Ohhhh boyyyyyyyyyyy, can't wait to see this stuff! :D I love their willingness to experiment with multiple versions of rules, and it really seems like they’re listening to feedback. Can’t believe they only got 40k survey responses though! Come on people! We’re doing this together! Edit: yes 40k is a lot of responses on the playtest 1 survey, but there are like >200k views on the hour-long playtest 1 video! Hopefully the interest will continue to build
Remember folks, this is a playtest. So if there’s a rule that you don’t care for, remember it’s not finalized. Voice your opinions, discuss your feelings, take the survey. Let’s be civil. They wants to hear from us.
And when we get the final rules, if you don't like it, change it. Or play OSR or any of the myriad possibilities we have. I recommend playing other systems even if One D&D is near perfect.
Totally. To add to that, if there's a rule you don't like....suggest a change. There's also the mentality that...you don't HAVE to use RaW. Homebrew rules exist y'all. Happy rolling!
One thing I REALLY hope they do this time over the original DnDNext playtest is that they don't exclusively just test levels 1-10 and instead we see some tier 3 and tier 4 testing.
It's coming out in batches. First playtest was literally level 0-1 stuff, and this time they are giving us up to 20th level in 3 classes, and spell lists up to 9th.
Really happy to see how adaptive you are being with these rules, presenting loads of different options for us all to play around with! I'm also seeing some parallels between these "experts" and the tasha's sidekicks in terms of grouping, seems like an elegant system!
I noticed that as well. Some folks are thinking the classes will be put into four categories (Expert, Warrior, Priest, and Spellcaster) but I’m fairly certain it’ll be like the three categories in Tasha’s.
@@wmad202 That's because they're all from the same source. Older editions grouped generic classless npcs into warrior, expert, mage, and priest that gave them enough to fill that archetype without having to actually need class levels
@@wmad202 They mentioned 4 in this video - Expert, Warrior, Priest, and Mage. I could see there being at least 1 more, considering how classes work mechanically. _(But not too many, since it was mentioned that the "ideal group" would have a classman from every group - and I don't think they expect a standard party be, like, 7 strong.)_ For example, experts get expertise. If all Warriors were to get, say, Heavy Armor proficiency, will Barbarians be Warriors as well? How about Monk? I'm excited to find out how they all fit together.
Jeremy has the patience of a saint. It's not easy putting up with a lot of passionate nerds with wildly different ideas, but he handles it with admirable grace ❤️
I dunno, I get the feeling Todd and JC can't even be in the same room at the same time, but that might be the cinematography. Someone should put a bounty on the outtake reel from this, it may be a classic on par with the outtakes from Orson Welles' commercial for frozen peas.
The very first thing that crossed my mind when class groups was mentioned was the new party building. I think that’s a tremendous idea for helping people learn the archetypes and suggested playstyles of each class. Looking forward to seeing the doc tomorrow!!
I love that they're moving some of the 20th level features to 18! It means we'll get more time to play with some of the coolest features in the game. Plus, more accessible ritual casting sounds like a blast
In theory, sure! I love the idea of getting those capstones a little earlier.. but even at lvl 18 it still seems far off. In the 10 years I've been playing D&D, I've never been a part of a campaign that went higher than lvl 14. It's frustrating as hell, especially since even the premade adventures are only designed to go as high as the mid teens. 23 adventures and only "Dungeon of the Mad Mage" suggests going to lvl 20.
@@WolfricThorsson Capstones should be a long way off, but at least with them at 18 you may get the chance to actually USE them for more than an encounter or two before the campaign ends. I've made it to 20 once before and the achievement was undercut since the campaign ended one session later.
@@WolfricThorsson request a session zero always and request going to 20. Give the DM a pass saying you don’t care if balance is off but that you’d like to explore epic themes and storylines
I have always wanted to see a magic system that anyone could use, but with a price, and blood magic seems perfect for it. It's not only a material cost, but the cost of tainting yourself with something dark like that, even if it's only the perception of other people, is compelling. In my homebrew setting, you can spend and roll Hit Dice in a bid to get (for simplicity and lack of a more flowery term) Blood Magic Points, and then you can use those points to cast spells. They are costly (even a cantrip costs one BMP), but there are rules for sacrificing BMPs to other casters, allowing for blood magic cults. There are other limitations, but that's the gist of it. I don't expect any edition of D&D to ever contain something like that. Wizards and clerics must reign supreme for all time, so access to magic will always be class-locked, and wizards and clerics will have the best of it.
Super late reply, but Sorcerer should fulfill that roll of CON caster. Them using CHA never really made sense form a lore standpoint and it would make sense that the innately magical person would have to have a decently high CON in order to deliver the more taxing spells.
Other ability scores being important (Con and Int specifically) was such a great thing about 4th, lot of good ideas there that I'm kind of sad they moved so far away from because 3.5th edition players hated them.
I hope that they can make the artificer a player’s handbook class, to make things easier. That’s what I’m going to ask for in the play-test. Thank you wotc for trying new things.
I wish they'd release some annual or bi-annual compendium that just includes all classes, subclasses, and feats up to that point in time. No fluff, lore, or core rules. Just all the class info in one place. Then do the same thing for Races. I just want to build my character without having to sift through 5 books. I know they don't want some huge PHB, so I'd like some collection to release every so often. That would also help people like me who have zero interest in adventures like Witchlight, but don't want to miss out on the character additions.
@@MegaManNetworkOfCourse what? Printing and selling new books is exactly how they make money. That guy didn't request the release be a free pdf or anything.
Wait, is nobody going to mention that he called the Bard and Ranger **PREPARED** spellcasting classes???!?! In the 2014 PHB they're both spells-known casters. Changing them to prepared casters is HUGE! For the record, I'm in favor of the change, but I'm shocked it hasn't been mentioned yet (that I've seen).
thats a great catch, will isten again, could be that all spell casters go to the same method of spell selection etc - would be interesting and simplification at the same time, will await the notes tomorrow :)
I think he meant spell choices, as he brings this up to make it easier for spells known to be less daunting in choice. So more of a “here’s the spells you might want to pick” instead of just giving a spell list and picking.
I heard that as well¡ I think he was talking about the suggested spells in general tho. I dont think it was meant to be about the ranger and bard (but Hopefully it was!)
Edit: nvm I'm dumb Am i the only one who hates prepared spells?! Seems like it just discourages creativity... Why prepare some niche spell when that spell slot could be used for another fireball spell...
I like this change, but I hope they don't do it with Sorcerer. I love sorcerer and I realize that being spells-known is a bit limiting, but within the context of what makes sense for the sorcerer lore, it makes more sense that they just innately know something. If everyone else is prepared spells, maybe increase the sorcerer's number of spells known a little bit so they aren't outclassed.
I really like the class groups. As someone playing an artificer right now, I feel like a lot of things leave them out just for simplicity. Also, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything had the Sidekick class for NPCs with three subclasses: Expert, Warrior, and Spellcaster. And he mentioned the Expert and Warrior class groups - but also a Mage and Priest group so it could just be a coincidence but I like the idea that they were somewhat inspired by that. Also, please bring the Sidekick rules back, they're such a great addition to the game and I've never ran a campaign without them since they came out. Edit: I haven't played any editions before 5e, so I didn't know that those older editions is probably where the group names originate from, not the Sidekick rules.
That was something in 2nd Edition AD&D. Warriors were Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. Priests were Clerics and Druids. Rogues were Thieves, and Bards. Wizards were Mages, and Specialists.
The other class groups being Warrior, Mage and Priest tho so I dunno where Artificer's going to fit (unless they have some unannounced classes and a whole new group...)
@@slipshodaverage844 Druids were actually an example of Specialty Priests in 2nd Edition. One of the Box Sets for Forgotten Realms had Specialty Priests specific to each god.
@@dinhvu2940 That's right. The "Faiths & Avatars" book is what I think you're talking about. I always loved that the front of the book has one of every gods' priest in their garments lined up.
I'm excited for the feat option, but not excited at all for the universalization of the class features. I worry this is going to echo how you've been using spells everywhere in place of abilities, which I don't care for. For me, classes needed ways to be diverse, not homogenized. Fingers crossed, but the teaser here seems to indicate more of the same. Class Groupings also don't sound particularly logical as an in-universe pre-requisite for a magic item at the moment. Looking forward to tomorrow, and the survey to follow it. Was glad to hear that the feedback will be discussed and revised packets are planned based on those. I was hoping it would go that way. It worked well for Next (here we are today), so I'm glad that will be the way forward too! Thanks for the video!
Personally I love it! From the sounds of it the core classes will still be very unique, it's just the feats that will be different, which I actually think will add to the uniqueness of classes. Atm a lot of Ranger builds aren't all that different to ranged Fighters, they both tend to take SS, XBE and EA. But if there are cool Expert feats that works well with ranged weapons then you'll end up building your Ranger very differently to your Fighter. Same with Bards in comparison to Warlocks or Sorcerers.
I feel like inspiration as a mechanic isn't really something that should be focused on by the development team it just feels somewhat unneeded as it just adds another layer of book keeping for a singular reroll. Another rule that feels unnecessary to enforce upon future module building is the no DM crit rule. Across my grouping circles this was the one that was which rejected immediately as i feel only adventurer's league or certain rules as written groups will use. The systems that need reworks far more are: The CR combat and XP system Martial vs spellcaster division of power past level 5 Mechanics for ship/airship and spelljammer combat. Crafting tables and modifications to equipment.
To build on your last point: Bounded accuracy was a boon, but I wonder if there is a way to adjust it slightly to trade back for things like weapon threat ranges and expanded crit multipliers. Those things went a long way to differentiating weapons, and I miss them. It also sucks not having a decent magic item price guide, which would have helped with crafting. The price ranges based on rarity are so vast and muddy that countless homebrew and 3PP documents have tried to plug the gap, and none have managed to stick quite well enough. For mundane items, this can easily be houseruled at the table, as most things a player would want to make are presented with concrete numbers, but it shouldn't have to be. This seems like laziness on WotC's part.
God I wish it was standard practice for companies with an international audience to say what time zone they mean when they give a date... because here in Australia THIS VIDEO was released on the 29th, so going off of my time zone the content should already be out.
Please make the Artificer part of the Playtest and the new Player's Handbook. He gets left out so often, despite being a class with LOTS of potential. Otherwise, I like what I hear and I look forward to see the playtest tomorrow. But either way: I hoped you wouldn't make ability score improvements and feats directly competitive with each other again, only being able to chose one or the other. It often limits the amount of feats a character will realisticly take, because +2 to your main stat is often just superior to many of the more flavourful and interesting feats.
I think they´re solving a lot of this issue by adding a +1 stat increase to every level 4 and up feat, which reduces the opportunity cost of taking them effectively by half....sure you need to wait for the next Feat threshold to get to the +2, but at least now you have 2 feats & a +2 increase, instead of just 2 feats. Now we only need to figure out a way to make uneven ability scores useful in some way.
The Sidekicks of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything had the divisions: Expert, Spellcaster, Warrior. I image those are the divisions they're going to use here.
@@videonaterAD they've said the Artificer will class as an expert, but won't be appearing in the playtest directly. As for the blood hunter, as popular as it is, it isn't actually an official class. I imagine it would class as either an expert or a warrior, but its 3rd party homebrew
From the brief mention it sounds like the test of the crit changes got some flame. Seemed to be the one area that a lot of people didn't like. I think they could have been clear from the start that there were 3 different versions, and just give all 3 so we can do side by side comparisons. Then at least the feedback is with the whole picture in mind. With the snapshot we get its sometimes hard to see the whole system as a connected thing, so we don't always understand how one change effects other areas.
They probably want people to watch the video and see their explanations of why they put in what they did before people rush to read and make up their minds about it without hearing them out first.
It's because misinformation is and assumptions are rampant when a new document is released. By making the only source of news spoken directly from the devs they are allowing the word to spread based off the dev's own words and not what's in the official document
At the moment they have a symmetry; 4 class groups, 3 classes per group and 4 sub-classes per class to give the 48 sub-classes they mentioned. Due to that I don't think we will see artificer initially.
@@theddexaggerator7884 In the most recent playtest material, they have stated in the Feedback section that ahead in the One D&D Playtest there will be "Revised versions of every class from the 2014 Player's Handbook" so I'd assume Arti is going to be left out again.
Great to see they seem to be listening to the feedback. I'm trying to encourage everyone to send it in - there are a lot of people I know who are bitching about this rule or that, but not filling in the feedback survey, which takes all of about ten minutes.
Rangers were only lackluster in the PHB in later books they got a massive boost. The gloomstalker is one of the most exceptional classes in the game. They really gave love to the ranger throughout 5e. Druidic fighting style gives access to shileliegh and expertise so you can make a wisdom based ranger allowing for not just good but insanely high perception, survival, insight.
Some of the advanced Rangers are ridiculous. Like being able to be completely invisible to creatures using darkvision to look at you and thus you almost always have advantage when you're in the dark.
So is Jeremy saying that this version of the ranger prepares spells rather than having a set of known spells? That's huge for flexibility and the use of niche spells.
I would love the rule for Inspiration to remain rolling a 20, but instead of gaining inspiration yourself, an ally is inspired by your clutch roll. Typically inspiration comes from others, rather than us inspiring ourselves. That would also keep the person rolling a 20 from just continually rolling more 20s because of having advantage. Now a 20 would inpire an ally, who could roll a 20 and inspire another ally. TEAMWORK!
See I really like the rolling on 1s idea. (I wrote that in my response to the first UA) because rolling a 20 then makes it easier to get another one which can snowball encounters really hard. On a 1, it leads to a “failing forward” kind of attitude and reminds me of a hero getting beat down and getting back up with an advantage in their pocket. It’s a nice glimmer of hope if an encounter isn’t going their way
@@justinclark1867 I think the idea is interesting but I just don't think it makes the most contextual sense. People are naturally inspired by great successes and not from critical failures; turning that on its feels like a consolation prize for failing, which, imo, defeats the purpose of the nat 1 in the first place. I'm much more partial to giving another player inspiration or limiting the amount of times one can gain inspiration in this way.
The spell suggestion lists are a GREAT idea! I have many (experienced) players that never gathered the courage to try and make a full spellcaster because those spell lists were too intimidating!
I love the approach you are taking with how you are releasing the play test and how you are going to use future videos to talk about what the surveys said. This is great!
the Nat 1 inspiration is kind of genius as it's kind of a mulligan and kind of a "don't get discouraged" element. especially in a new player perspective. Ritual caster feat Going bye bye is good imo, it felt weird that a character would know a spell but wouldn't either be taught the ritual version of it for energy saving measures or because they know they got time to do so. The grouping sounds like a weird mix of 4e and kind of going back the the days of "You're a fighter , you're a magic user, you're a cleric and you're a thief" of white box and 1x Basic Suggested spell list will be nice for those who may see a spell name and skip over it though it's helpful. Bumping the lv 20 class features into lv 18 is an inspired choice
Inspiration from Nat 1’s is interesting. I was thinking of using that in one of my games but whenever people used their rage dice to overcome a problem it would add one to their personal save DC’s against my planned big bosses attacks. The more they gave into their rage the more attuned they’d be to his influence and vulnerable to his effects sort of deal.
The suggested list of prepared spell is a really nice quality of life change. As someone whose been DMing for a lot of new players recently i think those lists will help out a lot. I also see myself using them as a DM when having to improvise a high level NPC caster on the spot
Edit: I'm a big fan of humans getting inspiration uniquely from the other races. It's nice to give them something that makes them interesting. Loving the ideas over all though! I honestly like the idea of Nat 1 and Nat 20 grating inspiration. Nat 1 being more of a "fail forward system" while nat 20 feels like "heroes wining"
Really liking the Ranger getting things like Expertise. I've never really been _compelled_ to play a Ranger in 5e (in fact, I don't believe I ever have) but I think the Ranger will be my first class I try in the "next gen" edition
One D&D playtest is a very exciting time to enjoy this game and community. I can't say I can comfortably playtest all this stuff that often, but just knowing that the game is changing and we're invited is a lot of fun.
I still think we need small one-shots and things that are designed to be played with the new rules. How crits feels will depend on what a modern monster stat block looks like. Still feels like there is too many unknows to really playtest proper.
Class groups is such an outstanding idea. Seems so simple, but makes a huge difference, especially for homebrewers like myself who may want to add new classes!
It sounds like you all are very serious about listening and implementing the feedback from the community. Really happy to hear this and I am very stoked to see the next UA tomorrow! Cheers!
I would like to say thank you to the team over at wizards and everyone working on D&D for taking the time to listen to community feedback and putting forward the best features of the game for players. I doubt anyone mentioned will read this but if you do just know thateverything you are doing is making the game that much more enjoyable for everyone.
Shout out to all the guys working on One D&D, you're doing a great job. Thank you for providing this material and for being so receptive to community feedback. The new stuff sounds awesome, keep it coming!
This UA is SOOO much better than the last one and I think there are so many good ideas here. The only one I don't really like is the inspiration on a Nat 1.... I get the idea behind it, balance bad luck with good luck or maybe learning from one's mistakes, but I personally wouldn't ever use this. Even if this rule becomes official, it needs to be stated somewhere that the inspiration cannot be used on that initial Nat 1 roll - this was the first thing I thought of when I heard the rule. Love everything else! Good job Wizards!
I'm 5 minutes into the video and WOW. One of the suggestions I gave was exactly to reward Inspiration on natural 1s. Having experience with another system (Kids on Brooms), giving minor compensation on failures is a nice way to prevent negative spirals. Besides, anyone rolling a lot of natural 1s will be the one that benefits the most from rerolls. I will make sure to try out this feature when I am able to run another DnD session with my friends again. I really appreciate that me and the many others (I assume) that gave the suggestion for this can was already being considered! For this UA specifically, I hope Ranger gets to lean into both the Skill Monkey and Caster parts. I heavily enjoyed Ranger's Martial capabilities already but the casting and utility have always felt lacking to me. 2014 PHB had mediocre 1st level features that are too niche (Favored Enemy) or too strong (Natural Explorer) while being extremely restrictive. TCoE fixed Ranger level1, 6, and 10 for me in terms of combat but I still felt that a single Expertise was TOO LITTLE to effectively substitute a Bard or a Rogue. Casting, on the other hand, also felt limited. Compared to the similarly nature-themed caster the Druid, Ranger lacked in Spell Options, is limited to a Spells Known mechanic, and cannot ritually cast spells. I am glad to hear that Ranger can be more of an expert now along with ritual casting being more available, but I hope the more mystical side of the class gets explored along with its expert side!
Unfortunately, I fully expect a whole bunch of people to complain that players will start fishing for 1s just like they said people would fish for 20s.
@@andrewshandle Inspiration is effectively just advantage on something though isn't it? Fishing for nat 1's sounds like a masochistic thing to do just for inspiration
@@andrewshandle Hey if a Player deliberately does that, the DM can easily punish with consequences. Hitting a rock until you get a nat 1? Oops, sword flies out of your hand (in combat) or sword shatters on such a horrible miss!
@@snazzyfeathers I agree. I also think getting an Inspiration on a 20 is no big deal either, but after the first UA came out quite a few people commented that it'd completely break the game, claiming that their players roll hundreds of times per session and would be completely swimming in Inspiration totally trivializing the game. People will complain that this will somehow ruin the game, either because there will be too many inspirations, or something about how minimizing a 1 by giving a reward makes the game too easy,
@@jansolo4628 yes, I agree. There have always been ways to prevent players for fishing for rolls. That won't stop the people complaining that this will ruin their game. ;)
Thank you for listening to the feedback, especially with the crit hit rule. I am excited to check out the next playtest rules. But it's not on DDB yet! I wants it. I needs it! Patience is not my strong suit hehe.
They were pretty clear that this set of UA play test material was not in response to any feedback, it's a part of their design process so it is yet to be seen if the crit hit rule will remain, be altered, or revert completely to the 2014 PHB rule.
@@scottarmstrong8178 you reroll the Nat1, so you wouldn't get the inspiration from it, unless you roll another Nat1. Wouldn't make sense to get anything from a roll that doesn't stick.
The thing I like least about 5E is that you have to pick between ASIs or feats, and this new version continues that. I miss getting both ASIs and feats, as it allowed more options for your character
I agree, I've always run it so that you just get both, and it makes it so that players are far more willing to take the feats that add for flavor or options rather then just making them stronger
The way I make it on my table is that you gain ASI at level 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19, and Feats at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15, based on character, not on classes (With an extra ASI + Feat on 18th if you get all its levels on the same class, leaving 2 for a dip just because of flavor).
Nothing stopping you still doing it, Crawford isn't going to come round your house and arrest you. People need to get out of this mentality that they have to use the rules as written, you don't.
I currently run a game where two players gambled with their stats. They rolled 1d20 per stat and that got them their core stats. As a reward for this risk they get the ability score improvement and a feat every 4 levels.
I totally agree I play in one campaign where it is thank god decoupled by a home rule yet in another game the dm is reluctant to do so because we rolled for stats there. So much to if you do not like it just homebrew it many dms do not allow home rules so yeah would need an official rule on that to hammer it down once and for all.
Worth pointing out that I don't remember them saying in the video, but it is listed in the Description: "Spell Lists. Three Spell lists-the Arcane, Divine, and Primal lists-are featured here. The Ranger uses the Primal list, and the **Bard potentially uses all three, thanks to the Magical Secrets feature.**" I know that some people were worried how the Spell Lists change was going to affect the Bard. Looks like not at all.
@@lindarkknight4044 Well, 🤮 Pathfinder 🤮 is really just 3.5 and --D&D 6e-- D&D One is supposed to work for all D&D editions so it's understandable it would be --identical-- similar but legally distinct.
So the bard gets a selection of arcane and a couple of picks from other lists. Enough to give variety but still keeps them unique from the other mage types. Feels like a good middle ground.
I don't know if Specialist is any better than Expert. Bards kind of do everything, which is sort of the opposite of a specialist. These classes can be experts in multiple things, but they aren't necessarily specializing in one specific area.
pretty sure the reason they use the "Expert" terminology is because of the already existing Expert, Warrior, and Spellcaster sidekicks, with Spellcaster being split to Mage and Priest. so they're just using pre-established classifications from the existing game
Obviously it's still early, and there were some things I didn't like in the Character Origins UA. But yeah, overall I like the direction they're going, and I really like hearing Crawford talk about the design choices they're making and why, things like class groups & such.
I'm so jazzed to hear about inspiration on a nat1. I was hoping they would consider that, and I think it would be really motivating for players to keep trying even after they fail the first time.
Yeah, they started that a little with the optional Ranger features in Tasha's. It reminds me a little of how the different colors in Magic: The Gathering work, you tend to see certain abilities almost exclusively on cards of specific colors. The way they're tagging things with things like class groups, arcane/divine/primal for spells etc. in order to make expansion easier down the line seems like a smart way to go.
Tasha’s really made me love the Ranger. I played one before and after but it made a big difference. I wish the beast master subclass had a creature CR scaling like the Druid but slower. The hunter subclass would be cool as just base Ranger optional picks like the deft explorer but with less options to not power creep to much.
This looks like it’s taking the best elements from 4E and 5E and moving forward. I’m awed by this, and I’m psyched about them doing some 180 turns with the rules.
I think the "Priest Classes" should be renamed to Spiritual Classes. It's a bit more neutral of a term, since Druid and Warlock don't necessarily fit the priestly descriptor.
There's a bit of history with Druid and priestly descriptors, so I think Druid will go there. I expect to see Warlock in with the Mage group, along with Wizard and Sorcerer. Here's my thinking: Expert: Artificer (comes later), Bard, Ranger, Rogue (based on this interview and upcoming UA, so we kinda know already). Warrior: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk Mage: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard Priest: Cleric, Druid, Paladin I can see a case for swapping Monk and Paladin, though.
I'd just like to give some love for the revisions that aren't necessarily flashy and exciting, but just make sense and make the whole thing more efficient and accessible, like making ASIs into a feat. These are the kinds of changes that often get overlooked in favor of the big splashy gameplay stuff, but as someone who edits documents for a living, they give me life. Little functional changes that just make the same content easier. Love it.
I truly do appreciate how you're providing the Legos for us and paying attention to how we use them. It's a nice, comprehensive collaboration on the creation of this new edition of D&D. Allowing the fandom to have a say without letting us run too uninhibited shows that you care, not just for the game, but for us as well.
You know what would boost those real Playtest-Numbers? Double the number of D&D Beyond developers and let the new one implement a "Play Test"-Mode into the character builder so we can use dndb for the playtest. A lot of us are Corona-Newbies and don't know how to use a paper sheet ;) A little more affordable: Release a cost free one shot emphasizing on the contents of the playtest on the day the UA releases. If only you had a BIG pool of authors on some kind of digital marketplace who would absolutely do this it you gave them the UA plus an NDA two weeks before release... Also: Please set up a third camera showing the two together, they always feel a little bit disconnected.
D&D Beyond per playtest is obviously not practical, but the core idea is good. They should make a custom (physical, though digital is good too) character sheet (or one per class; playbook technology can be borrowed from other games) that is designed to work with the playtest and has helpful reminders of current playtest rules. Makes it easier to build and keep track of current rules.
and besides the cute ideas...you do remember, that there had been plans to bring up a DM - View on the campaign? the last dev-update is 2 months ago and was not remotely helpfull for playing..... the DM's decide on the platform the campaign uses. The DMs are the ones buying your content. Maybe, just maybe consider your target group
@@mnemex dndb is a big old contraint network. It would be some work to set up the UA rules in another instance and implement a switch, which version you use, but it SHOULD be doable and totally be on the development backlog for autumn 2023 ;) Of course you couldn't migrate characters back and forth, but have a character rooster per Rule Version.
Rule suggestion: this is a rule that I already have implemented with my players. When you prepare spells, the in universe explanation of what you’re doing is you are memorizing the spell for the day. It doesn’t make much sense to me that a mage would just forget spells over night, especially if they have keen mind. So instead, rather than preparing spells, you are preparing yourself to be able to handle the magic of certain spells. This means you still know spells even if you don’t have them prepared, which allows players to cast unprepared spells if they’re willing to accept the consequences. Consequences are determined by the dm or specified on a chart of some kind.
When 1D&D is ready for prime time, here's what I'd like to happen: 1. Put the Artificer in 1D&D's PHB, or at least make sure you quickly add it in an early rule update book à-la XGtE or TCoE. Also, make sure from the get go to leave some room for an interesting Psionic class, which also should be published in an early rule update book. And make sure to continue to provide new subclasses and options for classes that are published after the PHB. 2. Update the SRD and OGL to 1D&D. You have to recognize how essential it is to the 3rd parties and homebrew community, which I sincerely believe helped propelling 5E to the top. Make sure to also maintain DMsGuild's special licencing and, if possible, add some crosspublication compatibility with D&DBeyond. 3. Publish a document that helps converting 5E homebrewn content to 1D&D. In particular, a step-by-step for subclasses would be most appreciated, since classes look like they are undergoing significant changes.
Expert job! And thank the gods they are giving inspiration for crit FAILS. Great move. I'm really hoping they make the organization of this material better than the original PHB, which is kinda all over the place. I think these expert classes should become movement-in-battle strategists, like giving Thorn Whip to Rangers - just makes sense.
I really like the classes being released in groups like this, so it allows their differences to shine. I'm really glad to see that some degree of asymmetry will remain between the classes.
This way they don't have to balance Wizard vs Fighter only Wizard vs Warlock Still I predict: Bard, Druid, Barbarian, Wizard > Rogue, Paladin, Monk, Warlock
Sounds like it, so Magic Initiate just got even better. Say you wanted to play some type of archaeologist who is a rogue, get Comprehend Languages as a "ritual" from magic initiate, so it's like your character is figuring out what the language means.
I'm assuming the spell still has to be prepared/learned/whatever, not just "it's a spell my class can get". And I'm guessing the Wizard will still have the ability to cast rituals right out of their book even if they aren't prepared for the day. I'm not entirely sure I'm a fan of making ritual-casting just a universal aspect of spellcasting, but it's not gamebreaking for me either.
@@pdegan2814 I personally like it since before some classes had the same spells but couldn't ritual cast because they simply lacked a feature, this made the least sense in regards to Warlocks. Why did Warlocks, the people that sign pacts, not be THE ritual casting class? You had to specifically pick up a certain pact and invocation to do so, which ironically was a subpar choice for optimization.
I am wondering what they're changing to wizards to make up for this being kind of their thing though; being an absolute toolbox of ritual spells is one of the few reasons you'd choose wizard over say, sorcerer. If Sorcs can just ritual cast as well, why wouldn't you choose them?
@@Deiwos0 Wizards already have a wider array of spell options along with having much more spells known than the Sorcerer. Medium to High level optimizations already consider Wizard anywhere from slightly stronger to immensely more powerful than its charismatic counterparts thanks simply to the ability to select spells (and Arcane Recovery being better for spell slot recovery than Flexible Casting).
I wished for the nat 1 = give inspiration, for so long. I think that it's the best way to give inspiration without breaking the game. If you have played MotW you know that there is nothing better than failing a roll but still getting something out of it (gaining experience).
Make sure to give the monk the ability to use Dexterity instead of Strength to establish the Save DC of their Grapple and Shove unarmed attacks. That would finally make monks good grapplers, which really should be in the toolbox of any self-respecting martial artist.
interesting that they’re taking on party roles; makes sense since a lot of video games based on d&d-style mechanics actually does make that internal distinction, so this makes it way easier for new players to understand.
Thanks for preserving the game balance and combating bloat yet still allowing for creativity and the delight of leveling up and making magic magical. I have forever been trying to reproduce something similar to 4ed's Avenger class. Maybe ranger as an expert might fill that concept.
paladin/rogue multiclass, dex based, although you'd need to houserule an ability to make a 2-handed weapon finesse if you want to retain the giant weapons.
@@robbunchanumbers Leaves out the amazingness that is the int/wis Avenger (which works because Int is an AC stat in 4e as you'll recall). Probably best approach with the existing system is a hexblade vengeance paladin--that way you can wear armor for AC, swing heavy weapons with CHA, and vow of emnity, hunter's mark nad misty step for the mobility and damage marking.
I always figured the core of the avenger was a striker who could find, maneuver to get to someone and then strike, perhaps a divine rogue similar to an arcane trickster but divine magic. Ranger has find and maneuver spells/ability and some striker maybe ability? Never seemed to work out. I still have yet to try out theif acolyte ( for climbing speed and religion skill and connections) with ritual magic feat for augury and divination and other cleric spells. Avenger paladin is cool but it is its own thing.
@@ReadingDave I mean. that's basically how avenging paladin can work. damage, damage, damge, mobility. so you can identify the target thar needs to die, misty step into their face, and launch an attack sequence. It' s largely messed up by 5e having a weak sauce action economy (having a spell that was teleport 30 and attack would help a lot), but the intent is clear.
Really seems like they are listening to us. As some of the things he initially talked about was talked about in some communities. Really brings hope for OneD&D
@@mnemex Maybe more listening comprehension and less reply button. JC literally said the rules for crits in this UA playtest are going back to the 2014 rules. They also say they've had over 40,000 surveys so they have seen feedback.
I've been bouncing Unearthed Arcana content at the most experienced DM I know. He's still apprehensive about some of the changes being floated in this series but even he's excited about what's happening with feats, epic boons etc.
Please please make sure to work on the disparity between Martials and Spellcasters, spell casters of 11th level or higher can wipe out whole armies single-handedly in just a single turn, they can casually, on a whim, change and leave a permanent impact on the world, and then fighters can make an extra attack, barbarians can do slightly more damage they score critical hit, rogues can't fail a roll that they're proficient in, a roll mind you, that any spell caster wouldn't even need to make in the first place. Man it sure is a good thing that monks get a whole feature dedicated to reducing the amount of fall damage they take, mean while any wizard could just casually cast featherfall, and then still have tons of spells they have access to and it would just reduce all of the fall damage of the entire group to zero.
Every time I hear them mention the Artificer, I get really happy. I just started playing DnD more regularly a couple of years ago, and decided to go with an Artificer because I wanted something that would allow me to get creative with machine designs while also allowing for lots of mechanical depth. That the Artificer is not only returning but will be making its way into the game early on is great news.
Really disappointed to hear ASIs and feats are still tied together. You shouldn't have to pick between cool interesting options (feats) and boring but necessary competence (ASIs). It's like choosing between ice cream and broccoli.
Playtest material coming September 29.
Hi! Soon as in later today or later this week?
When is it coming
Was about to say, it's not available to download yet
Next time, can you please upload the pdf together with the video? If anything, the pdf should come before the video, not after
Going forward, it would be HUGELY appreciated if the Playtest Material was released simultaneously with the video.
What a great team
👍
Nice
👍
Good
cool
Ohhhh boyyyyyyyyyyy, can't wait to see this stuff! :D
I love their willingness to experiment with multiple versions of rules, and it really seems like they’re listening to feedback. Can’t believe they only got 40k survey responses though! Come on people! We’re doing this together!
Edit: yes 40k is a lot of responses on the playtest 1 survey, but there are like >200k views on the hour-long playtest 1 video! Hopefully the interest will continue to build
Yes! Very exciting! I hope the wait isn't too long for this UA!
those playtests look more and more helpful for weird setting like Dark Sun :)
@@AlLajeunesse Oh? Interesting idea. I would like to think they allow for all manner of flavoring.
Hyyyype 🙌🏻
This was clearly filmed some time ago. Jeremy Crawford mentions another week left in the survey.
Remember folks, this is a playtest. So if there’s a rule that you don’t care for, remember it’s not finalized. Voice your opinions, discuss your feelings, take the survey. Let’s be civil. They wants to hear from us.
And when we get the final rules, if you don't like it, change it. Or play OSR or any of the myriad possibilities we have. I recommend playing other systems even if One D&D is near perfect.
Totally. To add to that, if there's a rule you don't like....suggest a change. There's also the mentality that...you don't HAVE to use RaW. Homebrew rules exist y'all. Happy rolling!
And even if it is finalized, that as the DM, you have the power to make your own rules.
Thank you for saying it. This is all experimental for something coming in 2024. People need to remember that and enjoy their games
Jfc...
48 new sub classes and 45 of them are going to be cleric domains.
Only 40 cleric domains. Need room for the 8 wizard schools.
@@ShatterAlpha Woah woah woah, every other class needs at least one subclass. That's why we should expect a mere 30 Cleric Domains.
(surprised it's skewed towards the cleric considering how much they love Wizards)
Its the same number we had before with 7 new subclasses.
One thing I REALLY hope they do this time over the original DnDNext playtest is that they don't exclusively just test levels 1-10 and instead we see some tier 3 and tier 4 testing.
It's coming out in batches. First playtest was literally level 0-1 stuff, and this time they are giving us up to 20th level in 3 classes, and spell lists up to 9th.
To be fair, I feel like the fact that they classified all the spells for all levels is a good start.
I hope the keep the wizard spell schools.
Regarding the Tier 3 and 4, I agree. Our last few one shots and short shots started at 10, 10, 12, and 8.
ok
Really happy to see how adaptive you are being with these rules, presenting loads of different options for us all to play around with! I'm also seeing some parallels between these "experts" and the tasha's sidekicks in terms of grouping, seems like an elegant system!
I noticed that as well. Some folks are thinking the classes will be put into four categories (Expert, Warrior, Priest, and Spellcaster) but I’m fairly certain it’ll be like the three categories in Tasha’s.
@@wmad202 That's because they're all from the same source. Older editions grouped generic classless npcs into warrior, expert, mage, and priest that gave them enough to fill that archetype without having to actually need class levels
Ello mate
@@wmad202 Jeremy did namedrop them in the video at 14:03
@@wmad202 They mentioned 4 in this video - Expert, Warrior, Priest, and Mage. I could see there being at least 1 more, considering how classes work mechanically. _(But not too many, since it was mentioned that the "ideal group" would have a classman from every group - and I don't think they expect a standard party be, like, 7 strong.)_
For example, experts get expertise. If all Warriors were to get, say, Heavy Armor proficiency, will Barbarians be Warriors as well? How about Monk?
I'm excited to find out how they all fit together.
Jeremy has the patience of a saint. It's not easy putting up with a lot of passionate nerds with wildly different ideas, but he handles it with admirable grace ❤️
I am betting there is a lot of it in the WotC offices, before it even gets to the fans!
Wait till you see how the dev team is treated by him
I dunno, I get the feeling Todd and JC can't even be in the same room at the same time, but that might be the cinematography. Someone should put a bounty on the outtake reel from this, it may be a classic on par with the outtakes from Orson Welles' commercial for frozen peas.
He still needs a rules editor.
you're saying it like a passionate nerd with a wildly different idea is a bad thing
The very first thing that crossed my mind when class groups was mentioned was the new party building. I think that’s a tremendous idea for helping people learn the archetypes and suggested playstyles of each class. Looking forward to seeing the doc tomorrow!!
I love that they're moving some of the 20th level features to 18! It means we'll get more time to play with some of the coolest features in the game. Plus, more accessible ritual casting sounds like a blast
In theory, sure! I love the idea of getting those capstones a little earlier.. but even at lvl 18 it still seems far off. In the 10 years I've been playing D&D, I've never been a part of a campaign that went higher than lvl 14. It's frustrating as hell, especially since even the premade adventures are only designed to go as high as the mid teens. 23 adventures and only "Dungeon of the Mad Mage" suggests going to lvl 20.
From what I've seen most campaigns (and most official adventures) end before level 14.
From what I know of D&D, not yet a player, it seems like they'll be front loading the classes even more which makes bore out to happen faster.
@@WolfricThorsson Capstones should be a long way off, but at least with them at 18 you may get the chance to actually USE them for more than an encounter or two before the campaign ends. I've made it to 20 once before and the achievement was undercut since the campaign ended one session later.
@@WolfricThorsson request a session zero always and request going to 20. Give the DM a pass saying you don’t care if balance is off but that you’d like to explore epic themes and storylines
Actually starts talking about the classes around 10:00
Thank you
I would like to see a CON based magic user.
Like a Blood Mage, for example, maybe sacrificing some health to cast certain spells
I have always wanted to see a magic system that anyone could use, but with a price, and blood magic seems perfect for it. It's not only a material cost, but the cost of tainting yourself with something dark like that, even if it's only the perception of other people, is compelling.
In my homebrew setting, you can spend and roll Hit Dice in a bid to get (for simplicity and lack of a more flowery term) Blood Magic Points, and then you can use those points to cast spells. They are costly (even a cantrip costs one BMP), but there are rules for sacrificing BMPs to other casters, allowing for blood magic cults. There are other limitations, but that's the gist of it.
I don't expect any edition of D&D to ever contain something like that. Wizards and clerics must reign supreme for all time, so access to magic will always be class-locked, and wizards and clerics will have the best of it.
Super late reply, but Sorcerer should fulfill that roll of CON caster. Them using CHA never really made sense form a lore standpoint and it would make sense that the innately magical person would have to have a decently high CON in order to deliver the more taxing spells.
Other ability scores being important (Con and Int specifically) was such a great thing about 4th, lot of good ideas there that I'm kind of sad they moved so far away from because 3.5th edition players hated them.
I hope that they can make the artificer a player’s handbook class, to make things easier. That’s what I’m going to ask for in the play-test. Thank you wotc for trying new things.
I think it would be ludicrous not to include it
I wish they'd release some annual or bi-annual compendium that just includes all classes, subclasses, and feats up to that point in time. No fluff, lore, or core rules. Just all the class info in one place. Then do the same thing for Races. I just want to build my character without having to sift through 5 books. I know they don't want some huge PHB, so I'd like some collection to release every so often. That would also help people like me who have zero interest in adventures like Witchlight, but don't want to miss out on the character additions.
How does that make things easier?
Not that I'm against it; I just could see someone reading that suggestion as "don't ever add a class AFTER the PHB".
@@SHADOWSTRIKE1 thats not how they make money.
@@MegaManNetworkOfCourse what? Printing and selling new books is exactly how they make money. That guy didn't request the release be a free pdf or anything.
Please include Artificer in the phb
Please give Artificers more options to play with. Nothing from Spelljammer, wth.
My daughter took her first steps to me as I was listening to this.
I've got good feelings about the new books. 😌
Wait, is nobody going to mention that he called the Bard and Ranger **PREPARED** spellcasting classes???!?! In the 2014 PHB they're both spells-known casters. Changing them to prepared casters is HUGE! For the record, I'm in favor of the change, but I'm shocked it hasn't been mentioned yet (that I've seen).
thats a great catch, will isten again, could be that all spell casters go to the same method of spell selection etc - would be interesting and simplification at the same time, will await the notes tomorrow :)
I think he meant spell choices, as he brings this up to make it easier for spells known to be less daunting in choice. So more of a “here’s the spells you might want to pick” instead of just giving a spell list and picking.
I heard that as well¡ I think he was talking about the suggested spells in general tho. I dont think it was meant to be about the ranger and bard (but Hopefully it was!)
Edit: nvm I'm dumb
Am i the only one who hates prepared spells?! Seems like it just discourages creativity... Why prepare some niche spell when that spell slot could be used for another fireball spell...
I like this change, but I hope they don't do it with Sorcerer. I love sorcerer and I realize that being spells-known is a bit limiting, but within the context of what makes sense for the sorcerer lore, it makes more sense that they just innately know something. If everyone else is prepared spells, maybe increase the sorcerer's number of spells known a little bit so they aren't outclassed.
I really like the class groups. As someone playing an artificer right now, I feel like a lot of things leave them out just for simplicity. Also, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything had the Sidekick class for NPCs with three subclasses: Expert, Warrior, and Spellcaster. And he mentioned the Expert and Warrior class groups - but also a Mage and Priest group so it could just be a coincidence but I like the idea that they were somewhat inspired by that. Also, please bring the Sidekick rules back, they're such a great addition to the game and I've never ran a campaign without them since they came out.
Edit: I haven't played any editions before 5e, so I didn't know that those older editions is probably where the group names originate from, not the Sidekick rules.
That was something in 2nd Edition AD&D. Warriors were Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. Priests were Clerics and Druids. Rogues were Thieves, and Bards. Wizards were Mages, and Specialists.
The other class groups being Warrior, Mage and Priest tho so I dunno where Artificer's going to fit (unless they have some unannounced classes and a whole new group...)
The only thing you've said these group divisions are for is to put restrictions on feats, which is wrong.
@@slipshodaverage844 Druids were actually an example of Specialty Priests in 2nd Edition.
One of the Box Sets for Forgotten Realms had Specialty Priests specific to each god.
@@dinhvu2940 That's right. The "Faiths & Avatars" book is what I think you're talking about. I always loved that the front of the book has one of every gods' priest in their garments lined up.
I'm excited for the feat option, but not excited at all for the universalization of the class features. I worry this is going to echo how you've been using spells everywhere in place of abilities, which I don't care for. For me, classes needed ways to be diverse, not homogenized. Fingers crossed, but the teaser here seems to indicate more of the same. Class Groupings also don't sound particularly logical as an in-universe pre-requisite for a magic item at the moment. Looking forward to tomorrow, and the survey to follow it. Was glad to hear that the feedback will be discussed and revised packets are planned based on those. I was hoping it would go that way. It worked well for Next (here we are today), so I'm glad that will be the way forward too! Thanks for the video!
Personally I love it! From the sounds of it the core classes will still be very unique, it's just the feats that will be different, which I actually think will add to the uniqueness of classes. Atm a lot of Ranger builds aren't all that different to ranged Fighters, they both tend to take SS, XBE and EA. But if there are cool Expert feats that works well with ranged weapons then you'll end up building your Ranger very differently to your Fighter. Same with Bards in comparison to Warlocks or Sorcerers.
I feel like inspiration as a mechanic isn't really something that should be focused on by the development team it just feels somewhat unneeded as it just adds another layer of book keeping for a singular reroll.
Another rule that feels unnecessary to enforce upon future module building is the no DM crit rule. Across my grouping circles this was the one that was which rejected immediately as i feel only adventurer's league or certain rules as written groups will use.
The systems that need reworks far more are:
The CR combat and XP system
Martial vs spellcaster division of power past level 5
Mechanics for ship/airship and spelljammer combat.
Crafting tables and modifications to equipment.
To build on your last point: Bounded accuracy was a boon, but I wonder if there is a way to adjust it slightly to trade back for things like weapon threat ranges and expanded crit multipliers. Those things went a long way to differentiating weapons, and I miss them.
It also sucks not having a decent magic item price guide, which would have helped with crafting. The price ranges based on rarity are so vast and muddy that countless homebrew and 3PP documents have tried to plug the gap, and none have managed to stick quite well enough. For mundane items, this can easily be houseruled at the table, as most things a player would want to make are presented with concrete numbers, but it shouldn't have to be. This seems like laziness on WotC's part.
God I wish it was standard practice for companies with an international audience to say what time zone they mean when they give a date... because here in Australia THIS VIDEO was released on the 29th, so going off of my time zone the content should already be out.
Please make the Artificer part of the Playtest and the new Player's Handbook. He gets left out so often, despite being a class with LOTS of potential. Otherwise, I like what I hear and I look forward to see the playtest tomorrow.
But either way: I hoped you wouldn't make ability score improvements and feats directly competitive with each other again, only being able to chose one or the other. It often limits the amount of feats a character will realisticly take, because +2 to your main stat is often just superior to many of the more flavourful and interesting feats.
I'm assuming your favorite class is the Artificer, eh? Okay, Art-Tiff-Ficer.. Or should I say nerd? Go tinker me a sharper axe.
@@stalebread2997 Yawn go hit some more stuff rage-boi
@@stalebread2997 hakuna yo tatas Fighter Man
I think they´re solving a lot of this issue by adding a +1 stat increase to every level 4 and up feat, which reduces the opportunity cost of taking them effectively by half....sure you need to wait for the next Feat threshold to get to the +2, but at least now you have 2 feats & a +2 increase, instead of just 2 feats. Now we only need to figure out a way to make uneven ability scores useful in some way.
So the class groups should be:
Expert - Bard, Ranger, Rogue
Mage - Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock
Priest - Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Warrior - Barbarian, Fighter, Monk
The Sidekicks of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything had the divisions: Expert, Spellcaster, Warrior. I image those are the divisions they're going to use here.
Hope that Artificer and Blood Hunter stick around
@@videonaterAD they've said the Artificer will class as an expert, but won't be appearing in the playtest directly.
As for the blood hunter, as popular as it is, it isn't actually an official class. I imagine it would class as either an expert or a warrior, but its 3rd party homebrew
@@Rougesteelproject Crawford said in the video its these four groups, just not what went into each group
what do they do mechanically speaking - supposedly?
From the brief mention it sounds like the test of the crit changes got some flame. Seemed to be the one area that a lot of people didn't like. I think they could have been clear from the start that there were 3 different versions, and just give all 3 so we can do side by side comparisons. Then at least the feedback is with the whole picture in mind. With the snapshot we get its sometimes hard to see the whole system as a connected thing, so we don't always understand how one change effects other areas.
No joke, those three classes are my personal favorite classes
Shouldn't the UA pdf and the video be uploaded at the same time??
Why would you do something from a wholistic approach instead of just rolling out half cocked ideas
They probably want people to watch the video and see their explanations of why they put in what they did before people rush to read and make up their minds about it without hearing them out first.
It's because misinformation is and assumptions are rampant when a new document is released. By making the only source of news spoken directly from the devs they are allowing the word to spread based off the dev's own words and not what's in the official document
Even if the artificer is not going to appear in this playtest I would love to see it in the future in the 2024 pbh
It has been mentioned in the Arcane spell list classes in the Augest playtest material, so if it ain't in there I would be greatly confused
@@theddexaggerator7884 it technically still is available as One DnD is intended to be able to use old expansion books with it
ok
At the moment they have a symmetry; 4 class groups, 3 classes per group and 4 sub-classes per class to give the 48 sub-classes they mentioned. Due to that I don't think we will see artificer initially.
@@theddexaggerator7884 In the most recent playtest material, they have stated in the Feedback section that ahead in the One D&D Playtest there will be "Revised versions of every class from the 2014 Player's Handbook" so I'd assume Arti is going to be left out again.
His Pause when he was trying to talk more about ranger skills then just stoped
Great to see they seem to be listening to the feedback. I'm trying to encourage everyone to send it in - there are a lot of people I know who are bitching about this rule or that, but not filling in the feedback survey, which takes all of about ten minutes.
Looks like keywording is back! Definitely will make things less clunky when writing homebrew. Much better inter-book compatibility as well.
I think its great that the Ranger is in the Expert group. The Ranger was a bit lackluster in 5e and needed something to strengthen its identity.
Rangers were only lackluster in the PHB in later books they got a massive boost. The gloomstalker is one of the most exceptional classes in the game. They really gave love to the ranger throughout 5e. Druidic fighting style gives access to shileliegh and expertise so you can make a wisdom based ranger allowing for not just good but insanely high perception, survival, insight.
Some of the advanced Rangers are ridiculous. Like being able to be completely invisible to creatures using darkvision to look at you and thus you almost always have advantage when you're in the dark.
Is that removing its identity, and just making it an offshoot of something else... classes that really have no strong relations to each other?
@@MrApocryphon Gloomstalker is one of the two that are only the exceptions. The rest are still lackluster.
Swarmkeeper [Tasha's] over here, your derision of 5e rangers only makes us stronger.
I would prefer the Artificer be in the PHB, but I suspect that's not even on the table.
I look forward to seeing this UA tomorrow.
So is Jeremy saying that this version of the ranger prepares spells rather than having a set of known spells? That's huge for flexibility and the use of niche spells.
Which is most of the ranger spell list
I would love the rule for Inspiration to remain rolling a 20, but instead of gaining inspiration yourself, an ally is inspired by your clutch roll. Typically inspiration comes from others, rather than us inspiring ourselves. That would also keep the person rolling a 20 from just continually rolling more 20s because of having advantage. Now a 20 would inpire an ally, who could roll a 20 and inspire another ally. TEAMWORK!
I love that!
I like this a lot
See I really like the rolling on 1s idea. (I wrote that in my response to the first UA) because rolling a 20 then makes it easier to get another one which can snowball encounters really hard. On a 1, it leads to a “failing forward” kind of attitude and reminds me of a hero getting beat down and getting back up with an advantage in their pocket. It’s a nice glimmer of hope if an encounter isn’t going their way
That's a great idea. Nat 20 gives to someone else, but Nat 1 gives it to yourself
@@justinclark1867 I think the idea is interesting but I just don't think it makes the most contextual sense. People are naturally inspired by great successes and not from critical failures; turning that on its feels like a consolation prize for failing, which, imo, defeats the purpose of the nat 1 in the first place. I'm much more partial to giving another player inspiration or limiting the amount of times one can gain inspiration in this way.
The spell suggestion lists are a GREAT idea! I have many (experienced) players that never gathered the courage to try and make a full spellcaster because those spell lists were too intimidating!
SO TRUE
People acting like the internet doesn't exist to do this job already. You'll be paying for pages of a book that are already on rpgbot
@@deanmccourt4800 how have these goobers not heard of a class guide
I love the approach you are taking with how you are releasing the play test and how you are going to use future videos to talk about what the surveys said. This is great!
the Nat 1 inspiration is kind of genius as it's kind of a mulligan and kind of a "don't get discouraged" element. especially in a new player perspective.
Ritual caster feat Going bye bye is good imo, it felt weird that a character would know a spell but wouldn't either be taught the ritual version of it for energy saving measures or because they know they got time to do so.
The grouping sounds like a weird mix of 4e and kind of going back the the days of "You're a fighter , you're a magic user, you're a cleric and you're a thief" of white box and 1x Basic
Suggested spell list will be nice for those who may see a spell name and skip over it though it's helpful.
Bumping the lv 20 class features into lv 18 is an inspired choice
Inspiration from Nat 1’s is interesting. I was thinking of using that in one of my games but whenever people used their rage dice to overcome a problem it would add one to their personal save DC’s against my planned big bosses attacks. The more they gave into their rage the more attuned they’d be to his influence and vulnerable to his effects sort of deal.
The suggested list of prepared spell is a really nice quality of life change. As someone whose been DMing for a lot of new players recently i think those lists will help out a lot.
I also see myself using them as a DM when having to improvise a high level NPC caster on the spot
Edit: I'm a big fan of humans getting inspiration uniquely from the other races. It's nice to give them something that makes them interesting.
Loving the ideas over all though! I honestly like the idea of Nat 1 and Nat 20 grating inspiration. Nat 1 being more of a "fail forward system" while nat 20 feels like "heroes wining"
Really liking the Ranger getting things like Expertise.
I've never really been _compelled_ to play a Ranger in 5e (in fact, I don't believe I ever have) but I think the Ranger will be my first class I try in the "next gen" edition
As someone who used to play a lot of Rangers in 3.5e/Pathfinder, I have never touched them in 5e. :( They are very sad and boring, IMO.
@@foghammer9767 then you aint playing them right mate
One D&D playtest is a very exciting time to enjoy this game and community. I can't say I can comfortably playtest all this stuff that often, but just knowing that the game is changing and we're invited is a lot of fun.
I still think we need small one-shots and things that are designed to be played with the new rules. How crits feels will depend on what a modern monster stat block looks like.
Still feels like there is too many unknows to really playtest proper.
Class groups is such an outstanding idea. Seems so simple, but makes a huge difference, especially for homebrewers like myself who may want to add new classes!
It sounds like you all are very serious about listening and implementing the feedback from the community. Really happy to hear this and I am very stoked to see the next UA tomorrow! Cheers!
What a great team to test and experiment and walk back stuff the community doesn’t like. Love this content. Bring on more classes👀
I think inspiration on nat 1 is the best thing. If softens the blow of a bad roll, and can help disrupt a player having a series of bad rolls.
I would like to say thank you to the team over at wizards and everyone working on D&D for taking the time to listen to community feedback and putting forward the best features of the game for players. I doubt anyone mentioned will read this but if you do just know thateverything you are doing is making the game that much more enjoyable for everyone.
Shout out to all the guys working on One D&D, you're doing a great job.
Thank you for providing this material and for being so receptive to community feedback.
The new stuff sounds awesome, keep it coming!
This UA is SOOO much better than the last one and I think there are so many good ideas here.
The only one I don't really like is the inspiration on a Nat 1.... I get the idea behind it, balance bad luck with good luck or maybe learning from one's mistakes, but I personally wouldn't ever use this. Even if this rule becomes official, it needs to be stated somewhere that the inspiration cannot be used on that initial Nat 1 roll - this was the first thing I thought of when I heard the rule.
Love everything else! Good job Wizards!
You need to declare inspiration before rolling, so no you can't use it on the nat 1 that you earned it from.
I'm 5 minutes into the video and WOW. One of the suggestions I gave was exactly to reward Inspiration on natural 1s.
Having experience with another system (Kids on Brooms), giving minor compensation on failures is a nice way to prevent negative spirals. Besides, anyone rolling a lot of natural 1s will be the one that benefits the most from rerolls. I will make sure to try out this feature when I am able to run another DnD session with my friends again. I really appreciate that me and the many others (I assume) that gave the suggestion for this can was already being considered!
For this UA specifically, I hope Ranger gets to lean into both the Skill Monkey and Caster parts. I heavily enjoyed Ranger's Martial capabilities already but the casting and utility have always felt lacking to me. 2014 PHB had mediocre 1st level features that are too niche (Favored Enemy) or too strong (Natural Explorer) while being extremely restrictive. TCoE fixed Ranger level1, 6, and 10 for me in terms of combat but I still felt that a single Expertise was TOO LITTLE to effectively substitute a Bard or a Rogue. Casting, on the other hand, also felt limited. Compared to the similarly nature-themed caster the Druid, Ranger lacked in Spell Options, is limited to a Spells Known mechanic, and cannot ritually cast spells. I am glad to hear that Ranger can be more of an expert now along with ritual casting being more available, but I hope the more mystical side of the class gets explored along with its expert side!
Unfortunately, I fully expect a whole bunch of people to complain that players will start fishing for 1s just like they said people would fish for 20s.
@@andrewshandle Inspiration is effectively just advantage on something though isn't it? Fishing for nat 1's sounds like a masochistic thing to do just for inspiration
@@andrewshandle Hey if a Player deliberately does that, the DM can easily punish with consequences. Hitting a rock until you get a nat 1? Oops, sword flies out of your hand (in combat) or sword shatters on such a horrible miss!
@@snazzyfeathers I agree. I also think getting an Inspiration on a 20 is no big deal either, but after the first UA came out quite a few people commented that it'd completely break the game, claiming that their players roll hundreds of times per session and would be completely swimming in Inspiration totally trivializing the game.
People will complain that this will somehow ruin the game, either because there will be too many inspirations, or something about how minimizing a 1 by giving a reward makes the game too easy,
@@jansolo4628 yes, I agree. There have always been ways to prevent players for fishing for rolls. That won't stop the people complaining that this will ruin their game. ;)
Ivreally enjoy this idea of
'when we made this feature we had like 2-3 ideas so we are ganna test them sepertatly '
Thank you for listening to the feedback, especially with the crit hit rule. I am excited to check out the next playtest rules. But it's not on DDB yet! I wants it. I needs it! Patience is not my strong suit hehe.
They have not reviewed any feedback yet
@@theadventuresguild6514 at 4:25 he literally says "We've seen some of the responses and..."
They were pretty clear that this set of UA play test material was not in response to any feedback, it's a part of their design process so it is yet to be seen if the crit hit rule will remain, be altered, or revert completely to the 2014 PHB rule.
It's not released yet? I'm bamboozled?
yeah ? i can't find it.
@@Marpaws I went to the website as soon as I saw this. But I think they'll release it later today
@@wallyallen7169 yeah
Love the idea of inspiration on a nat1. Going to add that to all my games.
Hope none of your players are Halflings :p
@@MrJalasKelm seems they'd like it even more. Inspiration and rerolling a 1 seems like an even better reason to run halfling.
@@scottarmstrong8178 you reroll the Nat1, so you wouldn't get the inspiration from it, unless you roll another Nat1. Wouldn't make sense to get anything from a roll that doesn't stick.
@@MrJalasKelm Makes sense to me an is an easy fix for the only thing that folks seem to have a problem with for the rule. But you do you.
The thing I like least about 5E is that you have to pick between ASIs or feats, and this new version continues that. I miss getting both ASIs and feats, as it allowed more options for your character
I agree, I've always run it so that you just get both, and it makes it so that players are far more willing to take the feats that add for flavor or options rather then just making them stronger
The way I make it on my table is that you gain ASI at level 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19, and Feats at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15, based on character, not on classes (With an extra ASI + Feat on 18th if you get all its levels on the same class, leaving 2 for a dip just because of flavor).
Nothing stopping you still doing it, Crawford isn't going to come round your house and arrest you. People need to get out of this mentality that they have to use the rules as written, you don't.
I currently run a game where two players gambled with their stats. They rolled 1d20 per stat and that got them their core stats. As a reward for this risk they get the ability score improvement and a feat every 4 levels.
I totally agree I play in one campaign where it is thank god decoupled by a home rule yet in another game the dm is reluctant to do so because we rolled for stats there. So much to if you do not like it just homebrew it many dms do not allow home rules so yeah would need an official rule on that to hammer it down once and for all.
If yall don't put Artificer in the phb already. There is no reason for it not to be
Worth pointing out that I don't remember them saying in the video, but it is listed in the Description: "Spell Lists. Three Spell lists-the Arcane, Divine, and Primal lists-are featured here. The Ranger uses the Primal list, and the **Bard potentially uses all three, thanks to the Magical Secrets feature.**" I know that some people were worried how the Spell Lists change was going to affect the Bard. Looks like not at all.
Well i mean if they slap occult in there then they will be using the same thing as pathfinder 2e.
@@lindarkknight4044 Well, 🤮 Pathfinder 🤮 is really just 3.5 and --D&D 6e-- D&D One is supposed to work for all D&D editions so it's understandable it would be --identical-- similar but legally distinct.
@@quirk8841 2e is really distinct from 3.5
It seems to me that letting the bard choose from all three spell lists just makes the bard more broken than ever. They're going to be insufferable.
So the bard gets a selection of arcane and a couple of picks from other lists. Enough to give variety but still keeps them unique from the other mage types. Feels like a good middle ground.
I don't mind the idea of having "class groups", but rather than the Expert Group I feel a better name for them being the Specialist.
@@josuemunoz1993 All rangers now get one expertise through Tasha's optional rules.
apart from being named after the class from Tasha's, I'm guessing it's to tie the classes to the Expertise feature. I don't expect to see it changed.
@@josuemunoz1993 unfortunately, as soon as I finished posting my comment, they mentioned it in the video. 🤣
I don't know if Specialist is any better than Expert. Bards kind of do everything, which is sort of the opposite of a specialist. These classes can be experts in multiple things, but they aren't necessarily specializing in one specific area.
pretty sure the reason they use the "Expert" terminology is because of the already existing Expert, Warrior, and Spellcaster sidekicks, with Spellcaster being split to Mage and Priest. so they're just using pre-established classifications from the existing game
This One D&D thing is growing on me
Obviously it's still early, and there were some things I didn't like in the Character Origins UA. But yeah, overall I like the direction they're going, and I really like hearing Crawford talk about the design choices they're making and why, things like class groups & such.
I'm so jazzed to hear about inspiration on a nat1. I was hoping they would consider that, and I think it would be really motivating for players to keep trying even after they fail the first time.
Makes Nat 1s not feel so bad
Gonna upset the Halflings though
@@MrJalasKelm And rogues past level 11 who can't roll below 10 on a ability check.
I can see your players are pampered babies who lack spines.
Ok, some of the things they are talking about sound very exciting. Rangers with expertise. Yes
That's been a thing since Tasha's
Ranger with expertise in survival just sounds very fitting for the class.
Yeah, they started that a little with the optional Ranger features in Tasha's. It reminds me a little of how the different colors in Magic: The Gathering work, you tend to see certain abilities almost exclusively on cards of specific colors. The way they're tagging things with things like class groups, arcane/divine/primal for spells etc. in order to make expansion easier down the line seems like a smart way to go.
Yeah in hindsight I don't understand why they didn't already have expertise.
Tasha’s really made me love the Ranger. I played one before and after but it made a big difference. I wish the beast master subclass had a creature CR scaling like the Druid but slower. The hunter subclass would be cool as just base Ranger optional picks like the deft explorer but with less options to not power creep to much.
This looks like it’s taking the best elements from 4E and 5E and moving forward. I’m awed by this, and I’m psyched about them doing some 180 turns with the rules.
Universal ritual casting is a very good addition. Glad to see it
I think the "Priest Classes" should be renamed to Spiritual Classes. It's a bit more neutral of a term, since Druid and Warlock don't necessarily fit the priestly descriptor.
I guess the rationale is that druids are 'priests' of nature and warlocks are 'priests' for their patrons
@@artemisjohnson9368 yeahci get the rationale, still doesn't sound right to me though.
It could be Warlock, Cleric, and Paladin with Druid in the Mage group.
Also possible.
Also possible that we have Cleric/Paladin/Druid and Warlock is with Sorc and Wiz in the Mage group.
There's a bit of history with Druid and priestly descriptors, so I think Druid will go there. I expect to see Warlock in with the Mage group, along with Wizard and Sorcerer. Here's my thinking:
Expert: Artificer (comes later), Bard, Ranger, Rogue (based on this interview and upcoming UA, so we kinda know already).
Warrior: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk
Mage: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Priest: Cleric, Druid, Paladin
I can see a case for swapping Monk and Paladin, though.
So excited to see the ranger rework. We can all agree this has been a long time coming!
Really glad that we are playtesting with the better critical rules (2014 crits that is) looking forward to testing these classes.
I'd just like to give some love for the revisions that aren't necessarily flashy and exciting, but just make sense and make the whole thing more efficient and accessible, like making ASIs into a feat.
These are the kinds of changes that often get overlooked in favor of the big splashy gameplay stuff, but as someone who edits documents for a living, they give me life. Little functional changes that just make the same content easier. Love it.
Why isn’t the artificer included?
I truly do appreciate how you're providing the Legos for us and paying attention to how we use them. It's a nice, comprehensive collaboration on the creation of this new edition of D&D. Allowing the fandom to have a say without letting us run too uninhibited shows that you care, not just for the game, but for us as well.
Yo sugested prepared spells is so damn good, I would be able to actually recomend spell casters to new players.
You know what would boost those real Playtest-Numbers? Double the number of D&D Beyond developers and let the new one implement a "Play Test"-Mode into the character builder so we can use dndb for the playtest. A lot of us are Corona-Newbies and don't know how to use a paper sheet ;)
A little more affordable: Release a cost free one shot emphasizing on the contents of the playtest on the day the UA releases. If only you had a BIG pool of authors on some kind of digital marketplace who would absolutely do this it you gave them the UA plus an NDA two weeks before release...
Also: Please set up a third camera showing the two together, they always feel a little bit disconnected.
D&D Beyond per playtest is obviously not practical, but the core idea is good.
They should make a custom (physical, though digital is good too) character sheet (or one per class; playbook technology can be borrowed from other games) that is designed to work with the playtest and has helpful reminders of current playtest rules. Makes it easier to build and keep track of current rules.
and besides the cute ideas...you do remember, that there had been plans to bring up a DM - View on the campaign? the last dev-update is 2 months ago and was not remotely helpfull for playing..... the DM's decide on the platform the campaign uses. The DMs are the ones buying your content. Maybe, just maybe consider your target group
@@mnemex dndb is a big old contraint network. It would be some work to set up the UA rules in another instance and implement a switch, which version you use, but it SHOULD be doable and totally be on the development backlog for autumn 2023 ;)
Of course you couldn't migrate characters back and forth, but have a character rooster per Rule Version.
@@wolfgangmader4822 Alternatively: a documented API 😉
Why restrict feats to classes?
Rule suggestion: this is a rule that I already have implemented with my players. When you prepare spells, the in universe explanation of what you’re doing is you are memorizing the spell for the day. It doesn’t make much sense to me that a mage would just forget spells over night, especially if they have keen mind. So instead, rather than preparing spells, you are preparing yourself to be able to handle the magic of certain spells. This means you still know spells even if you don’t have them prepared, which allows players to cast unprepared spells if they’re willing to accept the consequences.
Consequences are determined by the dm or specified on a chart of some kind.
When 1D&D is ready for prime time, here's what I'd like to happen:
1. Put the Artificer in 1D&D's PHB, or at least make sure you quickly add it in an early rule update book à-la XGtE or TCoE.
Also, make sure from the get go to leave some room for an interesting Psionic class, which also should be published in an early rule update book.
And make sure to continue to provide new subclasses and options for classes that are published after the PHB.
2. Update the SRD and OGL to 1D&D.
You have to recognize how essential it is to the 3rd parties and homebrew community, which I sincerely believe helped propelling 5E to the top.
Make sure to also maintain DMsGuild's special licencing and, if possible, add some crosspublication compatibility with D&DBeyond.
3. Publish a document that helps converting 5E homebrewn content to 1D&D.
In particular, a step-by-step for subclasses would be most appreciated, since classes look like they are undergoing significant changes.
Expert job! And thank the gods they are giving inspiration for crit FAILS. Great move. I'm really hoping they make the organization of this material better than the original PHB, which is kinda all over the place. I think these expert classes should become movement-in-battle strategists, like giving Thorn Whip to Rangers - just makes sense.
I really like the classes being released in groups like this, so it allows their differences to shine.
I'm really glad to see that some degree of asymmetry will remain between the classes.
Expert- Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Priest- Paladin, Druid, Cleric
Warrior- Fighter, Barbarian, Monk
Mage- Warlock, Sorcerer, Wizard
This way they don't have to balance Wizard vs Fighter only Wizard vs Warlock
Still I predict:
Bard, Druid, Barbarian, Wizard > Rogue, Paladin, Monk, Warlock
So any class can cast spells as rituals if they can A) cast a given spell and B) the given spell has the ritual tag. Got it.
Sounds like it, so Magic Initiate just got even better. Say you wanted to play some type of archaeologist who is a rogue, get Comprehend Languages as a "ritual" from magic initiate, so it's like your character is figuring out what the language means.
I'm assuming the spell still has to be prepared/learned/whatever, not just "it's a spell my class can get". And I'm guessing the Wizard will still have the ability to cast rituals right out of their book even if they aren't prepared for the day. I'm not entirely sure I'm a fan of making ritual-casting just a universal aspect of spellcasting, but it's not gamebreaking for me either.
@@pdegan2814 I personally like it since before some classes had the same spells but couldn't ritual cast because they simply lacked a feature, this made the least sense in regards to Warlocks. Why did Warlocks, the people that sign pacts, not be THE ritual casting class? You had to specifically pick up a certain pact and invocation to do so, which ironically was a subpar choice for optimization.
I am wondering what they're changing to wizards to make up for this being kind of their thing though; being an absolute toolbox of ritual spells is one of the few reasons you'd choose wizard over say, sorcerer. If Sorcs can just ritual cast as well, why wouldn't you choose them?
@@Deiwos0 Wizards already have a wider array of spell options along with having much more spells known than the Sorcerer. Medium to High level optimizations already consider Wizard anywhere from slightly stronger to immensely more powerful than its charismatic counterparts thanks simply to the ability to select spells (and Arcane Recovery being better for spell slot recovery than Flexible Casting).
Love the mindset of testing out things that are weird and different! It's the right time to get a little crazy and out of the box :D
I really appreciate that you're doing iterative feedback to get the best possible version of the game. Great work!
I wished for the nat 1 = give inspiration, for so long.
I think that it's the best way to give inspiration without breaking the game.
If you have played MotW you know that there is nothing better than failing a roll but still getting something out of it (gaining experience).
put subtitles on the video, pls
Make sure to give the monk the ability to use Dexterity instead of Strength to establish the Save DC of their Grapple and Shove unarmed attacks.
That would finally make monks good grapplers, which really should be in the toolbox of any self-respecting martial artist.
I look forward to seeing the next Unearthed Arcana for D&D One!
interesting that they’re taking on party roles; makes sense since a lot of video games based on d&d-style mechanics actually does make that internal distinction, so this makes it way easier for new players to understand.
Thanks for preserving the game balance and combating bloat yet still allowing for creativity and the delight of leveling up and making magic magical. I have forever been trying to reproduce something similar to 4ed's Avenger class. Maybe ranger as an expert might fill that concept.
You can sort of do it with paladin of Vengance, but not really; the stats are all wrong and you're wearing armor.
paladin/rogue multiclass, dex based, although you'd need to houserule an ability to make a 2-handed weapon finesse if you want to retain the giant weapons.
@@robbunchanumbers Leaves out the amazingness that is the int/wis Avenger (which works because Int is an AC stat in 4e as you'll recall). Probably best approach with the existing system is a hexblade vengeance paladin--that way you can wear armor for AC, swing heavy weapons with CHA, and vow of emnity, hunter's mark nad misty step for the mobility and damage marking.
I always figured the core of the avenger was a striker who could find, maneuver to get to someone and then strike, perhaps a divine rogue similar to an arcane trickster but divine magic. Ranger has find and maneuver spells/ability and some striker maybe ability? Never seemed to work out. I still have yet to try out theif acolyte ( for climbing speed and religion skill and connections) with ritual magic feat for augury and divination and other cleric spells. Avenger paladin is cool but it is its own thing.
@@ReadingDave I mean. that's basically how avenging paladin can work. damage, damage, damge, mobility. so you can identify the target thar needs to die, misty step into their face, and launch an attack sequence. It' s largely messed up by 5e having a weak sauce action economy (having a spell that was teleport 30 and attack would help a lot), but the intent is clear.
I am glad you guys are doing this so openly. Its really smart and makes me feel like I'm designing the game too.
Now this feels like a playtest!
Really seems like they are listening to us. As some of the things he initially talked about was talked about in some communities. Really brings hope for OneD&D
If Artificer is not included as a core class of One D&D, I will be profoundly disappointed.
excited to go over this as soon as it's available
Very happy about the crit changes being reverted and the nat 1 inspiration rules.
They're not reverting them! They haven't even seen the feedback on them! They're testing out multiple ideas and seeing what sticks.
@@mnemex Maybe more listening comprehension and less reply button. JC literally said the rules for crits in this UA playtest are going back to the 2014 rules. They also say they've had over 40,000 surveys so they have seen feedback.
I've been bouncing Unearthed Arcana content at the most experienced DM I know. He's still apprehensive about some of the changes being floated in this series but even he's excited about what's happening with feats, epic boons etc.
Please please make sure to work on the disparity between Martials and Spellcasters, spell casters of 11th level or higher can wipe out whole armies single-handedly in just a single turn, they can casually, on a whim, change and leave a permanent impact on the world, and then fighters can make an extra attack, barbarians can do slightly more damage they score critical hit, rogues can't fail a roll that they're proficient in, a roll mind you, that any spell caster wouldn't even need to make in the first place. Man it sure is a good thing that monks get a whole feature dedicated to reducing the amount of fall damage they take, mean while any wizard could just casually cast featherfall, and then still have tons of spells they have access to and it would just reduce all of the fall damage of the entire group to zero.
Every time I hear them mention the Artificer, I get really happy. I just started playing DnD more regularly a couple of years ago, and decided to go with an Artificer because I wanted something that would allow me to get creative with machine designs while also allowing for lots of mechanical depth. That the Artificer is not only returning but will be making its way into the game early on is great news.
Fantastic idea for the group classification, I love the connection it gives the classes. Also pre-made spel lists are brilliant 👏
Just include Artificer in too. It needs some love, new subclasses, etc
Really disappointed to hear ASIs and feats are still tied together. You shouldn't have to pick between cool interesting options (feats) and boring but necessary competence (ASIs). It's like choosing between ice cream and broccoli.
As someone who just turned 40 and has almost always chosen ice cream over broccoli, trust me - you should be choosing broccoli more often
I hope they have more “half feats” where you get an ASI bump + cool feature.
I know it probably won't happen till next week but I can't wait for the next video playtest video!!
I think these bigger groups of classes is such a cool idea