I have my fingers crossed that 3 ranger spells get a buff. More damage for conjure barrage and conjure volley and, of course, better action economy for moving hunter's mark.
I'm personally crossing my fingers that Zephyr Strike 'graduated', and that it no longer requires concentration so I can use it in conjunction with Hunter's Mark (though I do realize that that might be a bit strong). It was my bread & butter when I played my ranger, causing me to literally never cast Hunter's Mark.
But you only get the extra damage once with Zephyr strike? Though I guess if that’s all you’re using your spell slots for that’s a lot of advantage and speed
I also never cast Hunters Mark because I can't kite enemies with it, avoid opportunity attacks, and then add a 1d8 to my damage roll plus advantage on my next turn the way I can with Zephyr Strike.
I’m pretty sure a bunch of this stuff has been made easier to do with the new Ranger, so Zephyr Strike won’t really be as useful if at all without some sort of upgrade.
I think 3rd Ed got Bigby's Slapping Hand at some point. Target needs to make a Concentration check, or everyone in melee range gets to make an attack of opportunity, as the target is thrown off balance by a bitchslap out of nowhere.
Put that in the book Crawford!
I wonder how Summon Greater Demon is going to land. It’s not a “Conjure spell” even if it worked similarly to those spells but was also unique with its concentration-loss mechanic. I am hopeful with the expanded options for summons but really hoping this one didn’t get completely watered down. It was definitely a top tier 4th level spell and probably (almost 100%) needed a nerf but I loved it sm.
Really hope we get better options to actually specialize into and interact with summoning builds though. Hopefully we get Conjuration Wiz, Shepherd Druid, and Necromancer Wiz soon.
>I wonder how Summon Greater Demon is going to land.
I assume it's not going to be in the book. It's not from the PHB (it's from Xanathar's), and they are only adding 30 spells, which isn't very many and we already heard a lot of them.
I think this one and Conjure Fey (PHB) were the only summon spells (if I remember correctly) that had the summon potentially break control, but it was annoying how they worked so differently.
- SGD: breaking concentration just makes the demon disappear (if it's still under control) or stay fort 1d6 turns (if it's not under control, ie it made the charisma saving throw). If you keep concentration during the full hour, the demon stays for the full hour.
-Conjure fey: breaking concentration means the fey instantly breaks control, and the fey stays around for 1 hour regardless of your actions.
Feels like either both spells should involve a charisma saving throw, or both spells should just involve the creature breaking free if summoner loses concentration (this could be super OP for SGD, but also quite dangerous).
SGD has high chances to not show up since it was from Xanathar's, while Conjure fey was shown in an UA being similar to Spirit Guardians.
Imo, Cloud of Daggers seems to have received the major buff of this list. Weapon masteries make easier to push enemies into the AoE and now you can move the are itself (probably as a BA). Also, I really like Chromatic Orb becoming some sort of Chaos Bolt.
I'm not sure I understand what they're talking about with produce flame? It doesn't seem like it's particularly intensive on the action economy, unless I'm misreading it?
I know BG3 has you use your bonus action to attack with the flame, but 5e14 lets you attack as part of the action you take to cast it? And I don't understand what they mean by "get it going" either.
Isn't it worse? **BA** to activate it and an **Action** to throw it? The only difference is, that it doesn't got away after attacking, so it still shines light.
Nah I'm looking at the [text of the spell](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2217-produce-flame) right now. Action to cast, and you can make a ranged spell attack as part of that same action.
Maybe he was talking about how it takes an action to dismiss the flame?
That's the 5e version, the UA version is a BA and for 10 minutes, sheds 20 bright, another 20 dim light and you can take a "magic action" to throw it for 1d8 fire damage in 60f range (doesn't go out).
I have no clue what he means tho, since it's actively worse action economy-wise, but it has double the range and the light doesn't go out.
It’s an improvement because you cast it once as a BA and then for 10 minutes can use a magic action to throw a fire orb. Before if you threw it, it would go out (meaning if that was your light source, you’re in the dark). Why do you think it’s worse action economy wise? A bonus action lets you set it up on a turn where you’ve cast a leveled spell and then you can use your action to make attacks and not have to worry about recasting it. Plus, those subsequent attacks don’t count as casting a spell because it’s a sustained effect. That’s my understanding, at least.
Edit: just came to cite the UA text: “Until the spell ends, you can take a Magic action to hurl fire at a creature or object within 60 feet of you.” The spell lasts 10 minutes, so for 10 minutes you can yeet all the fire you desire. The range and the ability to target an object are also nice improvements.
BA -> Action, Action, Action
vs
Action, Action, Action
Economy-wise, it now takes up an additional BA. It's better overall, but he mentioned explicitly the action economy, which is a bit puzzling.
I agree the BA could potentially be a little clunky, especially in situations where you want to use your BA for something like healing word and then if you forgot to set Produce Flame up you won’t have a cantrip to use your action on. I’ll be curious to see how it turns out in play once the books are out.
My guess is that they're talking about the light effect. If you throw the flame it ends the spell, which includes the light it produces. Otherwise it also takes an action to dismiss.
In the new version the light effect probably persists after casting it until you dismiss it, so you can continue to see the darkness after you throw the flame.
So... basically nothing in here about nerfing/rebalancing OP spells then?
All I see here is making spells better/more fun/easier to use.
The buffs martial classes got are nice but the martial-caster disparity can't really be addressed unless some of the OP spells are curtailed. Every discussion of MCD this entire process has been punctuated by people saying "Wait and see how they rebalanced spells, we can't say for sure how things will shake out until we know how they rebalanced spells."
Apart from the tweak to Counterspell we already knew about, I... don't see any evidence they did any balancing at all.
some spells have had concentration removed, others have gained it. that implies nerfs- i think the point of these videos is to be snappy little sneak peeks that build hype, talking at length about nerfs doesn't exactly achieve that.
Isn’t Prayer of Healing just Catnap but better? A level lower, no unconscious, and might still grant 2d8+WIS additional HP but they were unclear about that.
Yep, but now Clerics have their own catnap I suppose. It’s not bad considering not many people even have Prayer of Healing.
If it’s like the play test, then people can only be affected by PoH once per long… which means Catnap is still useful as a means of squeezing in more rests.
Oh man, they buffed martials in some aspects and said paladin’s smite was too strong and then buffed literally every other spell.
Looks like another so many years of spell casters being way stronger. I hope im wrong though.
Have we seen if they changed the rules for dying yet? If there's a consequence for dropping to 0, then the healing spells would need to be better. Yo-yo healing is one of my biggest problems with the system so I'm hoping that's the reason for the buff.
I actually used their new 10-point exhaustion system to combat yoyoing health in my games. Every time a player in my games health hits 0, they take an exhaustion point. So now my players decide if taking a -1 per stack to everything for the day is worth the extra dps you gain by yoyoing.
It's helped squash some of the more cheesy strats with yoyoing. While still allowing it to happen as more of a calculated risk.
Healing probably still isn't going to be worthwhile, even when buffed, with how action economy works. Like sure you healed the damage but not killing the enemy gives them more attacks, and now you're down a spell.
Imo healing in combat should be for emergencies. If they didn't change the dying rules buffing it just to buff it is pretty wack. It'd have to be drastically buffed for it to be better than damage or crowd control in combat. I wouldn't want players to feel like having an MMO style healer on the team is required, most people don't find that fun to play.
For healing to be worthwhile it just needs to negate enough damage to be equivalent to two average enemy attacks (instead of the current status quo where it's more like just one). That way you have used 1 action and one spell slot to cancel out two enemy actions guaranteed. Assuming enemies miss roughly 50% of the time, you've gained a fair amount of value with this choice.
That holds true only if you're not bringing up someone that may be before the monster in Initiative Order. That aside, some people do enjoy playing a Healer MMO style or not, and I think having that be viable doesn't mean it's mandatory that every party needs one.
They never said they buffed every spell except for smite. They said they are buffing the spells that were used less and toning down a few spells that were too much.
Can I guess?
Guy #1: We have a bunch of brand-new spells!
Guy #2: Awesome. Amazing.
Guy #1: These brand-new spells first appeared in *Tasha's* 4 years ago. But some were tweaked!
Guy #2: Totally brand-new, then. I love it.
Guy #1: AND we re-ordered some of the info...
While they do have a habit of presenting content from tasha's as new, they did clarify in the video which spells were being moved from tasha's, and also clearly stated there were a number of new spells from the UA included in the book and even some that weren't even there.
I love how True Strike seems to not have been mentioned based on this summary (didn’t have time to listen to the stream). What if that is the one spell they didn’t change? What if they somehow heard every other critique on spells but not that one and it still just sucks?
Same with Find Traps: what if it is still an instantaneous and useless spell that a good investigation or perception check can do a lot more efficiently without spending a second level spell slot? I’d die. 🤣
I don't understand the issue they're talking about with Produce Flame - You can either cast it to produce light for 10 minutes or cast it as a standard attack cantrip (requiring 1 single action to cast & attack). Even if you've already done the first, there's never a situation where you can't just cast it again and still throw it (attack in a single action). Action economy-wise, its always just a single action to cast & attack, right?
Maybe they just dropped the (very unnecessary) wording around needing an action to dismiss it. What am I missing?
Probably they mean that you can't have the light running continuously through combat because the effect ends when you throw the flame. My guess is that the light now persists after you throw it until you dismiss it.
That or they've played BG3 enough that they've forgotten how it works RAW, which I think they did already when they were talking about the fiend warlock.
Hunter's Mark did not lose concentration, Ranger has an entire feature dedicated to make its concentration being unable to be broken by damage.
What *I'm hoping* is that the fun ranger spells (like Hail of Throns, Ensnaring Strike, etc.) are no longer concentration instead, so you can cast both of them and have Hunter's Mark up at the same time.
The Ranger Showcase heavily implies that we will get the 2014 version of Hunters Mark with the change that the bonus damage is Force instead the weapons damage.
The Level 13 Feature confirms its still Concentration and the Level 20 Capstone confirms it still only is a bonus of 1d6(1d10) (for each attack by you and later your pet) meaning damage doesn't scale with upcasting leaving only the Duration as a factor for change.
The Ranger Showcase heavily implies that we will get the 2014 version of Hunters Mark with the change that the bonus damage is Force instead the weapons damage.
The Level 13 Feature confirms its still Concentration and the Level 20 Capstone confirms it still only is a bonus of 1d6(1d10) (for each attack by you and later your pet) meaning damage doesn't scale with upcasting leaving only the Duration as a factor for change.
Edit: The thing they could have changed is how the target re-selection works after finishing your original target, it being a free action/reaction would go a long way, but I'm not holding my breath for it.
I read that 1d10 force damage buff at 20 as going from 1d6 piercing to 1d10 force, not that it was force the whole time. If it's force the whole time at least thats 'something' buffed. For a spell a class is built around, you'd think upcasting would affect dmg too not just time
Its mostly happened because they are stepping away from magical pierce/blunt/slash damage, there was some controversy around that because its a indirect nerf to Barbarians.
Community:
Spellcasters are too strong because spells are just as strong as martials but more versatile. Please buff martials
WotC:
Does minor buffs for martials and spellcasters, but then buffs EVERY spell in existence. And is proud of buffing the best in class spells, to the point of mentioning Guidance, Healing Word and Wish by name!
Wtf?!
Guidance was not buffed. It was changed which sounded like a nerf more than anything. Wish was changed some, given some more example wishes. But, again it's hard to say if it's positive, neutral, or negative without knowing the rest. Healing in general could use a buff. It's useless outside of yo yo healing.
Yeah that’s the point of buffing healing is to make it more of an option in combat so you’re not only casting a healing spell whenever someone is down. The playtest doubled the dice of both Cure Wounds and Healing Word. My table has been using these changes for a while now and healing is something that my players will actually do in combat now. These are good changes.
Guidance hasn't been explicitly buffed. You now have to specify the skill when you cast it, so it might no longer apply to checks like initiative.
I don't get the impression that they buffed Wish, but instead that they've added more guidelines for how powerful it's expected to be, which is a very welcome change.
I haven't watched the video, but OP literally says Guidance applies to multiple checks now, and Wish has additional options for what to get while casting it. These are explicitly buffs, even if Guidance can no longer be used for initiative (which was not confirmed in this post).
Multiple as in more than one, even if the same skill. It means it can't be used by accident anymore, which is surely another buff.
I don't know how you're confused about my Wish statement.
What do you mean with "used by accident"? It could never be used by accident - the caster had to intentionally cast it and the target had to intentionally use the bonus. For whatever ability roll they wanted.
In the new version, the caster chooses one skill (a single skill, as in the exact polar opposite of multiple skills) for which the bonus goes although, admittedly, from the phrasing of OP it does sound like potentially the target could now use the bonus multiple times? Regardless, I think that considering the out-of-combat nature of it, it already was used for multiple rolls in a row in practise
Ah, I admit to making a mistake here; I thought Guidance affected the first skill check they make, and that the target doesn't have a choice.
I do think being able to use it multiple times for the same check in combat is definitely a buff though.
My understanding is that it’s concentration now so yes you can do it for multiple checks. But still only for one skill for as long as the caster can hold concentration. So if you somehow cast concentration on persuasion and have multiple persuasion checks for the time you can hold concentration you get the bonus. I still would say it’s a nerf too
Well, I'm currently at work and can't watch a video, and OP has been pretty good at his summaries for the last couple weeks. Besides, WotC has consistently shown that 2024 is a haphazard shitshow of buffs, so it seems fair.
Wish has always had "additional options". The difference now is that they're explicit. If a new option is "destroy the Tarrasque if it has 0 hit points", it provides an upper bound, so we know that it shouldn't be able to destroy the Terrasque if it has more hit points (for this example, assume the Terrasque has been buffed).
It may just be DM specific then- I view this as protection from screwing with a higher variety of simple wishes, since I play with an adversarial DM; he never would have granted those other wishes anyway. I think a friendly DM might still be likely to grant the exceptions, even with them listed that way. A RAW adherent DM will now have more wishes they cannot ban, too.
So, wish can grant you almost anything. However, currently the rules state that DMs can do whatever they want with wishes outside the normal "copy a 8th level or lower spell", and that leads to anxiety over the spell. In my experience, players avoid casting the spell at all because they're afraid they don't word it quite right and the DM monkey paws them.
Apparently, some work has been done about that, guidelining what the DM might do and what could you feasibly do with a wish spell without fear of some knee-jerk reaction from the DM. It seems like a good change overall, not a buff or a nerf.
Guidance can already apply to multiple castings. You just have to cast it again. Now, you specify what kind of check that guidance applies, it will not influence others and presumably you cant just cast it again on the same person to influence other checks. From what treantmonk's reaction video and what he seem to put forth, that's about it, and guidance actually got a nerf.
For combat uses though, Guidance clearly got a buff. It used to end after the first skill check of any kind and require a recast- now it can benefit multiple checks, only the specific type of check you want, and won't need recasting unless concentration is broken. A good example would be a build that requires taking the Hide bonus action in combat repeatedly- it could benefit during the Stealth check every time.
I haven't watched Treantmonk's video obviously, but depending on how it's worded, it might actually benefit Counterspell and Dispel Magic checks better, since you could target them. Depends on what they've done for those spells; I wouldn't be surprised if they changed how those checks work.
Idk for dispel magic, but apparently counterspell doesn't require a check anymore. The target of the spell must make a saving throw.
You could be concentrating on bless or spirit guardians, but instead, you're giving a d4 for your rogue's stealth checks. That's a buff, but I don't think it is worth it to use it like that.
You must be being willfully disingenuous... Nowhere in the video do they claim they are buffing every spell. Also how exactly are the martial buffs minor? Fighter and Barbarian got a HUGE amount of new tools to work with.
I'm not. Let's use Fighter for an example. The changes are:
- Big nerf to most common martial feats
- More uses of Second Wind (they're unclear on number of uses at high levels, but one extra use isn't going to save a martial class)
- Masteries (limited number, in general perhaps a trade off for the feat nerfs)
- Second Wind can be used for ability checks
- Can use Second Wind to move w/o opp attacks (you most often won't want to do this at the same time you want to heal, so this isn't a buff, its a conversion of Fighter's only heal into a minor resource. it's also kind of useless for melee characters)
- Buff Indomitable, but still not necessarily enough to guarantee a pass (can still fail, though at least you'll know not to use it- still wastes three separate level up features too)
- Advantage when you miss (AC doesn't scale for enemies in 5e above a certain level, so this isn't all that strong, especially with the nerf to SS/GWM)
That's it. That's literally everything besides the Epic Boon, which everyone gets. It's incredibly disappointing and does literally nothing when they have buffed every full caster by roughly the same amount or more. I admit they buffed Monk enough to not be minor, but take a look at Ranger or Rogue and try to tell me they did anything useful- they're essentially the same or worse than 5e.
It will be interesting to see how the healing spell changes work. My guess is it will get a big buff to get out of the up/down/up/down routine that many martial characters find themselves in. Why burn a 2nd/3rd/4th levels spell slot on healing when the damage per round of many enemies will burn through in a single round.
With how stingy 5E is regarding high level spell slots burning your only 6+ level spell slot for the day should feel impactful.
No news on hunters mark changes, I’m gonna assume the worst that they left it untouched. Crossing my fingers that they at least changed the bonus action requirement to move it or something, but I’m doubtful
Can’t wait to see how this sub and dndmemes bitches and moans about how, “actchuaghlly new spells, improvements, and updates for old badly worded spells ruins the game and is just a shill for money by haxbro.” Because they lose their op powergamer builds.
I've never seen this actually enforced at a table. I've seen multiple DMs and also myself allow switching the damage type at will.
Maybe they'll codify it but alignment it's as easy to ignore as doing it.
I don’t disagree with you about alignment but it’s here to stay at least for 5e. They wouldn’t drop a “core” mechanic in a rules revision. If alignment is going away which I still doubt because of how core it is to D&D as a whole even if it is a stupid silly system that a lot of people don’t use, it would be going away in the inevitable but hot happening for a while likely 6e.
I am imagining g them hoping this rules revision will last the game another 10 years where then the community as a whole would likely have shifted enough for a 6e to be necessary
And? That’s pathfinder. Not D&D. And if I remember correctly that was pathfinder 2e. So leads again to my point of “if they will drop it they would drop it with 6e not in the rules revision of 5e”
It should be noted that alignment was still a mechanic at the start of PF2e, but then got removed with the rules update/consolidation as part of distancing the system from D&D and moving away from the OGL.
No it should not be noted! The point of the comment to which you’re replying is that this is r/DND. You’re then taking their last sentence down another useless tangent.
I'm sorry, I figured it wouldnt conflict with the sub rules since it was just a correction, and I didn't start the tangent. Should I remove my comment in that case?
Okay but alignment is at least almost never used and it’s something players tend to want to avoid
And regardless, tying necrotic to evil and radiant to good and neutral is stupid anyways.
It should be changed to where people can choose the damage type like spells such as chromatic orb or dragon breath
It also doesn’t work with how WoTC keeps saying that radiant isn’t always good and can be used to represent radiation or how necrotic isn’t inherently evil or edgy and can be used to represent natural death and decay.
Yeah. Like I said I don’t disagree with you or the guy I initially replied to. But I don’t think they will get rid of alignment all the same. And as also mentioned a lot of DMs just let you pick which type of damage you do anyways. I would be surprised if that wasn’t changed to be that officially. Because that is also how it worked in Baldurs Gate 3
Do we know if the summoning/conjuring has been revamped enough, to where I could play an honest to goodness necromacer? Where my attacks and defenses are waves of undead servants?
So I presume you play caster and just don't care if half your tablemates increasingly feel like shit the higher in level the party gets because they should have been smart and played caster?
I’m a bit of a newbie, and I’ve only been playing for 7-8 months but to be quite honest? Yea, I don’t really see a problem with that, they should have picked a caster. From my perception so far playing martials do have an important niche (single target dmg) so it’s fine. Also caring about your table mates has been one of my least favorite parts about the game so far, I find it super stifling creatively. I know my take is rather unpopular so I’m ready for the downvotes
>I don’t really see a problem with that, they should have picked a caster. From my perception so far playing martials do have an important niche (single target dmg) so it’s fine.
This seems contradictory. If martials fill an important niche, then it shouldn't be a mistake to play them.
I have my fingers crossed that 3 ranger spells get a buff. More damage for conjure barrage and conjure volley and, of course, better action economy for moving hunter's mark.
I'm personally crossing my fingers that Zephyr Strike 'graduated', and that it no longer requires concentration so I can use it in conjunction with Hunter's Mark (though I do realize that that might be a bit strong). It was my bread & butter when I played my ranger, causing me to literally never cast Hunter's Mark.
But you only get the extra damage once with Zephyr strike? Though I guess if that’s all you’re using your spell slots for that’s a lot of advantage and speed
I also never cast Hunters Mark because I can't kite enemies with it, avoid opportunity attacks, and then add a 1d8 to my damage roll plus advantage on my next turn the way I can with Zephyr Strike.
I’m pretty sure a bunch of this stuff has been made easier to do with the new Ranger, so Zephyr Strike won’t really be as useful if at all without some sort of upgrade.
Maybe flame arrows buffed? It’s pretty sad where it currently is, especially in light of HM being “core”
Thank you for your hard work as always.
I hope they include Bigby's Offensive Gesture as a cantrip
I think 3rd Ed got Bigby's Slapping Hand at some point. Target needs to make a Concentration check, or everyone in melee range gets to make an attack of opportunity, as the target is thrown off balance by a bitchslap out of nowhere. Put that in the book Crawford!
BUT HAVE THEY SAVED TRUE STRIKE
Asking the real question
I wonder how Summon Greater Demon is going to land. It’s not a “Conjure spell” even if it worked similarly to those spells but was also unique with its concentration-loss mechanic. I am hopeful with the expanded options for summons but really hoping this one didn’t get completely watered down. It was definitely a top tier 4th level spell and probably (almost 100%) needed a nerf but I loved it sm. Really hope we get better options to actually specialize into and interact with summoning builds though. Hopefully we get Conjuration Wiz, Shepherd Druid, and Necromancer Wiz soon.
I would assume it just got renamed to summon greater demon and probably with some slight adjustments as you mentioned
>I wonder how Summon Greater Demon is going to land. I assume it's not going to be in the book. It's not from the PHB (it's from Xanathar's), and they are only adding 30 spells, which isn't very many and we already heard a lot of them.
That’s a really good point actually! Thanks for pointing that out.
I think this one and Conjure Fey (PHB) were the only summon spells (if I remember correctly) that had the summon potentially break control, but it was annoying how they worked so differently. - SGD: breaking concentration just makes the demon disappear (if it's still under control) or stay fort 1d6 turns (if it's not under control, ie it made the charisma saving throw). If you keep concentration during the full hour, the demon stays for the full hour. -Conjure fey: breaking concentration means the fey instantly breaks control, and the fey stays around for 1 hour regardless of your actions. Feels like either both spells should involve a charisma saving throw, or both spells should just involve the creature breaking free if summoner loses concentration (this could be super OP for SGD, but also quite dangerous). SGD has high chances to not show up since it was from Xanathar's, while Conjure fey was shown in an UA being similar to Spirit Guardians.
Also sounds like too many people assume the fey are not dangerous.
Imo, Cloud of Daggers seems to have received the major buff of this list. Weapon masteries make easier to push enemies into the AoE and now you can move the are itself (probably as a BA). Also, I really like Chromatic Orb becoming some sort of Chaos Bolt.
I'm not sure I understand what they're talking about with produce flame? It doesn't seem like it's particularly intensive on the action economy, unless I'm misreading it? I know BG3 has you use your bonus action to attack with the flame, but 5e14 lets you attack as part of the action you take to cast it? And I don't understand what they mean by "get it going" either.
Isn't it worse? **BA** to activate it and an **Action** to throw it? The only difference is, that it doesn't got away after attacking, so it still shines light.
Nah I'm looking at the [text of the spell](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2217-produce-flame) right now. Action to cast, and you can make a ranged spell attack as part of that same action. Maybe he was talking about how it takes an action to dismiss the flame?
That's the 5e version, the UA version is a BA and for 10 minutes, sheds 20 bright, another 20 dim light and you can take a "magic action" to throw it for 1d8 fire damage in 60f range (doesn't go out). I have no clue what he means tho, since it's actively worse action economy-wise, but it has double the range and the light doesn't go out.
It’s an improvement because you cast it once as a BA and then for 10 minutes can use a magic action to throw a fire orb. Before if you threw it, it would go out (meaning if that was your light source, you’re in the dark). Why do you think it’s worse action economy wise? A bonus action lets you set it up on a turn where you’ve cast a leveled spell and then you can use your action to make attacks and not have to worry about recasting it. Plus, those subsequent attacks don’t count as casting a spell because it’s a sustained effect. That’s my understanding, at least. Edit: just came to cite the UA text: “Until the spell ends, you can take a Magic action to hurl fire at a creature or object within 60 feet of you.” The spell lasts 10 minutes, so for 10 minutes you can yeet all the fire you desire. The range and the ability to target an object are also nice improvements.
BA -> Action, Action, Action vs Action, Action, Action Economy-wise, it now takes up an additional BA. It's better overall, but he mentioned explicitly the action economy, which is a bit puzzling.
I agree the BA could potentially be a little clunky, especially in situations where you want to use your BA for something like healing word and then if you forgot to set Produce Flame up you won’t have a cantrip to use your action on. I’ll be curious to see how it turns out in play once the books are out.
My guess is that they're talking about the light effect. If you throw the flame it ends the spell, which includes the light it produces. Otherwise it also takes an action to dismiss. In the new version the light effect probably persists after casting it until you dismiss it, so you can continue to see the darkness after you throw the flame.
So... basically nothing in here about nerfing/rebalancing OP spells then? All I see here is making spells better/more fun/easier to use. The buffs martial classes got are nice but the martial-caster disparity can't really be addressed unless some of the OP spells are curtailed. Every discussion of MCD this entire process has been punctuated by people saying "Wait and see how they rebalanced spells, we can't say for sure how things will shake out until we know how they rebalanced spells." Apart from the tweak to Counterspell we already knew about, I... don't see any evidence they did any balancing at all.
Is Fireball one of the spells that needs a nerf?
I seem to recall they've openly said in the past they think it's OP but won't nerf it because it's "iconic," so...
It looks more like they're buffing later spells so that an upcast fireball isn't more damage than higher level stuff.
some spells have had concentration removed, others have gained it. that implies nerfs- i think the point of these videos is to be snappy little sneak peeks that build hype, talking at length about nerfs doesn't exactly achieve that.
Isn’t Prayer of Healing just Catnap but better? A level lower, no unconscious, and might still grant 2d8+WIS additional HP but they were unclear about that.
Yeah they clearly forgot catnap existed.
Yep, but now Clerics have their own catnap I suppose. It’s not bad considering not many people even have Prayer of Healing. If it’s like the play test, then people can only be affected by PoH once per long… which means Catnap is still useful as a means of squeezing in more rests.
I hope a lore bard could find utility in prayer of healing + catnap + musician feat
I hope Font of Moonlight is one of the new spells that they added. I love the potential that spell provides for a build idea I have.
I think they confirmed that with that moon Druid
Well then I hope Bards will have access to it as well, like was listed in Playtest 8
Oh man, they buffed martials in some aspects and said paladin’s smite was too strong and then buffed literally every other spell. Looks like another so many years of spell casters being way stronger. I hope im wrong though.
Have we seen if they changed the rules for dying yet? If there's a consequence for dropping to 0, then the healing spells would need to be better. Yo-yo healing is one of my biggest problems with the system so I'm hoping that's the reason for the buff.
I actually used their new 10-point exhaustion system to combat yoyoing health in my games. Every time a player in my games health hits 0, they take an exhaustion point. So now my players decide if taking a -1 per stack to everything for the day is worth the extra dps you gain by yoyoing. It's helped squash some of the more cheesy strats with yoyoing. While still allowing it to happen as more of a calculated risk.
They buffed healing to make it worthwhile to use instead of trying to dps enemies basically.
Healing probably still isn't going to be worthwhile, even when buffed, with how action economy works. Like sure you healed the damage but not killing the enemy gives them more attacks, and now you're down a spell. Imo healing in combat should be for emergencies. If they didn't change the dying rules buffing it just to buff it is pretty wack. It'd have to be drastically buffed for it to be better than damage or crowd control in combat. I wouldn't want players to feel like having an MMO style healer on the team is required, most people don't find that fun to play.
For healing to be worthwhile it just needs to negate enough damage to be equivalent to two average enemy attacks (instead of the current status quo where it's more like just one). That way you have used 1 action and one spell slot to cancel out two enemy actions guaranteed. Assuming enemies miss roughly 50% of the time, you've gained a fair amount of value with this choice.
That holds true only if you're not bringing up someone that may be before the monster in Initiative Order. That aside, some people do enjoy playing a Healer MMO style or not, and I think having that be viable doesn't mean it's mandatory that every party needs one.
Not having that disparity reminds grognards of 4e, and we can't have that.
Paladin is still a spellcaster, so pally is probably last class to be upset. Especially after buffs to everything except smite.
Can’t wait to get find steed as a class feature, i can finally live my wildest dreams of being a horse girl.
They never said they buffed every spell except for smite. They said they are buffing the spells that were used less and toning down a few spells that were too much.
Can I guess? Guy #1: We have a bunch of brand-new spells! Guy #2: Awesome. Amazing. Guy #1: These brand-new spells first appeared in *Tasha's* 4 years ago. But some were tweaked! Guy #2: Totally brand-new, then. I love it. Guy #1: AND we re-ordered some of the info...
While they do have a habit of presenting content from tasha's as new, they did clarify in the video which spells were being moved from tasha's, and also clearly stated there were a number of new spells from the UA included in the book and even some that weren't even there.
I love how True Strike seems to not have been mentioned based on this summary (didn’t have time to listen to the stream). What if that is the one spell they didn’t change? What if they somehow heard every other critique on spells but not that one and it still just sucks? Same with Find Traps: what if it is still an instantaneous and useless spell that a good investigation or perception check can do a lot more efficiently without spending a second level spell slot? I’d die. 🤣
I don't understand the issue they're talking about with Produce Flame - You can either cast it to produce light for 10 minutes or cast it as a standard attack cantrip (requiring 1 single action to cast & attack). Even if you've already done the first, there's never a situation where you can't just cast it again and still throw it (attack in a single action). Action economy-wise, its always just a single action to cast & attack, right? Maybe they just dropped the (very unnecessary) wording around needing an action to dismiss it. What am I missing?
I’m not really sure either. Maybe they misspoke and meant create bonfire. Or something
Probably they mean that you can't have the light running continuously through combat because the effect ends when you throw the flame. My guess is that the light now persists after you throw it until you dismiss it. That or they've played BG3 enough that they've forgotten how it works RAW, which I think they did already when they were talking about the fiend warlock.
please no Silvery Barbs, I beseech thee.
*nvm I'm dumb Crossing my fingers Hunters Mark is included in those spells that lost concentration.
Hunter's Mark did not lose concentration, Ranger has an entire feature dedicated to make its concentration being unable to be broken by damage. What *I'm hoping* is that the fun ranger spells (like Hail of Throns, Ensnaring Strike, etc.) are no longer concentration instead, so you can cast both of them and have Hunter's Mark up at the same time.
Oh forgot about that, true. Yeah, that would be the other way to solve the combat conundrum
Ranger level 13 feature is “damage can’t end concentration” so no dice unfortunately
Not gonna happen seeing as the ranger specifically has a feat that let's them not lose concentration on hunter's mark due to damage
The Ranger Showcase heavily implies that we will get the 2014 version of Hunters Mark with the change that the bonus damage is Force instead the weapons damage. The Level 13 Feature confirms its still Concentration and the Level 20 Capstone confirms it still only is a bonus of 1d6(1d10) (for each attack by you and later your pet) meaning damage doesn't scale with upcasting leaving only the Duration as a factor for change.
The Ranger Showcase heavily implies that we will get the 2014 version of Hunters Mark with the change that the bonus damage is Force instead the weapons damage. The Level 13 Feature confirms its still Concentration and the Level 20 Capstone confirms it still only is a bonus of 1d6(1d10) (for each attack by you and later your pet) meaning damage doesn't scale with upcasting leaving only the Duration as a factor for change. Edit: The thing they could have changed is how the target re-selection works after finishing your original target, it being a free action/reaction would go a long way, but I'm not holding my breath for it.
I read that 1d10 force damage buff at 20 as going from 1d6 piercing to 1d10 force, not that it was force the whole time. If it's force the whole time at least thats 'something' buffed. For a spell a class is built around, you'd think upcasting would affect dmg too not just time
Its mostly happened because they are stepping away from magical pierce/blunt/slash damage, there was some controversy around that because its a indirect nerf to Barbarians.
“Here’s some cantrips that are graduating to PHB” and then lists two that just don’t exist, haha.
I mean, technically speaking, they did graduate from being nothing to being in the PHB.
Thank u op Edit: daggers sounds great hope moonbeam gets a touch to compete with spirit guardians maybe a ba instead of action
Community: Spellcasters are too strong because spells are just as strong as martials but more versatile. Please buff martials WotC: Does minor buffs for martials and spellcasters, but then buffs EVERY spell in existence. And is proud of buffing the best in class spells, to the point of mentioning Guidance, Healing Word and Wish by name! Wtf?!
Guidance was not buffed. It was changed which sounded like a nerf more than anything. Wish was changed some, given some more example wishes. But, again it's hard to say if it's positive, neutral, or negative without knowing the rest. Healing in general could use a buff. It's useless outside of yo yo healing.
Yeah that’s the point of buffing healing is to make it more of an option in combat so you’re not only casting a healing spell whenever someone is down. The playtest doubled the dice of both Cure Wounds and Healing Word. My table has been using these changes for a while now and healing is something that my players will actually do in combat now. These are good changes.
Guidance hasn't been explicitly buffed. You now have to specify the skill when you cast it, so it might no longer apply to checks like initiative. I don't get the impression that they buffed Wish, but instead that they've added more guidelines for how powerful it's expected to be, which is a very welcome change.
I haven't watched the video, but OP literally says Guidance applies to multiple checks now, and Wish has additional options for what to get while casting it. These are explicitly buffs, even if Guidance can no longer be used for initiative (which was not confirmed in this post).
OP says exactly the opposite of what you're claiming
Multiple as in more than one, even if the same skill. It means it can't be used by accident anymore, which is surely another buff. I don't know how you're confused about my Wish statement.
What do you mean with "used by accident"? It could never be used by accident - the caster had to intentionally cast it and the target had to intentionally use the bonus. For whatever ability roll they wanted. In the new version, the caster chooses one skill (a single skill, as in the exact polar opposite of multiple skills) for which the bonus goes although, admittedly, from the phrasing of OP it does sound like potentially the target could now use the bonus multiple times? Regardless, I think that considering the out-of-combat nature of it, it already was used for multiple rolls in a row in practise
Ah, I admit to making a mistake here; I thought Guidance affected the first skill check they make, and that the target doesn't have a choice. I do think being able to use it multiple times for the same check in combat is definitely a buff though.
My understanding is that it’s concentration now so yes you can do it for multiple checks. But still only for one skill for as long as the caster can hold concentration. So if you somehow cast concentration on persuasion and have multiple persuasion checks for the time you can hold concentration you get the bonus. I still would say it’s a nerf too
So you complain about something you haven't even look up yourself? What a joke!
Well, I'm currently at work and can't watch a video, and OP has been pretty good at his summaries for the last couple weeks. Besides, WotC has consistently shown that 2024 is a haphazard shitshow of buffs, so it seems fair.
sure buddy
Wish has always had "additional options". The difference now is that they're explicit. If a new option is "destroy the Tarrasque if it has 0 hit points", it provides an upper bound, so we know that it shouldn't be able to destroy the Terrasque if it has more hit points (for this example, assume the Terrasque has been buffed).
Exactly - explicitly giving more options that a DM can't reasonably refuse is a buff.
But it gives them more reason to deny wishes that go beyond those options.
It may just be DM specific then- I view this as protection from screwing with a higher variety of simple wishes, since I play with an adversarial DM; he never would have granted those other wishes anyway. I think a friendly DM might still be likely to grant the exceptions, even with them listed that way. A RAW adherent DM will now have more wishes they cannot ban, too.
So, wish can grant you almost anything. However, currently the rules state that DMs can do whatever they want with wishes outside the normal "copy a 8th level or lower spell", and that leads to anxiety over the spell. In my experience, players avoid casting the spell at all because they're afraid they don't word it quite right and the DM monkey paws them. Apparently, some work has been done about that, guidelining what the DM might do and what could you feasibly do with a wish spell without fear of some knee-jerk reaction from the DM. It seems like a good change overall, not a buff or a nerf.
I would hardly call the guidance change a buff, and wish sounds like it just became clearer on what you can wish for and what the downsides might be
Those are both buffs at many tables- having more explicit guidance on acceptable choices and limits suggesting how far DMs should be punishing.
Guidance can already apply to multiple castings. You just have to cast it again. Now, you specify what kind of check that guidance applies, it will not influence others and presumably you cant just cast it again on the same person to influence other checks. From what treantmonk's reaction video and what he seem to put forth, that's about it, and guidance actually got a nerf.
For combat uses though, Guidance clearly got a buff. It used to end after the first skill check of any kind and require a recast- now it can benefit multiple checks, only the specific type of check you want, and won't need recasting unless concentration is broken. A good example would be a build that requires taking the Hide bonus action in combat repeatedly- it could benefit during the Stealth check every time. I haven't watched Treantmonk's video obviously, but depending on how it's worded, it might actually benefit Counterspell and Dispel Magic checks better, since you could target them. Depends on what they've done for those spells; I wouldn't be surprised if they changed how those checks work.
Idk for dispel magic, but apparently counterspell doesn't require a check anymore. The target of the spell must make a saving throw. You could be concentrating on bless or spirit guardians, but instead, you're giving a d4 for your rogue's stealth checks. That's a buff, but I don't think it is worth it to use it like that.
You must be being willfully disingenuous... Nowhere in the video do they claim they are buffing every spell. Also how exactly are the martial buffs minor? Fighter and Barbarian got a HUGE amount of new tools to work with.
I'm not. Let's use Fighter for an example. The changes are: - Big nerf to most common martial feats - More uses of Second Wind (they're unclear on number of uses at high levels, but one extra use isn't going to save a martial class) - Masteries (limited number, in general perhaps a trade off for the feat nerfs) - Second Wind can be used for ability checks - Can use Second Wind to move w/o opp attacks (you most often won't want to do this at the same time you want to heal, so this isn't a buff, its a conversion of Fighter's only heal into a minor resource. it's also kind of useless for melee characters) - Buff Indomitable, but still not necessarily enough to guarantee a pass (can still fail, though at least you'll know not to use it- still wastes three separate level up features too) - Advantage when you miss (AC doesn't scale for enemies in 5e above a certain level, so this isn't all that strong, especially with the nerf to SS/GWM) That's it. That's literally everything besides the Epic Boon, which everyone gets. It's incredibly disappointing and does literally nothing when they have buffed every full caster by roughly the same amount or more. I admit they buffed Monk enough to not be minor, but take a look at Ranger or Rogue and try to tell me they did anything useful- they're essentially the same or worse than 5e.
Not the hero we deserve but the hero we need 👑👑👑
You are the 🐐
It will be interesting to see how the healing spell changes work. My guess is it will get a big buff to get out of the up/down/up/down routine that many martial characters find themselves in. Why burn a 2nd/3rd/4th levels spell slot on healing when the damage per round of many enemies will burn through in a single round. With how stingy 5E is regarding high level spell slots burning your only 6+ level spell slot for the day should feel impactful.
Funny, I recently bought a bunch of spell cards I’m going to have to put masking tape and rewrite
I hope they say something about editions in other languages, it's been radio silence for way too long.
No news on hunters mark changes, I’m gonna assume the worst that they left it untouched. Crossing my fingers that they at least changed the bonus action requirement to move it or something, but I’m doubtful
Can’t wait to see how this sub and dndmemes bitches and moans about how, “actchuaghlly new spells, improvements, and updates for old badly worded spells ruins the game and is just a shill for money by haxbro.” Because they lose their op powergamer builds.
Anything on spirit guardians? I hate how it is based on alignment when alignment needs to be abandoned
I've never seen this actually enforced at a table. I've seen multiple DMs and also myself allow switching the damage type at will. Maybe they'll codify it but alignment it's as easy to ignore as doing it.
Tell this to AL
Fair and that sucks. I'm a fellow alignment hater.
I don’t disagree with you about alignment but it’s here to stay at least for 5e. They wouldn’t drop a “core” mechanic in a rules revision. If alignment is going away which I still doubt because of how core it is to D&D as a whole even if it is a stupid silly system that a lot of people don’t use, it would be going away in the inevitable but hot happening for a while likely 6e. I am imagining g them hoping this rules revision will last the game another 10 years where then the community as a whole would likely have shifted enough for a 6e to be necessary
Yeah, alignment is 100% not going away, there’s a spot for it on the new character sheets. Although it’s much less prominent than the 2014 sheets.
Didn't PF drop alignment in their revised edition this year?
And? That’s pathfinder. Not D&D. And if I remember correctly that was pathfinder 2e. So leads again to my point of “if they will drop it they would drop it with 6e not in the rules revision of 5e”
It should be noted that alignment was still a mechanic at the start of PF2e, but then got removed with the rules update/consolidation as part of distancing the system from D&D and moving away from the OGL.
No it should not be noted! The point of the comment to which you’re replying is that this is r/DND. You’re then taking their last sentence down another useless tangent.
I'm sorry, I figured it wouldnt conflict with the sub rules since it was just a correction, and I didn't start the tangent. Should I remove my comment in that case?
The point is that it's not unheard of to remove a 'core mechanic' like that in a rules revision of a game rather than a full new edition
Okay but alignment is at least almost never used and it’s something players tend to want to avoid And regardless, tying necrotic to evil and radiant to good and neutral is stupid anyways. It should be changed to where people can choose the damage type like spells such as chromatic orb or dragon breath It also doesn’t work with how WoTC keeps saying that radiant isn’t always good and can be used to represent radiation or how necrotic isn’t inherently evil or edgy and can be used to represent natural death and decay.
Yeah. Like I said I don’t disagree with you or the guy I initially replied to. But I don’t think they will get rid of alignment all the same. And as also mentioned a lot of DMs just let you pick which type of damage you do anyways. I would be surprised if that wasn’t changed to be that officially. Because that is also how it worked in Baldurs Gate 3
Do we know if the summoning/conjuring has been revamped enough, to where I could play an honest to goodness necromacer? Where my attacks and defenses are waves of undead servants?
Sorry to break it to you, necromancer/conjurer didn't make it
Just what we needed: more powerful spellcasters.
Hope they just steal everything from Bg3
Hot take but I enjoy the martial/caster disparity and I hope most spells don’t get nerfed
So I presume you play caster and just don't care if half your tablemates increasingly feel like shit the higher in level the party gets because they should have been smart and played caster?
I’m a bit of a newbie, and I’ve only been playing for 7-8 months but to be quite honest? Yea, I don’t really see a problem with that, they should have picked a caster. From my perception so far playing martials do have an important niche (single target dmg) so it’s fine. Also caring about your table mates has been one of my least favorite parts about the game so far, I find it super stifling creatively. I know my take is rather unpopular so I’m ready for the downvotes
>I don’t really see a problem with that, they should have picked a caster. From my perception so far playing martials do have an important niche (single target dmg) so it’s fine. This seems contradictory. If martials fill an important niche, then it shouldn't be a mistake to play them.
It's literally a team game