold's and Followers, because I think features like this are VITAL to my game! I can't wait to see what the Bastion system looks like!
MCDM is a guarantee when it comes to their systems
This sounds like that, and the Kingdoms and Warfare system too.
Yeah I'll be comparing and using both MCDM and this
Basic and 2e etc had this too, liked it then, like it again.
If you're another MCDMer without a D&D Beyond account, here's the direct link (media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/bastions-cantrips/BRF3GSu0nTfNu8p4/UA2023-BastionsCantrips.pdf ) without signing in. The UA is way closer to older stronghold rules or to the Fortresses, Temples, & Strongholds supplement by Walrock than it is to S&F.
i think the unpopularity of the necromancer is actually BECAUSE of the low satisfaction, i.e. the rules for it are very clunky in play. but i still agree with the end result: evoker, abjurer, diviner, and illusionist make a great quartet in the new PHB and i would not replace any of those with the necromancer. perhaps some other book or set of rules could have the dark/evil specialists, like a book with the oathbreaker, death domain, necromancer, shadow sorcerer etc.
32:04 wait what? Bard is done in the UA? How? Without the 3 big spell list we will need another look into it, right?
I’m not sure that’s true. It will have a spell list like any other caster. They just need to publish that, especially if everything scored well.
Skipping Ranger and Bard for future UA is a horrible idea!
They will both see significant changes from last UA in the final print.
If you truly care about players opinion allow them to test the "final" versions before they are put to print!
The ranger is especially important as there really isn't a track record for us to trust that it will turn out fine.
Thank gods people actually gave accurate feedback on how bad the monk is. I was astounded when it appeared as our final playtest class with minimal changes from its lackluster 2014 form. These changes sound good but not enough; hopefully we get more.
those changes in playtest 6 actually made the monk a bit worse
@@Zankyo137Yep
@@Zankyo137 It sure did I spent an hour on the monk section of feedback alone
PLEASE INCLUDE Way of the Elements monk in the next UA as well. It still needs some love.
I really hope we get the necromancy wizard in a UA for another book, it is an awesome class fantasy and it would be great if it just has a few tweaks to make it more user and table friendly.
A solid pet rules section, with Rangers, Druids and Necromancers, and maybe some necromancer spell adjustments
How can Jeremy smile while claiming the bard is done in UA. The bard doesn't work without generic spell lists. And these have just been removed. There is no working version of the bard that has undergone public playtesting.
I really wanted to hear more about the monk than just about DPs. It was a mess. This class cannot survive as a martial class with a d8 HD and with AC being lower than other martials. I think it also needs its own fighting styles to give it more of an identity. The base class needs a lot of work.
The core issue with the Monk is that the value of ki points isn't consistent across subclasses.
Is a ki point equal to a spell level, where you just need to spend the "spell's" level to get the effect: 1 for 1st level, 3 for 3rd level, etc? Or is it 1+the spell level of the effect? The PHB seems to go either way on that standard, but gives higher cost to combat spells. So why are we spending 1 ki for the bonus action dash and dodge features, when level 1 spells would give you either one feature for a whole minute? Spend 1 ki and dash for a minute. The flurry of blows feature follows similar issues. The single extra attack isn't strong enough to be compared to any 1st level spell, but it does compare to Spiritual Weapon. However, that's 2nd level spell, and so maybe push a 1 minute version of the feature to 5th level. Maybe you get free single uses of that feature (maybe PB +3) and can pay 1 ki for more uses during levels 1-4, and then at level 5 you can activate it for 1 minute with 2 ki points? Then you could activate all 3 features as a bonus action to get the effects of Haste for 4 ki, which follows PHB conventions.
Several features are essentially just spell descriptions for a new spell they can now "cast" with their spell points.
I really think Bard and Ranger should still be in the next PHB playtest. Bard is completely changed since you're moving away from universal spell lists. Expert UA and UA 6 Ranger were very different so it would be nice to see what it ends up being after "AB testing" especially since the recent changes we not well received
How is it that bard and paladin are going forward? Both classes are based entirely around abandoned concepts. Bard on the 3 spell lists and paladins around spells as class features
Ki points costs of Monk abilities are not the only issues with this class. Even if that is fixed, monks still are a frontline class with terrible defenses, that don't have access to many combat feats (that now have a pre requisite of using martial weapons)
A monk with infinite ki points points would be able to take a dodge bonus action every turn. That's in addition to having proficiency in all saving throws, reduced damage from ranged attacks and evasion which makes you take no damage when you succeed on a dex save. And then there's other things you can do with ki points such as disengaging or becoming resistant to all types of damage except for force.
What I'm trying to say is that the monk's tankiness is directly proportional with how many points they have available.
Bards and paladins have their entire class based around two abandoned design elements 3 spell list And spells as features respectively.
How could you possibly go forward in design?
They need to give us a separate playtest with the Monk class and the Open Hand Warrior. ASAP
The Ranger definitely feels like the stepchild here. Toggling back and forth w Hunters Mark concentration is the best the creative team has for us. Very confusing. Maybe it’s the deadline that’s causing them to throw in the towel? But I haven’t seen anyone express their satisfaction w what they’ve presented. He basically concedes that Ranger isn’t one of the classes that got enthusiastic feedback, but they’re moving on regardless. Bummer!!!
Yeah, cunning strike rad!! Why not try something cool w the Ranger? They never gave us anything outside the box w the class. Feels
Lazy.
DUDE!!!!! what an uninspired effort on the designers part.
I really hope the Necromancer comes back at some point. Even if in another book. I am playing a 2014 necromancer and absolutely love it. Summon Undead really made the subclass so much more fun to play. The problem pre-Tasha's was that Animate Dead meant you now have undead following you around, which is not very popular in society (unless you live in Thay). Summon spells only last an hour, and the ghostly form is REALLY good.
I would live to see a remake of the books "The Complete Arcane", "The Complete Divine", and "The Complete Martial". They might add in "The Complete Expert". Then they could do theme-by-theme reworks of each set of subclasses. I know that the Monk absolutely needs this, but so do the Ranger, Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue.
I don't know why they aren't playtesting the Bard again given Spell lists are being dumped, yet in UA picking a spell list/power source was super important to the class. What will Bard look like.
My main gripe with the new monk boils down mostly to the HUGE nerf to Stunning Strike. What was a 1 ki point per use, any amount of time you wanted which just made you BURN through those already very limited ressources in base PHB and had average to low chance of success because so many foes have constitution saving throw proficiency But the good thing with that feature was that it lasted until the end of your next turn. Now it is only ONCE per turn, needs a consitutition saving throw, and lasts until the start of your next turn. Unless you somehow manage to proc the stun, you can barely even make use of that advantage.
If they want to nerf stunning strike they should make it give the dazed condition instead of stun. Then maybe add a clause that if a creatures fails the roll by 5 or more they are stunned instead.
It was always a Constitution Saving Throw. It needs to be changed to a Dex Save
@@christianemerson4622 the problem with a dex save is thatit doesn't make much sense as the ability is now. You must hit for it to go off, meaning they would already failed a potential dex save since the attack was successful. The only other save i could see it being is a wisdom save.
Please add subclass spells for Hunter and Beastmaster! They are the only subclasses of casting classes that don't have subclass spell lists!
Don't forget about the old sorcerer subclasses. Think divine soul was the only one that did get some versatility.
YES! Please WotC don't forget this
Theres a few pain points in the UA that we won't see again based on this, why does rogue still not get any subclass features after 3 all the way until 9, especially for a class that doesnt get extra attack so encourages you to multiclass out, its really easy for rogue subclasses to not feel like a subclass and more like one spot on a skill tree.
And how about palis not getting their final subclass feature until 20? Removing standardized progression was a mistake.
Regarding the UA feedback, glad y'all are continuing to listen to the community for the class revisions. Even if everything hasn't landed perfectly, the rigorous attention to feedback has been a continual theme throughout the new UA.
We need to see ranger in the new UA. We don’t know what a synthesis of class features looks like and many of the features beyond favored foe need work and readjustments. Ranger spells like hail of thorns, lightning arrow, and flame arrows are still not up to par with the new design. Certain features in both UA 2 and 6 are not in accordance with the newest direction of the 2024 PHB. We need at least one more pass at it to get it right, if not a complete redesign of the class. Also, the satisfaction rating of the class would be helpful.
Very interesting! That will create more uses for these hundreds of non-dungeon ambiences we have x)
My 🐐
HECK YA!
@@McCrackenVaughn
So new True Strike has nothing to do with hitting better. Just make it add a d4 on failed attack roll as a reaction, similar to Guidance. and it would be perfect.
I'm really not a big fan that you're not going over Paladin once more. From Divine Smite being nerfed to high hell and back to the paladin cannibalizing its own bonus action to even the divine transformations feeling underpowered compared to other subclass features that you can receive at lower levels, the class still clearly needs some work.
Also, Kind of upset they didn't address that, maybe because Cunning Strike scored SO high, maybe they should think of incorporating something similar to some of the other martial classes (Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, etc); it's really dumb that fighters can't trip and disarm enemies by default but rogues can.
I’m playing a fighter battle master with the UA 7 rules, just hit level 15, so I can now use a Maneuver once per turn… which rogues have had since gaining cunning strike… would be nice to have a simple set of moves for a fighter once per turn with BETTER moves for the BM swing as I’m spending a resource
I just want to say that they never said how much satisfaction score the monk got
Let's be honest, it was a complete failure, I wouldn't be impressed if it had around 45% or less, it was even weaker than the 5e version and taking into account that that version was already the weakest class in the game, they really managed to make the weakest class in the game weaker with that new monk. I just hope you realized all the bad points of the monk
Because it is not just ki, it is also damage, defense, survival, the role of the monk, as it could not be any kind of control, nor damage, nor a frontlinner, nor a tank, nor a skirmisher, nor a support, because in everything he failed irremediably, and not only that, but also how it felt to play it, it is a very fun class, but many times it feels frustrating to play despite the fun, it is simply a class with problems everywhere and I hope it at least tries to fix all these sides, the ki problem was not the only problem
oh, and also to mention that the barbarian, the fighter and the monk obviously need more improvements and changes, the rogue would only need improvements but not changes
I'm glad that they are going back on some of the Ranger changes that were proposed in UA6. UA2 was so much better and I hope the overall class is heading more in that direction.
It's still a complete mess though.
Ehhh, but UA 2 Ranger was so bland! Which is especially tragic for one of the most evocative classes thematically.
Personally I loved the ranger in bg3 I hope they steal some bits from that
@@thewholesomecultist6702 Ranger specific "fighting styles" were great.
the problem is, they didnt even try anything new and not bland before throwing in the towel. SMH @@nm2358
Great another 3 months before we get to see the second rendition of the Monk!
Awesome video, I just don't understand how Bard is done with UA now that you're getting rid of the 3 spell list system. That was core to the new Bard, so how can you pass it through when most of those features will no longer work?
I also don't understand this, probably they'll just go back to 5e spell list and restore the older version of magical secrets
The last playtest version of the Bard was literally just: what if the current bard worked with the three spell lists and had a 1 hour Inspiration and a fixed version of countercharm.
So it's just going to be the current bard with 1 hour Inspiration and a fixed countercharm.
I think that the hunters mark could be the mechanical signature of the ranger, like the rogue sacrifices damage dices to put effects the ranger could sacrifices the damage bonus of the turn if the player wants to add an effect like disadvantage/advantage, conditions, change the damage type...And could have effects outside the combats. Trapps also sounds good for rangers and rogues. Or make it the pet class that 5e haven't got yet.
While I'm pretty happy with most that is being said here we absolutely do need to see the Bard class again considering that much of their class identity came from being able to choose primal, divine or arcane spelllist which apparently isn't a thing anymore.
Here's hoping that even if Paladin doesn't get another round of UA, they do something about their redesign of Divine Smite. Having to dedicate your Action (because this version of smite only works on your turn, and you have to attack on your turn in order to cast Smite), Bonus Action, and a spell slot for every single smite is really clunky and not fun. It's an unholy marriage of the once per round (instead of once per turn) sneak attack that everyone hated along with the super restrictive Flurry of Blows design where a Monk's entire action economy is locked in for every round because otherwise their damage goes into the toilet.
Surprise release! Can’t wait to explore it, new video coming tomorrow!
I have concerns that Ranger is being fused and there’s no play test. Especially since Baldur’s Gate 3 has really shown people some great ideas that should see their way into the class. There were things I liked and disliked in both versions but I want to see how that works out ahead of time. I also agree with everyone saying Bard needs another round.
Love to see cantrips but we need to see all spells planned to be revised from Lv 1 to 9
Bards better get rapiers back as a base class weapon. I know historically, not an iconic weapon, but I feel it has been in D&D for a while now.
Also curious how we're supposed to continue playtesting the class now that the three spell lists are gone.
How is possible that the Bard is finished when the main feature of the last Bard (that was presumambly extremely popular) relied on the three spell lists (arcane, divine and primal) and those spell lists have now been dropped?
The reason Necromancy scores so low is because the class fantasy of the Necro (the undead army summoner) was set in place by Diablo 2 over 20 years ago. Controlling an army of the undead has never been a feasible style of play for D&D, cause it totally wrecks action economy. You would have to design a style of play around controlling multiple minions and having it NOT be a bog for the player/DM to manage during combat.
I would maybe recommend some subclass-specific ability that summons up to a certain number of zombie/skeleton minions that die when hit once, but can be brought back with a bonus action. Maybe they can move independently, but all attack as one during the Necro's turn. It has to be deeply workshopped, but I'm sure it CAN be done.
A simpler fix is to give Necromancers access to Raise Dead, Revivify and True Resurrection and make Grim Harvest heal a creature within 30 feet. Add a feature to use a spell slot to cast a ranged version of Vampiric Touch to do X necrotic damage and heal a target for half and suddenly you're necromancer wizard is a great ally to have in combat if you're party is short of a healer...abet with the risk that at any time they might opt to cast Animate Dead instead - to turn you into one of their pet zombies :)
@@ether4211 well, Animate Dead needs a redo, 100% That's a spell that has so many problematic requirements (especially considering the "Summon X" spells about to transition from Tasha's into the new PHB are just miles better, in comparison). But I stand by my original assessment that Necro is a problem because it evokes a class fantasy that's better suited for the DM to use as a villain, rather than the player to use against them. You can certainly make a cleric-y offbrand healer wizard, but are they gonna FEEL like a Necromancer? Maybe in that specific respect, a Necro would be better served as the subclass for a cleric instead.
@@darkblue099 my homebrew fix is to replace the Undead Thralls ability to be 'over the course of a long rest you can perform a ritual to revive or reanimate a corpse casting either Revivify or Animate Dead'. This way it keeps the flavour that you need to carry their remains with you then set up a 8 hour dark magic ritual and allows you're necromancer to be helpful to the party while also making sure you have the ability to reliably create or heal your undead minions. The main perk of Animate Dead is that it's non concentration so you can pair it with the Tasha spells :)
How can he say that Bard is ready to go when the whole concept was centered around the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell list choice? Did they forget that they got rid of that?
In DnD you get to live out all your deepest fantasies, such as:
-Get a perfect 8 hours long rest and wake up all fresh in the morning.
-Travel to exciting places with all your friends.
-Apply all the skills you studied/talents you naturaly had in your actual job and be properly rewarded for it.
-Have a reliable healthcare system that can get you back on your feet no matter what happens.
And now:
-Own a house and personalize it however the hell you want!
Truly a beautiful fantasy.
Really wish this had gone over the feedback on the classes more. There really wasn't much detail gone over about most of the classes that appeared.
I'm super concerned about the Paladin, especially since they said *nothing* specific about it. If those smite changes end up in the book, I'm instantly houseruling them out. That was such a horrifically bad change.
Because I (obviously) had already turned my survey in. I want to add another voice to those calling to see another playtest Bard appearance in hopes that someone at wotc sees it. The spell list and diversity was so important to the feedback and enjoyment of that iteration of the class (much more than I ever cared about a wizard’s total spell list tbh). I also didn’t like the Experts playtest version enough to be comfortable just reverting back to that one from nearly a year ago, especially with how much it’s role seemed narrowed into a healing role. Please give us another crack at the Bard. I will be repeating this at the end of this playtest’s survey but with the delay I figured I’d put it here too in hopes it makes it in alongside the monk and Druid and whatever else needs another go from playtest 7.
I love that you talked about some of the confusion about UA7, like the necromancer and clockwork soul. I was definitely one of the people complaining about that online, so I'm glad you guys are actually reading and addressing the criticisms. I'm still holding out hope for revised dark/undead subclasses in future books, it sucks that Way of Shadow is the only one in the PHB.
Bards really need to be brought back in a future UA. The last iteration in UA 6 had them with their choice of spell lists, and since that change is being reverted any feedback that was put into that class by the community hasn't been fully addressed yet. Are the changes going to make Bards Prepared casters, like in UA 6 or Spontaneous Casters like in 5e? This alone would make for a major difference, and currently, after the push back from UA 6 on Bards, I have no idea which version you're planning on pushing out.
Please put Bard back in an upcoming UA, because I'm really lost to where they're at currently and as one of my favorite classes and I'm worried at the moment.
I surprise that the ranger will be not in the next UA because I think that lacks of a mighty own identity in mecanics. And a big question is. What about the rest of subclases before Tasha that will be not in PHB 2024 like Conjurer, Enchanter, Necromancer and Transmuter?
"Playing on an almost-weekly basis"? Now THAT'S fantasy! It's a good month if I can even get one session together with my home groups :D
I’ve managed a bi-weekly campaign, well two actually. One is VTT and the other is in person.
I found that its easier to run the game by letting everyone know its going to happen whether they come or not as long as half the players can be there.
@@megaairsoft15 Been trying to do the same on roll20. Been playing through Witchlight and we started doing bi-weekly but life has been getting in the way too much lately.
I truly hope that Necromancer doesn't meet the chopping block. The PHB version of Necro definitely lacks in the Necromancer fantasy. But the spell vamp is such a cool feature. Hopefully they can revise it to be more Necromancer-like or maybe at least rework the spell vamp into like a Blood magic/vampire mage class in an upcoming supplemental book.
No way the monk scored higher than 50 lol. It absolutely sucked for everyone since 2014 and somehow sucked even more in the last UA. How can they keep holding this class down so much it’s just sad at this point lol.
When watching Indestructoboy’s stream I was surprised to see that WotC implemented Cunning Strike. It’s probably one of the few DnD mechanics aside from Advantage that I’ve been legitimately impressed by in terms of design. A shame Fighters didn’t get a similar treatment.
This is the old AD&D fortress rules under a new name. Everything old is new again.
Bastions remind me of MCDM Stronghold & Followers and Kingdoms & Warfare. Might be time for some Birthright.
I really loved the bastion system description until you got to the resurrection part. Is there going to be ANY way to die in D&D
Yeah, my whole group immediately said "that's stupid, we'll ignore that."
What are you talking about!?! The UA6 Bard, Ranger, and Paladin were all built around the shared spell list mechanic. There’s no way those versions can be in the 2024 PHB as is if you’re going back to class spell lists!
I'm so happy about all the changes you're planning, but actually I'm a little sad for the Ranger. I hoped to see some new features and options, instead of just get conservative and revise the older features.
I hope you'll do a good job, as you're already doing, and also revise the spell list for all the classes
Wait... What about the bard now? 👀
20'18"- Jeremy says the Blade Ward Cantrip will have higher level upgrades, but in the document, it doesn't say anything about that.
Can't wait to see that video on the subclass quartet choices for each character class in the new PHB!
As a DM, what I'm most excited about with Bastions is (and I realize this might seem as a boring take) _the gold-sink._ My PF2e players are always strapped for cash; there's tons of level-appropriate loot that they want (sometimes even _need)_ and it's readily available for purchase. In 5e, money was always somewhat nebulous - enterprising players knew how to spend gold to get what they want (bribes, connections, land, hirelings, services, projects, etc.), but most other players are a lot more passive. For them, gold tended to accumulate into anxiety-inducing piles. They generally aren't averse to spending gold - they just fear squandering it, and want the game to guide them. Bastions provide a clear _structure_ on how to spend gold on a long-term project.
"The necromancy is so bad no one is playing it. That's Elway we didn't revise it" what?
I think we definitely need an explanation for the quartets because some just make me scratch my head as to how they are opposites
having a quartet doesn't necessarily mean any of them are opposites of each other (though sometimes they can be), they just fit different characteristics.
I love the bastion concept. I will definitely be playtesting it. In regards to the necromancer, I have often wondered why that was not placed alongside the Oathbreaker in chapter 4 of the DMG.
Cleric quartet and wizard quartet are basicly the same: Life/War -> Abjurer/Evoker , Light/Trickery -> Illusionist/Diviner
Glad to hear monk is getting another test run, but bard needs another UA to see the new spell list that it will be given now that the chosen list is gone. We need to see what choices we will get and if they are up to snuff.
I love the idea of a series of videos diving into the various class quartets and how that plays into the design of the game. That would be an awesome content series, I hope you end up coming out with them.
So some of the facilities mean you can have a stronghold AND followers?! Great idea, I wonder who came up with it??? 😉
I mean... MCDM didn't exactly invent the concept.
TSR writers back in the 70s and 80s. Though more likely, wargame designers before them.
I'm a glad to see they wrapped up a successful update to the monk before jumping into the DMG
lmao
Some people don't seem to be able to see the document in the UA page (either an issue with propagating the update to the servers behind their load balancer, or it's just being hidden by javascript and they accidentally used local time 🤷♂).
Here's the fix (I tried to post the exact link, but it got removed):
Either:
Go to Playtest 7, and then at the top right there's a "next" style button that will take you to UA 8
or just change the end of the URL to ua/bastions-and-cantrips
This comments section shows every reason why I don't engage with D&D discussion online anymore. No reading comprehension, no listening comprehension, jumping to conclusions, building conclusions around false information, obsession with specific content creators, no knowledge of the game's history, no knowledge of how the game actually plays.
the bastion "action" should be each 10 days, not 7 days. Everything on the downtime section of XGE and DMG are on multiples of 10 because the math is easier (and because Forgotten Realms have weeks of 10 days)
The XGE rules uses the concept of a workweek, which is 5 days. And the DMG rules doesn't refer to any specific segment of time, it varies by activity.
@@stargrace420 I may have been confused with Adventurer's League, where you get 10 DT and do almost everything on 10 days intervals.
Super excited to try out the bastion system with my players.
They are trying to copy MCDM's Strongholds & Followers.
@@stormthor4991 Which would in turn be a copy of the strongholds system from D&D "1e"? what's your point
@@_aelfweard nope. MCDM got real designers designing the system, because they care of making quality work. WotC are worried only about money, making not the best system, but the best sellers. MCDM used the concept, not copying anything at all. It is a brand new system, and much better one. Bastion will surely be steps back.
That Bastion system could be a really cool thing to implement into a Spelljammer campaign. A large freighter being the bastion and each player having their own section, and the bastion housing their spelljammer or jammers;
Bastian System kinda sounds like MCDM's Strongholds and followers or am i crazy?
im curious to see how they complement each other, i need to dig into the system though
glancing at the cantrip, they look great, i think spare the dying should be cleric, druid, paladin, and warlock personally
MCDM's Strongholds and Followers sounds a lot like the 3e Stronghold Builder's Guide, 2e Castles Guide, and the somewhat less fleshed out castle construction rules in the 1e DMG, B/X boxed set, and OD&D boxed set. AD&D also had gaining followers as a class ability for most classes, and rules for henchmen and hirelings.
I hope you follow up with the video that Jeremy suggested: diving into the reasoning behind the subclass quartets that will appear in PHB 2024. That is very interesting!
I began noticing the quartets back in playtest 6, and when I did I thought they were really cool, interesting some people online didn't understand this direction and thought celestial warlock was extremely random in playtest 7, which, is amusing because it's obviously representing the upper planes while fiend represents the lower planes
As someone who loves playing a necromancer, but someone who struggles because of how like, necromancy doesn't translate well with the necromancer class into a fun game environment, (even though the tasha's summon undead spell is a massive necromancer boon, as it's a balanced and well designed spell unlike animate dead)
But still, the necromancer class features really do feel like a directionless mash of different villain archetypes which don't really synergise with eachother at all
Level 3: a healing feature which only triggers on kill with a spell, something which doesn't trigger when your undead summons do anything
A buff to the spell animate dead and other necromancy summon spells like summon undead and create undead and the like
Necrotic resistance and immunity to having your hitpoint maximum reduced, so I guess you can't die of exactly Mummy rot while kidnapping a mummy lord at level 14
And a feature which, instead of just letting you summon a mummy lord, makes you scour the world for strong undead to control, a fun quest to be sure, definitely one which can be disruptive to the game, not unlike your 100 skeletons
The biggest problem with the necromancer class actually isn't even the necromancy class features, but instead the spell animate dead, which is busted to all hell like conjure animals, and bogs down gameplay
So basically, as long as the animate dead spell is addressed in the playtest, and a new level 2 aoe necromancy blast spell for my level 3 necromancer comes out, so that I can use grim harvest via backwards compatability, I will be happy
(We already have wither and bloom but it's setting specific, I wouldn't have this complaint if it was in the PHB)
The reason why people don't play the PHB Necromancer is that they can't cast any of the Raise Dead spells so people get stuck needing to play a Spores Druid, Bard or Cleric if they want to be able to revive fallen party members! Even a Bard is better at Necromancy than the Wizard because they can use Magical Secrets to get Animate Dead, Revivify, Raise Dead and True Resurrection. Meanwhile the Wizard has to wait till 17th level to access Wish and can't cast the only 9th level Necromancy spell in the game! The entire class is pigeonholed into being focused on Animate Dead when necromancer spells are all about meddling with life energies for good or ill. This is easy to fix by changing Grim Harvest to heal a target within 30 feet so you have the opinion to target minions or party members. Then replace the ability to control multiple Animated Dead with being able to perform a 8 hour ritual over a long rest to either raise OR animate one dead creature. Then add more creature types and spells at higher level so you start out with Revivify OR a zombie OR skeleton then by 18th level a Necromancer could choose to use their dark ritual to either cast True Resurrection OR turn themself into a Undead until the next long rest by consuming the soul of a living creature so players have a RAW pathway to litchdom! This makes it possible to play Necromancer as a support/healer class while keeping all the creepy dark magic aspects. This simple tweak to let necromancers raise dead and heal can bring a positive benfit to the entire party by providing a means for a party without a cleric or druid to bring back a dead PC...and makes the necromancer the wizard-cleric hybrid to mirror the Divine Soul Sorcerer and Celestrial Warlock. This works to reduce the number of summons while fixing the misconception that Necromancers are always evil by making this the only Wizard subclass with access to Revivify, Raise Dead and True Resurrection - all of which are necromancy spells! But also have the fun dynamic that your necromancer can be good one day and evil the next :D
Will be nice to compare this to Strongholds and Followers
I'd love to see an updated Artificer class in the DMG (setting specific flavours needs DM permission, placed alongside the magic items).
I'd also like to see a few psionic subclasses - specifically Sorcerer in the DMG (for similar reasons).
I'm pretty sure that these options would dramatically raise interest in the DMG and sales of the book.
This sounds really cool. I like the almost board game like rule set. I’ll likely use a modified version for my Phandelver and Below campaign when that starts next week.
A discussion on quartettes would be wonderful insight into design drivers … yes please
Great to get insight into the first DLC for the platform
Bastion system? Sounds like Strongholds are back! I wonder how it compares to MCDM's (relatively) recent take.
Likely a lot more simpler. MCDM dedicated a whole book to it. In this case it's just tools in the DMG that can be expanded upon.
I'm wondering how it compares to the base system from the Oracle of War Eberron AL adventure
The document is already out, so... take a look 🤷♂
@@BobbitTheDog Where? It's literally not in the dnd beyond UA page.
@@trappyboi8678
I tried to post the exact link, but it got removed - the document is out, they just forgot to update the list page.
Either:
Go to Playtest 7, and then at the top right there's a "next" style button that will take you to UA 8
or just change the end of the URL to ua/bastions-and-cantrips
I fully realize that the Barbarian's Path of the Storm Herald was released in the original edition of Xanathar's Guide to Everything, but I think that it as a subclass needs a serious buff and/or rework. I really enjoy the idea of playing a Barbarian that is infused with the element of the harsh environment that they grew up in (or at least trained in for an extended period of time). It would be awesome if the Path of the Storm Herald was buffed to the levels of the Zelot or Giant. It deserves a similar treatment to the PHB 2024's Warrior of the Elements, Monk subclass.
LOVE the new warlock please give the new monk that much love!!!
Compareing a Class with a Subclass in Terms of numbers of it being played is not sincere statistics. Same fore compareing Wizard subclasses with others given the sheer number of wizard subclasses.
Screw me if there ain't gonna be thousands of assets to buy for your bastion in the VTT
Absolutely incredible and super immersive.