# So, has anyone actually PLAYED the Expert classes?



## Remathilis (Oct 16, 2022)

I've seen a lot of white-room analysis of the three expert classes and the supplemental feats, but I'm wondering if anyone actually statted up a ranger, rogue, or bard and run them through an adventure? Does the changes to Sneak Attack really make them weak? Is the bard playable as both a caster and a healer? Is the ranger actually good at anything? Does the changes to feats work?

I'm curious at this point if anyone has given the classes a go and what was the experience.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 16, 2022)

I would have liked to, but unfortunately it is hard to get people together. I also kind of want at least one more class packet to put together a group. Of course, that means that the survey for the experts will likely be done by the time we trial stuff.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 16, 2022)

I have a player playing the bard in one of my IRL games (and I'm working on a playtest PBP here, but we haven't gotten far.)

The bard feels pretty similar to the 5e one, aside from the reaction use of Bardic Inspiration, which I quite like.


----------



## Lycurgon (Oct 16, 2022)

No, but I have had feedback from friends that have played with them. I have not had a full report from them on everything yet but talked to the player that played one of the 2 bards in the party. The player normally likes bards and support characters but said it was terrible and would never play a Bard with these rules.

They played at 3rd level and found the bard was bad at doing Bard stuff. They found there were too many things to use Bardic Inspiration on and not enough uses of it. With only 2 uses per long rest, and having to spread them between Boosting allies Rolls, Healing and Cutting Words, it was too few uses.

They took Hex, but finding there were too few Bard spells to use it with they they played a Tiefling to have Firebolt to combo with Hex. 

They also found the spell list to be weird. They said that there were few Buff spells on the list, so rather than being the traditional support bards they had to be debuff focused Bards. 

The other Bard player hated having their Lore Bard bonus skills being forced to have the set Knowledge skills. Being Int is not a primary or secondary priority for most bards, they weren't impressed with being forced to take thinks they were not going to be good at. 

The other Bard player took Magic Initiate to get Druid spells and took Guidance and Shillelagh. They found was the Guidance spell was okay, but of course of limited use, but found it was almost completely useless for more than 1 person to have it, because it was used by the bard player who was quick to react and the other then couldn't use it on that person. The less on-to-it player (the Ranger) had wasted a cantrip choice. 

The other feedback, unrelated to the classes, was about the Inspiration mechanic, testing the gain on a 1 as per the newer playtest. They had some humans and one of the bards took the Musician feat so they all started the day with it (The inspiration the Tiefling Bard Musician handed out to a human PC was given back to the Bard so they all had it). They found it felt very gamey getting an Inspiration when rolling a 1, it didn't add flavour to the game it just felt like an unnecessary game mechanic. Our friends groups don't normally use the the Inspiration rules, so the players are not use to using it in the current 5e rules. 

TLDR: A Bard fan hates the new version of the bard and would never play one again under these new rules.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 16, 2022)

Who has time for that with all these threads to keep up with?


----------



## Shiroiken (Oct 16, 2022)

I'm currently running a playtest mini-campaign whenever the regular two DMs can't run. We've got a bard, rogue, and ranger, along with a barbarian. The barbarian is enjoying being a half orc/gnome, using the orc mechanics and being a huge gnome, and is looking forward to the warrior package.

The bard plays differently, because they're weaker as a healer (or at least feels weaker). Bardic Inspiration is much stronger, since you can use it when you know you failed, but less uses have to be rationed carefully, as normally she'd have 4 uses (18 Cha) instead of 2 uses (level 4). The limited spell selection hasn't bothered her at all.

The ranger seemed a bit stronger, not that needed much, and the rogue seemed about the same. I haven't had the opportunity to go over the difference with the players yet.


----------



## Ashrym (Oct 16, 2022)

just a bard so far


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 16, 2022)

Well not many people feel like ranking them.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 16, 2022)

Lycurgon said:


> …
> The other Bard player hated having their Lore Bard bonus skills being forced to have the set Knowledge skills. Being Int is not a primary or secondary priority for most bards, they weren't impressed with being forced to take thinks they were not going to be good at..



Seriously? The low int lore bard?

I guess the polite response is that this may not be the right subclass for them.


----------



## Lycurgon (Oct 16, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> Seriously? The low int lore bard?
> 
> I guess the polite response is that this may not be the right subclass for them.



Well most bards I have seen go for Cha as the first priority and Dex is second priority. Many want Con to be significant too. Int doesn't usually make it higher than 3rd priority. They played a Lore Bards because THAT IS THE ONLY CHOICE! We don't have any others to play test yet! 

Currently nothing in the Lore bard that uses Int. With the playtest version there is nothing that needs Int _except_ the knowledge skills you are forced to take. So, unless you want to be good at knowledge skills Int does very little for you. And for most bards, they will find a Wizard is better at those skills unless the bard invests their Expertise into them.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 16, 2022)

Lycurgon said:


> Well most bards I have seen go for Cha as the first priority and Dex is second priority. Many want Con to be significant too. Int doesn't usually make it higher than 3rd priority. They played a Lore Bards because THAT IS THE ONLY CHOICE! We don't have any others to play test yet!
> 
> Currently nothing in the Lore bard that uses Int. With the playtest version there is nothing that needs Int _except_ the knowledge skills you are forced to take. So, unless you want to be good at knowledge skills Int does very little for you. And for most bards, they will find a Wizard is better at those skills unless the bard invests their Expertise into them.




Lore is a synonym for knowledge. Cutting words and cunning inspiration also imply intelligence, maybe there should also be an explicit link.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 16, 2022)

By the way, the playtest clearly stats how to use other archetypes with the new class chassis:

''When    playtesting    the    new    version    of    a    Class,    
you    can    use    a    Subclass    from    an    older    source,    
such    as    the    2014    Player’s    Handbook or    Tasha’s    
Cauldron    of    Everything. If    the    older Subclass    
offers features    at    levels    that    are    different    from    
the    Subclass    levels    in    the    Class,    follow    the    older
Subclass’s    level    progression    after    the    Class    lets    
you    gain    the    Subclass.''

Maybe that player would have been a better experience with a Valor or Sword bard instead of being forced into an archetypes he did not want to play.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 16, 2022)

Lycurgon said:


> No, but I have had feedback from friends that have played with them. I have not had a full report from them on everything yet but talked to the player that played one of the 2 bards in the party. The player normally likes bards and support characters but said it was terrible and would never play a Bard with these rules.
> 
> They played at 3rd level and found the bard was bad at doing Bard stuff. They found there were too many things to use Bardic Inspiration on and not enough uses of it. With only 2 uses per long rest, and having to spread them between Boosting allies Rolls, Healing and Cutting Words, it was too few uses.
> 
> ...



Regarding the class balance, the Bard is notably underpowered compared to the Ranger and Rogue. The Ranger is hugely frontedloaded with many features to get the class up and running. The Rogue is simpler but Sneak Attack by itself is a massive upgrade in power. By contrast, the Bard lacks comparable design space. I am playing the playtest Bard and it feels a bit lacking.

I am less a fan of the way the playtest defines each Arcane, Divine, and Primal "spell list".

It is better to update the Spell Schools to organize the magic spell themes more clearly. Then choose the Spell Schools to build each class concept. For example, the Bard and the Druid have much in common, including Divination and nature-magic Transmutation with Healing. But they differ because the Bard has Enchantment and Illusion unlike the Druid, and the Druid has elemental-magic Evocation unlike the Bard.

Having the Schools organize the magical themes discretely, makes it easy to distinguish and construct each class concept.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 16, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> I've seen a lot of white-room analysis of the three expert classes and the supplemental feats, but I'm wondering if anyone actually statted up a ranger, rogue, or bard and run them through an adventure? Does the changes to Sneak Attack really make them weak? Is the bard playable as both a caster and a healer? Is the ranger actually good at anything? Does the changes to feats work?
> 
> I'm curious at this point if anyone has given the classes a go and what was the experience.



Does having DM'd for them count? In which case:

Rogue: I genuinely can't tell the difference
Ranger: The two weapon fighting now works. A ranger with Healing Word feels weird and I want less Healing Word rather than more as the DM.


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 16, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> Lore is a synonym for knowledge. Cutting words and cunning inspiration also imply intelligence, maybe there should also be an explicit link.



Give inspiration uses equal to proficiency + int mod?


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 16, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> I would have liked to, but unfortunately it is hard to get people together. I also kind of want at least one more class packet to put together a group. Of course, that means that the survey for the experts will likely be done by the time we trial stuff.



I imagine there will be more than one draft. If they’re serious about this playtest going for 12 to 18 months with new packets once a month, and if they continue doing 3 classes to a packet, I think it’s likely we’ll see each class more than once throughout the process.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 17, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> Give inspiration uses equal to proficiency + int mod?



Or as a mod to the respective check...which might make it too good, but something like that.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 17, 2022)

I only DMed. Level 3 game oneshot.

Bard player and Ranger player both said classes are stronger but loss a ton of flavor, take more work to build, and have repetitive play.

Rogue player said opposite. Rogue got slightly more flavor and options for slightly less power.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 17, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> Bard player and Ranger player both said classes are stronger but loss a ton of flavor, take more work to build, and are have repetitive play.



That makes sense for Ranger (which does literally become more repetitive), but seems weird for Bard. I don't see any way or even argument in which an L3 1D&D Bard is "more repetitive" than an L3 5E Bard. In fact, I can only see arguments to the contrary. Likewise flavour. I could see the argument at higher levels, but L3? Nah.

Sounds kind of like the Ranger player had intelligent critiques and the Bard player just said "Yeah what he said!".


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 17, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> That makes sense for Ranger (which does literally become more repetitive), but seems weird for Bard. I don't see any way or even argument in which an L3 1D&D Bard is "more repetitive" than an L3 5E Bard. In fact, I can only see arguments to the contrary. Likewise flavour. I could see the argument at higher levels, but L3? Nah.
> 
> Sounds kind of like the Ranger player had intelligent critiques and the Bard player just said "Yeah what he said!".



Things have changed a bit - the Bard spell list is blander and Song of Rest has been replaced by more generic casting so all bards are now healers.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 17, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Things have changed a bit - the Bard spell list is blander and Song of Rest has been replaced by more generic casting so all bards are now healers.



I'm aware of the changes. None of that adds up to "repetitive play" though, does it? If we assume the player is talking relatively to a previous 5E Bard anyway.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 17, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm aware of the changes. None of that adds up to "repetitive play" though, does it? If we assume the player is talking relatively to a previous 5E Bard anyway.



That depends. If you get stuck on Healing Word duty you might legitimately think that it does.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 17, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> That depends. If you get stuck on Healing Word duty you might legitimately think that it does.



I mean, legitimate? Sure. Informed or useful? No.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 17, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> That makes sense for Ranger (which does literally become more repetitive), but seems weird for Bard. I don't see any way or even argument in which an L3 1D&D Bard is "more repetitive" than an L3 5E Bard. In fact, I can only see arguments to the contrary. Likewise flavour. I could see the argument at higher levels, but L3? Nah.
> 
> Sounds kind of like the Ranger player had intelligent critiques and the Bard player just said "Yeah what he said!".



It's more that they played with me before.

The Ranger player was the bard player in a previous campaign that had a healer. So he was a backup healer and mostly through Song of Rest.

So the bard player was comparing his PC to the old bard and felt his was being forced into the role of a classic healer. And he didn't realize Shatter was moved to Transmutation until the one shot was over. Which sparked this quote:

"Creating energy is Evocation. Summoning energy from somewhere else is Conjuration. How the #$%& is Sonic blasts Transmutation. The Elric brother's can't clap their hands and shoot sonic blasts. Just give them Evocation. Or let them choose between Songs of Restoration or Songs of Destruction. My bard plays Metal and doesn't play Pop like Mal's pretty boy himbo."

So that's going in my survey.

Basically he felt the power increase ue to swapping spells but felt forcedto be a healer and buffer due to Songs of Restoration and fewer Inspirations.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 17, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> It's more that they played with me before.
> 
> The Ranger player was the bard player in a previous campaign that had a healer. So he was a backup healer and mostly through Song of Rest.
> 
> ...



I mean, he sounds like kind of an edgelord, gotta say buddy. Like quite a lot of an edgelord. This is an adult, right? Does he listen to a lot of KISS or something?

I think we can all agree that spell schools are pretty stupid though. What buffs did he use, out of interest?


----------



## Lidgar (Oct 17, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Regarding the class balance, the Bard is notably underpowered compared to the Ranger and Rogue. The Ranger is hugely frontedloaded with many features to get the class up and running. The Rogue is simpler but Sneak Attack by itself is a massive upgrade in power. By contrast, the Bard lacks comparable design space. I am playing the playtest Bard and it feels a bit lacking.
> 
> I am less a fan of the way the playtest defines each Arcane, Divine, and Primal "spell list".
> 
> ...



Either that, or just keep the spell lists by class. I'm still puzzled why they thought going to generic lists by power source was even necessary. Part of the flavor of spellcasters is the unique spells they have access to. 

Sorry for the slight derail...have not had a chance to play one of the new expert classes IRL yet.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 18, 2022)

Lidgar said:


> Either that, or just keep the spell lists by class. I'm still puzzled why they thought going to generic lists by power source was even necessary. Part of the flavor of spellcasters is the unique spells they have access to.



The one possibility I can imagine is if they eventually decide to make the Psionic source.  By doing power groups they'll be able to at some point (like if/when they do Dark Sun and decide at that point to introduce the Psion) demarcate all the spells that are considered "psionic"... because these will be both spells that are currently in the game, plus probably new spells they would create for the source.  By putting something like Telekinesis into the Psionic power source (in addition to it already being in Arcane)... it perhaps helps make it feel to some people like it is its own Psionic power, rather than just a spell "borrowed" from Wizards.

And then by creating the giant pool of what are considered psionic spells... they could also start divvying them up amongst the Psions's subclasses (if they so choose) based upon their schools.  So the Telepathy subclass would get Divination psionic spells plus maybe a couple other school options... the Psychometabolism subclass could get Transmutation psionic spells and maybe a couple other schools... and so forth.

Granted, I'm just spitballing here... but by creating power sources for spells you gain a bit of stylistic identification.  These are Arcane spells... these are Divine prayers... these are Primal evocation... and these are Psionic Powers.  Yes, there will be some overlap with some being in more than one group... but for the most part they might help solidify spell identity.


----------



## DnD Warlord (Oct 18, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> I've seen a lot of white-room analysis of the three expert classes and the supplemental feats, but I'm wondering if anyone actually statted up a ranger, rogue, or bard and run them through an adventure? Does the changes to Sneak Attack really make them weak? Is the bard playable as both a caster and a healer? Is the ranger actually good at anything? Does the changes to feats work?
> 
> I'm curious at this point if anyone has given the classes a go and what was the experience.



i just signed back in after like a year away... I didn't even know there was a new edition coming until this morning when one of my players asked if we could use the inspiration rules from the playtest.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 18, 2022)

Just bard so far. The player didn't find that it played a lot differently, but they loved the new ability to use bardic inspiration as a reaction and successfully prevented several characters being knocked unconscious. As DM, I _didn't_ like that they were able to so easily prevent several players being knocked unconscious and felt that it made a somewhat tough encounter feel much easier than anticipated. So I guess it's a matter of perspective. The campaign isn't high enough level yet for the greater access to magic to have been much of a factor yet, but I imagine the player will really like that, as well


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 18, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> I've seen a lot of white-room analysis of the three expert classes and the supplemental feats, but I'm wondering if anyone actually statted up a ranger, rogue, or bard and run them through an adventure? Does the changes to Sneak Attack really make them weak? Is the bard playable as both a caster and a healer? Is the ranger actually good at anything? Does the changes to feats work?
> 
> I'm curious at this point if anyone has given the classes a go and what was the experience.



I have not played a class  myself, but in a game I am playing a warlock and we have a ranger from the playtest and some of the basic rules of the playtest (inspiration, exhaustion, ect) and we are all having fun with the new feats


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 18, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, he sounds like kind of an edgelord, gotta say buddy. Like quite a lot of an edgelord. This is an adult, right? Does he listen to a lot of KISS or something?
> 
> I think we can all agree that spell schools are pretty stupid though. What buffs did he use, out of interest?



He can't name a single KISS song.

He didn't have buff spells. Just the 2 inspiration (which he hated). He thought that the changes forced him to play a certain way.


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 18, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> He can't name a single KISS song.
> 
> He didn't have buff spells. Just the 2 inspiration (which he hated). He thought that the changes forced him to play a certain way.



Does this guy understand the point of classes


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 18, 2022)

Ran Grasp of the emerald claw & voyage of the golden dragon with 2 rangers 1 bard 1 rogue levels 6 & 7.

 From a GM standpoint the new prep style was a lot of fun & players were more likely to have interesting spells prepped when their niche came up than just relying on brute force & the best spells. The rangers & bard had a lot of fun with dual wielding & mark/hex.  The spell lists being more restrictive for hybrid casters (ranger/bard) rather than including any spell that might possibly have some overlap in the venn diagram made choices players made to pickup new options really shine without stomping on the toes of full casters.  Practically every skill check seemed like someone had expertise & it was a bit overkill.    The new barkskin was a big hit & the casters were all looking forward to the eventual spell revision .  Supreme sneak was basically autostealth but the new "ending the condition" stuff in the hidden condition mechanics avoided turning it into either scry & fry or fail by fiat.  I particularly liked how racially linked spells made casters feel distinct beyond one extra cast of a spell & could see mage classes doing similar with the ardlings.


One of the rangers was an infernal tiefling that made good use of being able to add the necromancy hellish rebuke along with the new PAM on marked targets whenever the chance came up for him.  The other ranger was a more traditional twf build who packed quite the punch thanks to the twf rules & mark changes.  Tireless being 1d8 thp/long rest felt pointless, it should probably be a spend 1-10 minutes to just do it after the 1 free use. 


The rogue  was a dwarf who made good use of stealth+stone cunning, I ultimately decided to let him bypass the 1/long rest with a 10 minute to activate version & it felt less unnatural. Supreme sneak was basically autostealth but the new hidden mechanics headed off trouble that 5e's prior "_but I rolled a 37 stealth_!" often created & the player said he had a better feel for when he was pushing out on a limb but still didn't worry about pushing his luck thanks to death saves

The bard was a drow elf who made great use of faerie fire.  Reaction heals keeping people from suffering a death save from bardic inspiration felt like it trivialized already minimal risk using the old 5e death save & yoyohealing mechanics.  Like the rangers with mark he tore it up with hex & twf


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The one possibility I can imagine is if they eventually decide to make the Psionic source.  By doing power groups they'll be able to at some point (like if/when they do Dark Sun and decide at that point to introduce the Psion) demarcate all the spells that are considered "psionic"... because these will be both spells that are currently in the game, plus probably new spells they would create for the source.  By putting something like Telekinesis into the Psionic power source (in addition to it already being in Arcane)... it perhaps helps make it feel to some people like it is its own Psionic power, rather than just a spell "borrowed" from Wizards.
> 
> And then by creating the giant pool of what are considered psionic spells... they could also start divvying them up amongst the Psions's subclasses (if they so choose) based upon their schools.  So the Telepathy subclass would get Divination psionic spells plus maybe a couple other school options... the Psychometabolism subclass could get Transmutation psionic spells and maybe a couple other schools... and so forth.
> 
> Granted, I'm just spitballing here... but by creating power sources for spells you gain a bit of stylistic identification.  These are Arcane spells... these are Divine prayers... these are Primal evocation... and these are Psionic Powers.  Yes, there will be some overlap with some being in more than one group... but for the most part they might help solidify spell identity.



When updating the Spell Schools to tag spells more thematically, it is easier to distinguish between:

*Conjuration:* telekinesis, force constructs, magical energy
*Divination:* scrying, fate, teleportation, planar effects
*Evocation:* elemental effects, earth, water, air, and fire
*Enchantment:* mind effects
*Illusion:* reality alteration
*Necromancy:* planar darkside, Undead, Fiend, Aberration
*Transmutation:* life, lifeform, body, shapeshifting, healing, plant and animal

While subclasses might do differently, the base class generally feels like:
*Wizard* = Conjuration, Evocation, Illusion
*Psion* = Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Transmutation
*Bard* = Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, Transmutation
*Druid* = Divination, Evocation, Transmutation
*Cleric* = Divination, Necromancy, Transmutation
*Warlock* = Conjuration, Divination, Illusion, Necromancy
*Sorcerer* = Evocation, Necromancy, Transmutation

Instead of the amalgamated UA lists of Arcane, Divine, and Primal, the class can refer to the schools. Then designers can modify each school when adding new features that several classes can share.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 18, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> He can't name a single KISS song.
> 
> He didn't have buff spells. Just the 2 inspiration (which he hated). He thought that the changes forced him to play a certain way.



To be fair re: KISS until like a year ago neither could I until I found out "I was made for loving you" was by them. That came as a shock.

Agree: re: 2 Inspiration being dumb and will note so in feedback in a couple of days. They need to make so it's always (from L1) per Short Rest if they're going to make the number so low.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Instead of the amalgamated UA lists of Arcane, Divine, and Primal, the class can refer to the schools. Then designers can modify each school when adding new features that several classes can share.



That's fine... except WotC isn't going to re-org their spells in the schools you proposed (including the removal of Abjuration).  If they were going to... then sure your suggestion would be potentially viable.

My note just pre-supposes they keep their three power sources, and therefore enables a fourth to be added later if they so choose (not that there's any suggestion they actually intend to.)


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> That's fine... except WotC isn't going to re-org their spells in the schools you proposed (including the removal of Abjuration).  If they were going to... then sure your suggestion would be potentially viable.
> 
> My note just pre-supposes they keep their three power sources, and therefore enables a fourth to be added later if they so choose (not that there's any suggestion they actually intend to.)



To update the school is just swapping a single word. Simple.

Many spells need far more revision than this!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> To update the school is just swapping a single word. Simple.
> 
> Many spells need far more revision than this!



Yeah, but they aren't going to do it, including the removal of Abjuration.  Your post just moved too many spells around.  They aren't revamping stuff nearly that much.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Yeah, but they aren't going to do it, including the removal of Abjuration.



They can list Abjuration as a tag.

*CURE WOUNDS*
_1st-Slot Transmutation (Healing, Abjuration)_

*ALARM*
_1st-Slot Divination (Scry, Abjuration)_

*ANTIMAGIC FIELD*
_8th-Slot Conjuration (Dweomer, Abjuration)_

And so on.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 18, 2022)

If the traditional Schools remain an inconsistent and useless mess, then the game does better to delete them for the sake of simplification.

Otherwise, to keep the tradition, the Schools are in need of serious designer attention and updating to make them useful.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 18, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, he sounds like kind of an edgelord, gotta say buddy. Like quite a lot of an edgelord. This is an adult, right? Does he listen to a lot of KISS or something?
> 
> I think we can all agree that spell schools are pretty stupid though. What buffs did he use, out of interest?



I mean I love Led Zeppelin and KISS.  (granted I prefer the early KISS, Gold Gin, 100,000 years, Black Diamon, etc)


----------



## Willie the Duck (Oct 18, 2022)

We are playtesting a group with one of each, plus a battlemaster and evoker using the UA background rules. Semi-gritty recharge rules (situationally rest-constrained to try to accomplish ~ the 6-8 or equivalent). We've gone L1-6. 

Everyone seems to like the 'free' L1 feat, with lots of people taking human to get an extra (Skilled and Toughness see a lot more love than before, and I can tell if Lightly Armored sticks as light, medium, and shields, it will be on a lot of wizard and lore bard first pick lists).

Ranger is definitely more straightforward -- two weapon fighting and hunter's mark is definitely enjoyed (although part of that may just be finally getting a chance rather than what they'd always do if it became the norm). I have to say, I disagree that it has made everything more same-y for the ranger. The changes to 2wf, hunter's mark, and spell selection allow for the ranger to cast (and swap out) spells to much greater effect, making them feel much more like a half-caster with multiple spell options, especially in combat. 

Lore bard is interesting. In general we've liked it. The limit on the L3 skills to be the knowledges moves it from the 'generic not-eventually-get-multiattack' bard variant to more of a 'hey, we really meant it with the 'lore' bit'  style. That's... I mean it's reinforcing the theme, which is fine, but then there isn't really a 'generic bard' archetype. So we have mixed feelings. Spell list we don't see why this is better than a class-specific list, but the actual spells are fine. Not getting the two 3rd level spells from other classes so early, along with fewer inspiration are clear power-downgrades, which is fine so long as the other casters get similar cuts.

Rogue... what to say? 2wf as a not-bonus-action (and SA on attack actions, so no SCAGtrips) definitely makes swashbuckler and Arcane Trickster less go-to options for melee rogues. We all noticed that the 'rules exploits' had been addressed. I think people recognized that reaction-action SAs, SCAGtrip SAs, and thief-rogue bonus action using great items were perhaps not the best way to boost rogues (since your average grade school or beer&pretzel players might not have picked up on them), but at the same time I think people were looking for more things to boost the rogue as compensation. We are thinking about jumping to level 10-12 to see how it plays there, and I think the guy playing the rogue is expecting to feel overshadowed. That, however, has not been playtested.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 18, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> If the traditional Schools remain an inconsistent and useless mess, then the game does better to delete them for the sake of simplification.
> 
> Otherwise, to keep the tradition, the Schools are in need of serious designer attention and updating to make them useful.



I suspect few people have such an issue with the spell schools as you do. Or at the very least that WotC has not seen or heard the same amount of issues from enough people to feel the need to reorganize them all.

But who knows? Maybe they will. We will just have to wait and see.


----------



## niklinna (Oct 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I suspect few people have such an issue with the spell schools as you do. Or at the very least that WotC has not seen or heard the same amount of issues from enough people to feel the need to reorganize them all.
> 
> But who knows? Maybe they will. We will just have to wait and see.



Oh I think D&D spells in general are a complete and utter mess, not just the schools. Although the schools are, more specifically, inconsistent and useless too. But I don't complain about it in public, normally. And technically I'm not complaining now, I'm just stating an opinion.  It's all ultimately Jack Vance's fault anyhow, how dare he write entertaining fiction about societies with silly unworkable customs that contain...silly, and...unworkable...magic....


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 18, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> Does this guy understand the point of classes



I mean he felt it was forcing him to play a certain type of bard. He and the Ranger player felt that US was dumbing down the classes and removing options for complete newbies and hiding it behind pure power.

Or in the RangerUA/Bard5e players words. "It's so powerful you'll forget it's boring and repetitive".

Which the BardUA/Artificer5e say "Like the fighters. We all fighters now baby."


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 18, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I suspect few people have such an issue with the spell schools as you do. Or at the very least that WotC has not seen or heard the same amount of issues from enough people to feel the need to reorganize them all.
> 
> But who knows? Maybe they will. We will just have to wait and see.



Most spells already have the correct school.

The main updates are moving a few earth spells (rock, crystal, metal) spells to elemental Evocation, then Transmutation remains plants and animals. Divination handles remote-presence magic like teleportation. Conjuration refers to force and magical energy.

Even with these small tweaks, the Schools suddenly become clear and useful.


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 18, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> I mean he felt it was forcing him to play a certain type of bard. He and the Ranger player felt that US was dumbing down the classes and removing options for complete newbies and hiding it behind pure power.
> 
> Or in the RangerUA/Bard5e players words. "It's so powerful you'll forget it's boring and repetitive".
> 
> Which the BardUA/Artificer5e say "Like the fighters. We all fighters now baby."



This is what happens when you design a game to appeal to everyone.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 18, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> This is what happens when you design a game to appeal to everyone.



Part of the problem is the setting I run has Bard who's spell lists are themes around real life artists and bands.

They rolled bad twice, failed a quest, and The "Slayer" got resurrected. Was a tough fight by the time I got to Seasons in the Abyss but their luck came back big time.

They nova some bards when they want me to turn off their music or think I will fudge to hear more music.


----------



## kapars (Oct 19, 2022)

My 1d&d playtest group is still going. The only player affected by the recent packet was the Rogue but they are still level one and the only effect is they got an extra language. They have taken up the light weapon rules changes and enjoyed them. The Order Cleric cannot make the Rogue sneak attack but that’s not really been an issue.

Aside: I’m running Dragons of Stormwreck Isle and I’ve never seen as many Nature and Religion checks. I don’t know if it is the nature of the campaign or the players but it has been a lot of fun.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Oct 19, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Oh I think D&D spells in general are a complete and utter mess, not just the schools. Although the schools are, more specifically, inconsistent and useless too. But I don't complain about it in public, normally. And technically I'm not complaining now, I'm just stating an opinion.  It's all ultimately Jack Vance's fault anyhow, how dare he write entertaining fiction about societies with silly unworkable customs that contain...silly, and...unworkable...magic....



If you ever wanted to make a separate thread on the subject, I would be a reader.


----------



## niklinna (Oct 19, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> If you ever wanted to make a separate thread on the subject, I would be a reader.



Well I wasn't sure I was qualified to get into too much detail, but since you asked, I did start a thread for discussion! Enjoy.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 23, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I suspect few people have such an issue with the spell schools as you do. Or at the very least that WotC has not seen or heard the same amount of issues from enough people to feel the need to reorganize them all.
> 
> But who knows? Maybe they will. We will just have to wait and see.



Because only wizards have had to care until now? Now that they are going to be everywhere everybody is going to have an opinion.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 23, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> Because only wizards have had to care until now? Now that they are going to be everywhere everybody is going to have an opinion.



I'm very much in the camp that "spell schools make a lot of worldbuilding sense as a part of the way most wizards see the world - but they are a structure imposed by wizards to categorise reality not a part of actual reality. I don't want to have to worry about that nonsense as a general thing for most casting classes."


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Oct 23, 2022)

DnD Warlord said:


> i just signed back in after like a year away... I didn't even know there was a new edition coming until this morning when one of my players asked if we could use the inspiration rules from the playtest.



Well you already missed the first survey then!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 23, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> Because only wizards have had to care until now? Now that they are going to be everywhere everybody is going to have an opinion.



??

I'm not sure I understand what it is you're saying here.


----------



## niklinna (Oct 23, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> ??
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what it is you're saying here.



Only wizards have *had* to care until now. But now, bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, rangers, arcane fighters, arcane rogues, monks, artificers...pretty much everybody is going to have to deal with spell schools now.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 23, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Only wizards have *had* to care until now. But now, bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, rangers, arcane fighters, arcane rogues, monks, artificers...pretty much everybody is going to have to deal with spell schools now.



Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knights had to care previously...

Eldritch Knight
Spells Known of 1st-Level and Higher.  You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from* the abjuration and evocation spells* on the wizard spell list.

Arcane Trickster
Spells Known of 1st-Level and Higher.  You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from *the enchantment and illusion spells* on the wizard spell list.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 23, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Only wizards have *had* to care until now. But now, bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, rangers, arcane fighters, arcane rogues, monks, artificers...pretty much everybody is going to have to deal with spell schools now.



GMs needed to care for lots of reasons depending on the edition.  A wall made with an illusion spell conjuration spell & evocation spell will all behave differently.  conjuration spells tended to do less damage than evocation but bypasses SR or targeted an unusual save.  EK was already noted.  Also arcane trickster was limited to illusion & enchantment spells


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 24, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Only wizards have *had* to care until now. But now, bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, rangers, arcane fighters, arcane rogues, monks, artificers...pretty much everybody is going to have to deal with spell schools now.



What do the classes have to do with it though? It's the players who are the ones who might deal with spell schools, and my point to Yaarel was that few to no players have seemed to have issues with what spells went into which schools. So their point that the schools had to be "fixed" and made clearer seemed to me to be overstating things.

Could a school reorganization occur? Sure. But does it seem like it's near the top of the list of things WotC needs to get on for the new books? My feeling is no.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 24, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> GMs needed to care for lots of reasons depending on the edition.  A wall made with an illusion spell conjuration spell & evocation spell will all behave differently.  conjuration spells tended to do less damage than evocation but bypasses SR or targeted an unusual save.  EK was already noted.  Also arcane trickster was limited to illusion & enchantment spells




If D&D is going the school path it needs to start describing how schools are different.

Things created with evocation and abjuration are pure magic and are subject to anti-magic, spell resistance, dispels, and disjunctions.
Things created with conjuration are real, summoned from somewhere else, aand are subject to banishment and reality.
Things created with illusion are either nor real or made with shadow stuff and are subject to disbelief.
Things created with transmutation are transformations of real things and are subject to anti-magic, spell resistance, dispels, and disjunctions.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 24, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> If D&D is going the school path it needs to start describing how schools are different.
> 
> Things created with evocation and abjuration are pure magic and are subject to anti-magic, spell resistance, dispels, and disjunctions.
> Things created with evocation are real, summoned from somewhere else, aand are subject to banishment and reality.
> ...



I agree entirely but you got evocation twice, looks like the second one was supposed to be conjugation.  Mechanically I think 3.5's SR subsystem was probably the most elegant way of differentiating those points in a way that didn't feel arbitrary on a spell by spell level.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 24, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I agree entirely but you got evocation twice, looks like the second one was supposed to be conjugation.  Mechanically I think 3.5's SR subsystem was probably the most elegant way of differentiating those points in a way that didn't feel arbitrary on a spell by spell level.



The second was supposed for be conjuration yes.

And it doesn't even have to be as complex as 3.5's either.
There could be a rule that says objects created by abjuration, evocation, and illusion are not real and disapper if damaged or distorted unless effected by transmutation to become real or permanent. 

But if schools aren't nailed down to internally logic, then school limitations make no sense.


----------



## kapars (Oct 24, 2022)

We had another session and the players have now reached level 2. In a moment of stress / excitement I ruled that the Rogue could sneak attack as a Reaction when healed by the Order Cleric. Realized only afterwards that I had forgotten because I was getting worried about the character’s survival.

I’m not convincing the Monk to take advantage of the new Unarmed Strike rules to knock prone yet. We will see with Flurry of Blows coming online.

Also finding difficulty with role playing the inspiration on 1, it felt more natural to me on the 20, especially when the character already had it and handed the inspiration to someone else. It’s easier to say “You are inspired by X landing a flying kick that knocks the Y out of the air than” , “You see the Monk trip and miss by a mile again and resolve to do better yourself.” Easier to pass on good vibes personally.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 24, 2022)

kapars said:


> Also finding difficulty with role playing the inspiration on 1, it felt more natural to me on the 20, especially when the character already had it and handed the inspiration to someone else. It’s easier to say “You are inspired by X landing a flying kick that knocks the Y out of the air than” , “You see the Monk trip and miss by a mile again and resolve to do better yourself.” Easier to pass on good vibes personally.



That's why I mentioned in the survey that gaining "Inspiration" on a Nat 1 didn't make sense.  Failing miserably doesn't usually inspire people.  If anything, it should be called "Determination" as you are determined to do better next time.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 24, 2022)

Gorck said:


> That's why I mentioned in the survey that gaining "Inspiration" on a Nat 1 didn't make sense.  Failing miserably doesn't usually inspire people.  If anything, it should be called "Determination" as you are determined to do better next time.



Failure inspires you to redouble your efforts.  Sorted your logic deficit without much effort.  Or alternatively have you never heard the term learning from your mistakes?  

Perhaps the issue is that you are applying an ordinary English definition to a term that is just a name for a game mechanic?


----------



## Gorck (Oct 24, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Failure inspires you to redouble your efforts.  Sorted your logic deficit without much effort.  Or alternatively have you never heard the term learning from your mistakes?
> 
> Perhaps the issue is that you are applying an ordinary English definition to a term that is just a name for a game mechanic?



I learn from my mistakes all the time.  I'm just not "inspired" by my failures.  As I said, I'd be more inclined to be determined to overcome my ineptitude in such a situation.  I am, however, inspired by my major successes and strive to continue achieving those successes.  But all of this is moot, since I've never once been inspired to use the Inspiration rules anyway.  And I'm determined not to use them in the future.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 24, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I learn from my mistakes all the time.  I'm just not "inspired" by my failures.  As I said, I'd be more inclined to be determined to overcome my ineptitude in such a situation.  I am, however, inspired by my major successes and strive to continue achieving those successes.  But all of this is moot, since I've never once been inspired to use the Inspiration rules anyway.  And I'm determined not to use them in the future.




If it was called Re-doubled Effort, True Grit, or Deferred Success, would the exact same mechanic make more sense to you?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 25, 2022)

kapars said:


> Also finding difficulty with role playing the inspiration on 1, it felt more natural to me on the 20, especially when the character already had it and handed the inspiration to someone else. It’s easier to say “You are inspired by X landing a flying kick that knocks the Y out of the air than” , “You see the Monk trip and miss by a mile again and resolve to do better yourself.” Easier to pass on good vibes personally.




I would leave it to the players to narrate/describe what inspires them. It’s overstepping my DM boundaries to dictate that.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 25, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> If it was called Re-doubled Effort, True Grit, or Deferred Success, would the exact same mechanic make more sense to you?



Resolve or Rally could also be names for a bonus after a resounding failure.


----------



## kapars (Oct 25, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I would leave it to the players to narrate/describe what inspires them. It’s overstepping my DM boundaries to dictate that.



I play with my children, they’re happy to elaborate sometimes and then other times you need to fill in the gaps.


----------

