One D&D Playtest: Discussing Changes to Feats, Epic Boons, and Rules

[@zach8596]

The 20th level Misty Step should really just be you can Misty Step at will.

[@justinschmelzel8806]

It is actually pretty close to it. Misty step is as they suggested, per combat. It comes back when you roll initiative, or short rest or long rest.

[@TheHandgunhero]

Hardly, there are ways to get that anyway. If it was dimension door at will or you're always under the effect of a Far Step spell, I think that would be more appropriate.

[@VimyGlide]

@@justinschmelzel8806 "once per combat" is NOWHERE NEAR "at will" and i am utterly baffled that you could possibly think otherwise.

[@bathth3ory]

I was thinking this when watching the video. An epic boon should be EPIC! And Misty Stepping at will is epic. 😄

[@justinschmelzel8806]

@@VimyGlide Yes but it is a lot greater than "once per long rest" that they suggested it was in the video, and once per combat + once per short rest is significantly closer to at will than it is to once per long rest. Start of day, you use it out of combat, start of combat you get it back, either you use it that combat, or you use it again for something out of combat, start of next combat again, short rest resets again, use it again before combat, combat resets it..... That is a lot of uses, and is going to be pretty much when you need it, you will likely have it.han it is to once per long rest. Start of day, you use it out of combat, start of combat you get it back, either you use it that combat, or you use it again for something out of combat, start of next combat again, short rest resets again, use it again. Edit: Also, as I wrote I said it was close to what THEY suggested, of once per combat, because technically it is better than once per combat.

[@jeffm9770]

Magic Initiate isn't missing. It's a 1st Level Feat that was presented in the first pdf. That said, I hope they have more 1st level feats available because it was a pretty small list.

[@TheOneAverageJoe]

I'm pretty sure they said they wanted to focus more on the level 4 feats for this one

[@Facebug3000]

I came here to say this exact thing

[@nickschile4807]

The level 1 feats are intentionally limited. It's obvious by the changes they are making that the intent is to balance things throughout the game's progression, and not have some classes/builds being super powered from the start (SS/GWM).

[@caerdwyn7467]

Given that a lot of campaigns start not at 1st but rather at 3rd level, I don't think it has that much of an impact; level up just once and you get a feat (well, unless you're cheesing lowlevel multiclass). Given that everyone gets a feat now at 1st meaning they get one more feat than they otherwise would have gotten (modulo Variant Human, which will probably go away), having the list be relatively limited isn't impactful at all compared to current 5e. It's something for nothing. I also suspect they're now getting a ton of data from D&D Beyond, seeing what character level a new character goes to within say, a week, then slowly ascending over time... that shows characters being actually played.

[@karatekoala4270]

I was just about to say this

[@talongreenlee7704]

One thing I’m surprised you didn’t cover is that ALL casters are now ritual casters. You don’t need a special feature for it anymore! Now if you know a ritual spell, you can always cast it as a ritual, which I think is nice.

[@CrownofMischief]

And it makes sense, like if there's a spell that can be cast as a ritual, there shouldn't really be a reason that you can't do the ritual as long as you know the spell. And from a meta perspective it isn't gamebreaking because rituals still take 10 extra minutes to cast, so you wouldn't be using it in combat

[@ryadinstormblessed8308]

It does take away somewhat from the special Wizard feature that allows that. But hopefully something will be done to still make Wizards special and versatile despite that change. Also, from a purely lore-based view, it did make sense for Wizards to be the only ones to have that feature automatically, because they are the only class who's magic is actually based on study and knowledge, while others come from more esoteric sources and don't have anything to do with actually having an intellectual understanding of the mechanical way the spell works. From that standpoint, I'd say that the only other class that makes sense to have that ability without needing a Feat would be Artificer.

[@orionwashburn2202]

@@ryadinstormblessed8308 idk about it being a special wizard feature; there are 5 classes that get ritual casting by default

[@katarhall3047]

Horrible choice. Dilution of unique concepts again.

[@PumaPants248]

@@katarhall3047 Sounds more like trying to prevent non ritual casters from being power crept

[@zackmyers805]

I like the new exhaustion because it actually impacts casters. Now they get detrimentally impacted on their spell save DCs.

[@ad9aggie]

GWM and Sharpshooter are 4th level feats in the playtest. The -5/+10 mechanic may return in an 8th or 12th level related feat. Also I love that Monty keeps saying D&DOne even after Kelly says OneD&D. Hilarious. Keep on keepin' on guys!

[@nickschile4807]

This is something I keep saying as well; they have already shown feat trees are something they are doing with One, so the bonus damage may be part of a feat later on, where it will be more balanced.

[@Dinodudematt]

I'm wondering if the -5/+10 will just become a fighter feature as they don't really have that many core features.

[@alex2legit]

What do you think about -PB/+PBx2

[@ad9aggie]

@@alex2legit That sounds pretty good to me. I imagine it still would be an 8th level feat, though.

[@tegxi]

@@alex2legit I've seen analyses of this before, and it turns out that only makes the option more essential for martial characters. Because at later levels, it's as strong or stronger damage wise, and at earlier levels the -2 or 3 penalty to hit is much more minor, so it becomes less something to use when you need it and more something to always have on.

[@carsonlake3842]

FYI, JC has said in interviews that the changes aren't in any way affected by the first playtest, as this second playtest was written before the survey had completed for the first playtest. So don't give them too much credit for listening just yet. They are just planning on seeing what sticks.

[@ancientswordrage]

Yeah this is important, I hope the dudes pick up in this

[@schemage2210]

Essentially this is A-B testing, seeing which is more popular, seeing what feedback they get from both rather than an iterative process. Personally, this sounds like an utterly stupid methodology to be using. Would be better to pick a direction and test accordingly instead of wasting time with "potential ideas" they have little stake in.

[@nicholasharvey4157]

JC says that, but when option a was new crit stuff. Option B was back to what it already is, it feels a little like the reality differs from what was said. JC isn't one for admitting when he was wrong. Do we still all believe that it was deliberate that see invisibility doesn't remove the disadvantage to hit someone who is invisible......

[@Chuuma]

@@schemage2210 you nranlike they did with the previous edition?

[@TheZplit]

@@biamlowmound4266 I believe the word you are looking for is flexible

[@festivehands]

magic initiate was in the first oned&d doc, and it was great because it allowed you to pick the spell list you choose from and the ability score associated with the spells separately... which means you can now take shillelagh with wisdom, intelligence, or charisma! (finally an alternative to hexblade, and now you can have int based weapon attacks without taking three levels of artificer)

[@gayperson420]

wait this is gonna be great on a bladesinger

[@festivehands]

@@gayperson420 exactly 💯

[@lordvectra7821]

I havent been following 1 DnD so excuse my ignorance, but doesnt that just widen the gap between magic and martials?

[@jiminkpen9750]

@@lordvectra7821 hopefully they will be balancing the op spells. They've shown they are redesigning some, so between that and making you prepare spells by level (in ranger and bard) I am looking forward to see.

[@yeahnaaa292]

Yet again: well-informed, objective & experience-based, thoughtful & insightful analysis. Glad y'all are doing this. Much love to all the team! Thanks!

[@kanae17]

Just to throw out there, the Epic Boon of Dimensional Travel isn’t just a free Misty Step usage once per day, but instead it refreshes any time you roll initiative or take a short/long rest. It’s a bit more useful than just the Fey Touched version, but I do agree it’s kind of lacking still for an Epic Boon 😅

[@lukekalisz1817]

At level 20 there shouldn’t be a limit on the number of uses. Level 20 is supposed to feel all-powerful, so getting a free misty step 3-4 times a day just isn’t enough. If unlimited is too much it should at least be like three uses per rest/combat. That way you actually get some use out of the feature.

[@KarumaJiusetu]

They didn't 'revert' the Natural 20 rule in response to feedback. Part two was written and ready to go before Part one's survey was even done. They are testing a wide array of rules. In regards to the timing, pay attention to the videos they made about the Expert classes and they talk about the survey from part one still being open for at least another week while they were filming.

[@nicholasharvey4157]

jC said it so it must be true. He also said it was intentional that see invisibility didn't remove the disadvantage to hit. Because while you can now see them they are "shimmery"

[@unnefer001]

@@nicholasharvey4157 JC seems to live rent free in your head.

[@RJWdevelopment]

I am 100% supportive of the changes to sharpshooter and great weapon master, because it is the most commonly talked about meta gaming optimization choice, to the point that you actually have more limited choices when trying to optimize builds. the goal should always be to expand options and not limit them. one idea that Monty alluded to in a previous video is to have perhaps some feats where you could attack with disadvantage for extra damage, or attack with advantage for Less damage, and perhaps these feats could be agnostic of how the damage is being done (can apply to any ability that requires an attack roll).

[@brandonr2906]

Reposting from the last video - it would be great to have the text on-screen for the feature being talked about. Or at the least, a link to the document in the video description.

[@robertbailey5239]

I think Monte had a great idea about making climbing and swimming count as difficult terrain. I think there should be an option for jumping when transitioning from regular movement to climbing or swimming to account for leaping up to a branch to start a climb or a diving horizontally to start swimming.

[@CrownlessStudios]

On epic boons, I really think the power level they should aim for is the Barbarian capstone from 5e. +4 to current and max score in 2 ability scores is AWESOME.

[@Boone_Faustus]

Magic Initiate wasn't in this playtest because it was in the Level 1 Feats from the previous playtest. I'm guessing that there will be more higher level feats in a later playtest that'll have the -5 to hit +10 to damage for melee ranged, and possibly magic. Maybe it'll be Power Attack and it'll be able to effect any attack you make. I like that some things now refresh when you roll initiative so you get it once per fight regardless of how many fights you get before resting.

[@AvangionQ]

Power Attack: -5 penalty to hit for +10 damage should be a basic attack option. BOOM HEAD SHOT!!

[@MoraqVos]

I like the change to GWM and SS, now they are not a feat tax anymore, but just a nice option.

[@freds2052]

I'm glad you talked about the Influence action, which I think is problematic in part due to its inclusion of the player-focused side of the rules (shoutout to Bob World Builder for getting me thinking about that). I think as you mention, the set DCs are a decent baseline, but having them be the entire mechanic for social encounter is a swing-and-a-miss. One thought that I had to modify it for additional challenge to the player characters would be related to the NPC's Challenge Rating (assuming CR continues to be a part of NPC statblocks). It could be that the Influence rules in this playtest represent interactions with CR0 to CR1 creatures, and then for all other creatures you add their Challenge Rating to the DCs for Influencing them. This would create meaningful distinctions between social interactions between commoners, vs. nobles, vs. angels, vs. Mummy Lords. I do think it's interesting that there are some hints at this sort of thing in 5e already (such as the Modron's statblock stating that they can't be compelled to do anything beyond their programming, or something like that) but it's nice to start getting some real meat on these rules bones. Curious to see what else comes out in future UAs!

[@HammerBroStudios1]

I’m a big fan of the changes to Charger. Uncoupling the special attack from the dash action and buffing the movement speed while dashing makes me think it would combo really well on a Crusher Monk. Moving another creature up to 15 feet with a single punch feels so cool and anime inspired. Then if you flurry?? Hoooo boy

[@JohnOurant]

For me, the biggest problem with the Influence Action is implying that a complex social encounter can or should come down to a yes/no on a single roll.

[@cerberus003]

Firstly, I love your commentary. I think that you guys offer some of the most accessible insight on the game that I have found on KZbin. I do disagree that damage is a concern amongst classes in DnD (I'm excluding the monk.) If the wizard fireballs 5 goblins to death in a combat, they have done more damage than the fighter. The cleric casting spirit guardians is going to deliver fantastic damage. At level 1 a single sleep spell will have more impact on a combat than any amount of damage taken by the enemy. Spells are so overall impactful that I think the idea that casters need to do more damage is kind of ridiculous. I know cantrips are weak but leveled spells are consistently combat warping if used well. I do agree that martial classes need to do something else as well. I think they need better social or role play features on top of their damage. I think one of those things should be durability. It's quite easy right now for any caster to get a good A/C, absorb elements/shield and silvery barbs as reaction defenses. If you look at any optimization blog or channel all the "top" casters builds have A/Cs that are almost impossible for any fighter to match. I actually believe that the Frontline barbarian is more useful of the wizard can barely take a hit, holding the line if needed.

[@pw3829]

Yep I love the commentary, even though I disagree with quite a lot of their first impressions. Would love to hear how their opinions may (or may not) change after playtesting.

[@99blackmantis]

Always so thoughtful, reasonable and personable, you guys. Great respect! I must vent, being a real life office manager (not a fantasy character), it drives me nuts how tv, movies and D&D designers do not understand or respect real combat. I'm trained and MORE comfortable fighting with dual weapons and I could go on and on with real life experience. That aside, I especially feel you on the degrees of success stuff.

[@brandonoliver1336]

You guys have such insightful knowledge about these things. I really appreciate your content and different takes on things. Its helped me be a better player and dm!

[@nathanrollick1833]

Monty I'm just over 7 mins into the video and hearing what your saying...that every character should have equal damage potential. I want to suggest that I am one of many players that would not find this to be much fun. Part of what I love about the game is maximizing certain aspects that are stronger in one class or race than in another. I very much think It is best to preserve the existing capacity in current 5th edition to make specific characters which excel much more in certain playstyles than other types ever could. This is part of what makes experimentation so much fun.

[@matthewakers7356]

They actually haven’t made changes based on play test feedback yet. In WotC’s accompanying video they put out with the doc, they talked about how they have multiple iterations on rules they want to test and get feedback for, and later down the road we will see changes made based on said feedback. 👍🏻

[@charlescartier1945]

War caster was already one of the strongest feats, and now it has a +1 ability score modifier.

[@alistairbolden6340]

Eh most players would take Res Con over War Caster anyway.

[@charlescartier1945]

@@alistairbolden6340 D&DBeyond' feat popularity figures showed that war caster was taken by 13% of all characters, compared to 3% Resillient Con. Interestingly, that is more that sharpshooter (7%) and GWM (5%) combined.

[@justashooter5051]

@@charlescartier1945 That's probably because it lets you perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands. Pretty critical if you play a gish and have a DM that enforces somatic component rules.

[@nicholasf98]

@@charlescartier1945 Yeah that feat popularity isn’t due to strength, it’s the Gish Tax. It’s people looking to be able to cast a spell with Somatic components while your hands are full of weapons. Warcaster isn’t a bad feat, it’s just not that good.

[@nightdugalle1063]

@@nicholasf98 read the feat again. it is a powerful MUST have for every spell caster. Con save prof. Ability to use somatic parts of a spell even IF you holding weapons or shield. This also means you can cast spells if your hands are full of something. Such as clinging to a side of a wall for dear life or while grappled. And you get to make attacks of opportunity with a spell rather then a normal melee attack.

[@Sadturnip]

I really hope that this end up giving a little more variety to individual subclasses, hopefully a good direction!

[@kaemonbonet4931]

My thoughts on the damage feats: It's generally good to open up the build opportunity by removing the features the most commonly taken. They have the effect of limiting build diversity which could be a problem. I think there solution should be to increase other options to increase damage because if removing the options is the only result than build diversity increases only because optimization isn't possible. Playing with purpose and building characters is fun and having many varied ways to be effective and cool without making them all the same. If I were in the room while designing new feats I would try to get at the fantasies of each weapon for example Duelist might add damage in exchange for numbers of attacks. You may choose to make a single attack whenever you take the attack action, for every attack you don't make, add 3d8. This is basically dealing one additional d8 per turn but it also invokes the idea of making one decisive thrust. And your crits are really cool The gwm feat is fine Sharpshooter might be improved might add one weapon damage die to attacks like the old multishot feat. Or maybe get a bonus action attack if you miss an attack. Idk what the right answer is but I think we want feats to matter and we want to have good options that make a character be cool and not have 2 or three characters of the same style at the table because the best thing to do with half the classes is the same thing.

[@evilsquirrel0573]

I haven’t checked many of the feats myself, but I’d imagine that the playtest material that reveals the warriors may contain a feat that allows the additional damage from GWM or sharpshooter, or maybe each class has a way to deal more damage baked into the classes themselves? It might be a better way to let players choose more diverse feats while still letting them lay the beat down, because if spellcasters are equal in damage dealing to the martials while still getting everything else, it’ll only widen the disparity

[@techbeef]

It seems to be every time casters have a semblance of nerfing people get really upset. When martials get nerfed everyone thinks its a good thing? Why

[@evilsquirrel0573]

@@techbeef I think that people think of casters as characters that should be able to do cooler more magical stuff because the flavor feels better, but when martials get abilities, for the most part they tend not to have as much flavor, so while it does have a change mechanically, they don't view their character as less cool if they can't say, have better opportunity attacks. but if their warlock loses the ability to see in magical darkness or something, the flavor change makes the role play less satisfying.

[@SkarmoryThePG]

I -adore- the new exhaustion rules. They avoid the old doom spiral that started super early and you can still feasibly adventure with a few of them. Also works well with the exhaustion-at-0-hp rule.

[@PedroFerreira-ne3jv]

(Im on the introduction) the inspiration on natural 20 being changed wasn’t because of the community, on the video they made talking about the changes they said they will be changing some rules just to see what people prefer and theoretically those videos(and all the pdfs till now) where made months before their introduction to us

[@UltimosGabriel]

Actually, you're wrong they are recorded about a week prior

[@fredericgenest]

Loving the change to Shartshooter and GWM. Wonder though if the -5/+10 power strike will return as another generic Feat or a Martial Class Feat. Note about Epic Boon of Dimensional Travel (the one with Misty Step): it recharges on a short rest, long rest and when rolling Initiative. So you'll essentially always have it available for one use.

[@m.b.8701]

Yes, the Misty Step Epic Boon is really once per combat, at least. So not horrendous. I think "a number of times equal to proficiency bonus, get uses back on a short or long rest, and get one use if you are out of uses when you roll initiative" *feels* better for an EPIC Boon.

[@fredericgenest]

@@m.b.8701 Well it must be balanced with other epic boons as well, and have PB uses per short rest appears quite potent. But at this time I have no clear feeling or idea of the power level epic boons should be.

[@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj]

The one issue I have with sharpshooter is it didn't even get the pb to damage that gwm got to give people some bonus.

[@m.b.8701]

@@fredericgenest sorry, yeah, I guess my unclear implication was to do the same to the other Epic Boons. So they ALL feel *epic*

[@m.b.8701]

@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj melee needs more love than archery, *especially* strength-based melee

[@samueldinges2130]

I love that you guys mention Rich Burlew and Order of the Stick 😂 huge formative influence for my early DnD days. In one of the Jeremy Crawford videos, they mentioned that none of the feedback from the first document had made it to this one (there were over 40,000 responses). Said that they would be trying a few different things with things like D20 test in the first couple documents and gauging which ones the community liked best. Overall, enjoy your feedback! Good video, and I agree with Monty, for all 4e weirdness, there were a lot of great things in there that almost made it to 5e that maybe will make it this time.

[@quercusmorgana]

I love Treantmonk’s solution to GWM & Sharpshooter that all martials can take a -5 for +10 damage once a turn without a feat. I also like the idea of making it -proficiency bonus for + double proficiency bonus damage so it scales.

[@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj]

I did too, it could possibly be a warrior group feature like expertise is a expert feature.

[@XoRandomGuyoX]

Yeah, forgoing the proficiency bonus on attack rolls for 2x proficiency bonus added to the damage roll on a hit was my first thought in balancing GWM and Sharpshooter long before the official One D&D playtest. It just makes sense to not add up to 40 damage on attacks for a Fighter using Action Surge at level 5.

[@AvangionQ]

Much agreed! Power Attack: -5 penalty to hit for +10 damage should be a basic attack option. BOOM HEAD SHOT!!

[@meswain1123]

I always try to use degrees of success for any situation I'm able to see a way to do it. It makes it feel much more real.

[@SamanthaVimes177]

Thank you Monte for turning me on the Numenera, I just found a cheat sheet and my kind is sparkling with possibilities

[@devinanderson15]

Thanks for the DC thoughts I will now adopt the Cypher DC table so much clearer

[@ConcerninglyWiseAlligator]

I really liked the new "Exhausted" rules. The fact that it isn't as brutal makes it more interesting as a part of the game and as something monsters could apply. The undead being the prime candidates for that. Tho, I think that they would need to make sure at least some low level spells/features allow players to heal Exhausted levels. Otherwise it would be too brutal.

[@smallolive]

Yeah, that's my fear. If DMs start widely applying Exhaustion to parties because it's "So much better now" but you still need to heal it with Greater Restoration, a class feature, or a Long Rest, all of which only remove 1 level, you will run around with permanent penalties to *literally everything.* I think people are overlooking how pernicious this change is because it no longer turns you into a snail (or a rock at level 5) or halves your HP. But if you have a permanent -3 -4 -5 -6 -7, you're barely more useful (oh look, Spell Casters can still come out ahead because of their infinite utility) and your DM will probably give you more in the near future, so it takes significantly longer to remove.

[@ConcerninglyWiseAlligator]

@@smallolive For exhausted to be a mechanic that is actually part of the game and not something reserved for tables looking for a challenge or evil DMs, spells like Cure Wounds should remove 1 level of exhausted. And ofc, stuff like Greater Restoration should remove several levels of it.

[@valiksheva]

For me it's just ridiculously easy on players. Come on, you didn't drink for 4 days and you only got -4 to checks? In reality you should be close to dying

[@smallolive]

@@valiksheva I think it's too early to say if this system would actually replace the old one with absolutely no other wording changes. In other words, what once was a single level of exhaustion for failure to drink water could become 2 or even 3. Even if that's not done officially, that's an easy fix, and you will still die eventually. Furthermore, I just checked and according to the Water/Food rules in the PHB, "If the character already has one or more levels of exhaustion, the character takes two levels in either case." So by day 2 you're at 3 Exhaustion (a long rest doesn't clear any without food/water) by day 3 you're at 5 and by day 4 you're at 7. Two more days and you die. It's not perfect and in terms of real life is somewhere in between water's ~3 day and food's ~10 day limits, but it's not nothing and you do in fact still die. Advantage/disadvantage maths out at about +/- 3.3, so by day 2 it's sort of like disadvantage on everything *and* spell save DC drops, and turns into super mega disadvantage pretty quickly, which would certainly feel like death for the character.

[@valiksheva]

@@smallolive ok, that rule from PHB fixes the scaling a bit making it more severe, but still not representing real life repercussions. Have you seen people without water/sleep for 3-4 days ? Do you really think they can even lift up a Greatsword? When I didn't sleep for 30+ hours, literally thought I could get hallucinations any second, and any physical effort could make me fall down in no time . I know, D&D chars are not real humans and are much stronger, but I believe it should be a bit more realistic than having -9 and weilding all the weapons, climbing, casting normally and on the next day just die.

[@fingallcross4089]

I think the great weapon master and sharpshooter losing the damage output also now make sword and board or duel wielders feel more like good choices in a meta setting and gives more playstyles a chance.

[@sassort]

@1:00 I must point out that in standard testing procedures the changes may be tested one set at a time to reduce confabulators. This means that WotC might NOT have "reverted" the changes, but that they tested those things in isolation from the other features. This is not to say that they aren't listening.

[@Aggarius]

15:15 they didnt change that becauae of feedback. They said that from the beginning they planned on showing different rules versions for this with different releases of playtest to get a better feel for what works or is wanted. I can reply with the video and timestamp of that from DnD’s youtube if you would like

[@DDRmassa]

"We can't really give feedback without knowing more of the design philosophy of the game developers." Bet. The changes to sharpshooter and great weapon master greatly reduce the potential damage of martial classes and without other changes I worry they will fall further behind their caster counterparts. Boom. No need to know the whole damn thing. Clear, concise statement that reflects the current changes and your concerns with how they might interact with the rest of the game. I don't mean to sound angry or condescending. I love your guys content. I'm just frustrated that basically every D&D content creator I've watched says the same thing. It's like going to dinner, getting the appetizers and when asked, "How were the appetizers?" you respond with, "Not sure, I'll let you know after dessert." You can comment on what you have. D&D players are notorious for their RAW interpretation discussions. I'm confident you're able to look at these changes in a vacuum and come to a conclusion without any additional information.

[@valeriemcintyre1425]

I think its a good point that its hard to judge the martial feats and 'performance' because our only true measure is the Ranger and we don't know how the Warrior Group classes or Paladin will be affected, will they do about the same as a Ranger just utilising different class features? Or will some classes still out perform in damage? I am looking forward to more of the subclasses and what changes are being made.

[@Bloodshot808]

Nice that you called spiritual weapon getting concentration!

[@Hedron-Design]

I really appreciate the discussion and analysis

[@WinningSidekick]

Thanks for reminding me to check up on Order of the Stick! That comic got me into D&D.

[@broomemike1]

3:40 I love this discussion about the metagaming nature of the Great Weapon Master feat. It's definitely an S tier feat, and I've heard you guys say that stuff should be A tier. S tier makes other feats unviable except for role playing groups.

[@robertsilvermyst7325]

There are a few feats that do need tweaking. Mostly those feats like Sentinel and Mounted Combatant, where it seems like they forgot reach weapons exist. The Within 5ft should be Within the Range of your melee weapon.

[@taktikal26]

I would highly recommend watching the interviews with Crawford that they have been releasing with each update. He explains that this entire playtest package was written and ready to go prior to even receiving the responses from the first survey. They have changed the ability check roles internally. He said to expect that each playtest to drastically change some of these rules. They want to give a bunch of options and see what works best over time.

[@DMLoosey]

That's like saying that they are a person on jury duty who doesn't watch theit case's reporting on the news. WotC aren't completely insulated from the criticism and it's a bit naive to assume they wouldn't have any fingers on the pulse of the community in this regard.

[@taktikal26]

@@DMLoosey Jeremy Crawford literally said it himself in the announcement interview for the second playtest. He said that the second playtest pack ( the one containing expert classes) was all written before the feedback for the first one came out. He said himself that they are going to be trying a bunch of different rules for the first few playtests just so that they can get a feel for what sticks and what doesn't. I would think that the head designer would be a good source on WotC's design philosophy and strategy. Don't you?

[@Axel-zc6xj]

I see the GWM/Sharpshooter feat changes good for the fact that they arent THE feat to get. If you wanted to do damage and got a heavy, 2 handed weapon, people would look at you weird if you DIDN'T get GWM. Now I don't feel like I HAVE to do it, I can go charger instead, or ASI's feel much better, etc. Also, the reduction of accuracy really hurt at later levels. The new version is just a nice increase in damage that grows as the character grows.

[@jb6748]

From about 33:27 mark, we use roles in our military even today. We keep our Healers: Medics, Chaplins, behind the damage dealers with defenders. So, yes I agree about all builds should have damage dealing capabilities, but building into a defensive complimentary role makes character/team building so much fun. Now we just need to teach the noobs how to strategize in those teams. (A few vets aren't so good at it either.)

[@ryanweaver3348]

Thank you for your review. I am a little surprised that you are glad critical ability check success is gone, but also like the Influence action, with its encounter redefining chart. The caveat that the dm has the final say in how a monster/npc reacts could just have easily been applied to critical ability check successes on general. Overall, I think I enjoyed this document as well. I am really looking forward for the Warrior UA, though I am guessing that will be last.

[@TheNimbleOgre]

A good synopsis. I love that you stress that these are only play test material. Getting quite annoyed with the community ranting about the changes as if they are already decided. I the it’s great that WotC are experimenting and as you say already listening to the feed back.

[@JudgeShadowfoot]

I love degrees of success. I use it a lot, especially with puzzle elements or challenges that I want my party to get past. Instead of failing, it takes them a long time to complete the task and depending on how much they miss by, other things happen like wandering monsters or they make a bunch of noise etc...

[@latios3874]

I would like to see this interactions chart you were talking about in the search study and interact portion of the video.

[@bradleyrichmond726]

I feel like everyone should contribute to battle equally not deal damage equally. Martial characters should do more damage while other classes contribute to battle in other ways. Martial characters can't make a wall of fire or banish something to another plane.

[@olelarsen1386]

Interesting that Kelly liked the current exhaustion rules. To me they are a real problem area of 5e. As Morty said, they are so punishing that you can't really use them. This way they can be a much more integrated. We recently started a new campaign section by taking exhaustion levels due to cold/weather. All that happened was everyone headed for shelter. The effects actually never came into play, because no one wanted to have to do any die rolling with those negatives. This way you can have it on more things and it won't just make your characters want to go for a nap. Maybe a magic items adds levels of exhaustions for X ability or to recharge and my players might actually consider it a viable trade off . I'm actually quite excited about the possibilities this have. And yes, you could do that before if you wanted, but it is easier if there is an established in-game effect for it.

[@nothing4mepls973]

You're not wrong, but I like the verisimilitude of it. Exhaustion SUCKS in real life and is very debilitating. It makes sense to try to avoid it at all costs and only have it come up during big push moments.

[@LastMimsiE]

One of the main changes that I'm still not sure about are the removal of contested checks. The changes to Grappling seem pretty good overall but things like the Hide/Jump Action and the Actor Feat (which are generally going to be used outside of combat) incentivize just standing there fishing for a 20 on the check before you go do the thing.

[@Varizen87]

On a related note... I just submitted my playtest info for Apothecary and the new spells. Just thought the Dudes might appreciate that :P Also, Monty, Magic Initiate isn't missing. It's a lvl 1 Feat. It was in the previous Playtest Mats. None of those showed back up as they weren't changed. They only added a few new lvl 1s like Lightly Armored and the Fighting Styles. You kinda have to keep layer the play tests on top of each other. Almost everything added in this was 4th or 20th level.

[@norl55]

One of my biggest points of feedback was on guidance and bardic inspiration (and Stroke of Luck as well). I love all of these as reactions over bonus actions, but I really dislike them only working on fails. It means if you have a roll with variable levels of success (Say an investigation check looking for things in a room) that if you successes at the lowest level (You find a red book in a desk drawer) you can't use this to increase the value immediately after rolling, when there are other things to gain by getting a higher roll (finding that the statue opens and has a button that opens a secret door, but only if you got DC20). Assuming that all rolls have a single degree of pass fail is a very bad assumption and these all make that assumption. Simply removing the "failed" term and replacing it with a d20 test (appropriate to the type) after the roll is made but before the DM describes the result I think would be much better

[@acquiescinit]

I personally prefer the original way of needing to prepare those things in advance. I think that's what balances them and makes it so that you don't just get a free +d4 or free bardic inspiration die on every roll. I also hate how janky one D&D guidance makes the process of calling for a roll. The DM needs to basically outright say the check fails to give players a chance to use guidance before saying what happens. It's a very awkward pause to have at every ability check.

[@Aggarius]

3:50 i relate. In my current game, taking observant over sharpshooter on my character was so hard but has been so worth it for roleplay

[@jordanlindsey4299]

As far as the Influence action, you guys went over the Attitude portion of the rule but didn't seem to mention the Interaction part. In the document it has the Interaction with the creature as the ability of the player to attempt to appeal to them, and affect the subsequent ability check, as you mentioned wanting to see. It mentions that if your request or demand is especially suited to the creature's desires or outlook, then the DM could either grant advantage on the roll or *temporarily shift the creature's attitude from hostile to indifferent or from indifferent to friendly*. Looking at the table for the DCs, this would cause a DC 20 roll for a hostile creature to be a DC 10 roll for an indifferent one, and the same from indifferent to friendly. While I think you're more right that the DM should be able to change the DC more fluidly, you seemed to say that there wasn't currently a way for them to change it at all and I just wanted to point out the way it's laid out in the document already.

[@redactedlemons6817]

The draw/stow change isn't per Attack action, it's per attack! EQUIPPING WEAPONS You can equip or unequip one Weapon before or after any attack you make as part of this Action, even if the attack is with an Unarmed Strike.

[@magnoliidae5794]

I remain hopeful that the -5/+10 aspect of gwm/ss will be added as some sort of feature to the warrior class, maybe not infinitely useable as in the phb feats but some sort of per combat/sr boosts

[@AvangionQ]

Power Attack: -5 penalty to hit for +10 damage should be a basic attack option. BOOM HEAD SHOT!!

[@empire263]

My thought on the "Influence" option was to make it a DC decided as 10 + Wisdom (as if using insight), OR Charisma (any of the numerous social skills) whichever is higher - with creatures with scores less than 6 in both categories being too mindless to understand. Can add a +/- depending on how friendly/hostile the creature is.

[@FarothFuin]

The problem with dual wielder and equipping weapons for free is that it can be exploited with the duelist fighting style, since dualwielder and twoweaponfighter didnt say you have to hold both weapons at the same time while attacking, just that you can attack with each weapon on the same turn, which means i can hold 2 light weapons, then say i will attack using two-weapon fighting, sheat the offhand weapon, now im holding 1 light weapon, attack and apply the bonus from duelist style, draw the other light weapon on my offhand, say i will use my twoweapon fighting attack, sheat the mainhand weapon, again holding only 1 light weapon activates the duelist style and get the bonus again... in RAW this is possible, i know it is not the RAI, but a little wording of "holding both weapons while attacking" or something like that would prevent the new "juggling weapons attacks" Imagine a fighter changing weapons for each attack to deal different damage types and bonus using maneuvers and duelist style combined...

[@rabpanz6145]

For persuasion checks, you could just increase it by 5 for every step they hate you. 5 for BFF, 10 for friendly, 15 for ambivalent, 20 for hostile, then modify based on the type of request and so on. I definitely like touching on flaws/bonds/etc., making them mechanically useful in a specifically social context is something I really think is a good thing.

[@golett0331]

I would love a "weapon power attack" feat. The -5 +10 to all weapon attacks.

[@AvangionQ]

Have to disagree, it should be better than that ... Power Attack: -5 penalty to hit for +10 damage should be a basic attack option. BOOM HEAD SHOT!!

[@golett0331]

@@AvangionQ hmm, if I ever test out these rules, I might actually try that, instead of a feat. It certainly would be useful

[@ChristnThms]

The thing I REALLY hope for the martial classes is a far greater proliferation of "until the start of your next turn" conditions. The casters all have earth shaking things they can do, even at mid levels. Martial, for now, really just do damage. I look at the Swarmkeeper options, and have hope.

[@emerynoel567]

This was one of my favorite things about 4th ed. The at-will 'powers' that every class got that were all better than 'i attack!`

[@ChristnThms]

@@emerynoel567 I'm really hoping... it doesn't even have to replace attacking. It can be once-per effects that go along with the attack. But yes, 4th wasn't a bad idea. It was a poorly executed concept and a bunch of bad publicity.

[@emerynoel567]

@@ChristnThms Yeah, that's what the "powers" were: an attack with a rider (at least mostly). 4th ed definitely got bad publicity, and I never understood it. People cry about the power disparity between martials and casters, the lack of meaningful per-level choices, save or sucks, and the density of text for features/effects/spells (at least I cry about that last one). 4th balanced the classes, provided a glut of per-level choices, had cool "aftereffects", "lesser effects", and "growing effects" for missed saves, and all the at-a-glance readability you could dream of.

[@palatonian9618]

I loved all the references to different systems. I would really *really* love to see a video about the strengths and weaknesses of 5e compared to other systems and other systems strengths and weaknesses

[@TheRawrnstuff]

For me, I've been using 'degrees of success' for as long as I've been playing TTRPGs. For 5th edition I use the following guideline for Ability Checks: DC 8 -> Doing something simple, but under pressure DC 12 -> The standard roll DC 16 -> Difficult task, such as breaking a sturdy piece of furniture DC 20 -> A task emulating anime/superhero action DC 24 -> Tasks that kinda feel like magic should be involved DC 28 -> Pretty much anything that doesn't break the game For each "step" the check goes over the DC, I'll add more benefits as long as I can come up with them. Missing by one step I might grant success, but with a penalty, if I can come up with a reasonable one at the spot.

[@mccallosone4903]

the spell true strike is worthless, so ive added that study action youre talking about to it. i tell the characters one piece of info about the creature, like a resistance, or a spell/magic item effect the opponent may be under

[@obsolete18]

The +10 damage part of Great weapon master and sharpshooter are already been replaced with another feature in my games. Martial classes still deal the most damage by a pretty large margin. They don’t need the help. The change means that I see fighters and paladins duel wielding or sword and boarding, as well as rangers occasionally mixing it up with their melee weapons.

[@broomemike1]

Omg, at 6:30 I just heard "we could get another edition where Spiritual Weapon becomes concentration". You guys are definitely of the divination school.

[@MannerdDesert7]

One feat change that I didn’t like was Medium Armor Master not negating stealth disadvantage, so now even though it’s a 4th level feat it only gives you +1 ac, that’s the same as a defensive fighting style but defensive can be used with any Armor or no Armor so it’s better.

[@JJV7243]

Influence/Search/Study actions - a big chunk of this should honestly be in the DMG. I totally agree that this section needs to be more fleshed out as WHAT the players do/suggest heavily regulates the DC.

[@andrewshandle]

I think they want to move it to the PHB so players actually know it's an option.

[@franistan9867]

And so players know how it works and which skills to invest in

[@Br00B]

I think the epic boons should give a free action type of thing and a roleplay/downtime addition. Free action because you have so many actions to do in your turn, we don’t need any extra. If the Misty step is a free one instead of bonus action. It would be kinda cool. For roleplay etc, a reputation, title or religion in your name would be cool to have. At lvl 20 you could have a bunch of followers since you are a mighty, even godlike, person. So maybe a boon could be: Choose: A title or gold B item or feature

[@dadadajasper]

They should have a list of general epic boons everyone can take and a class specific list of, like, 4 or 5 epic boons.

[@carsonrush3352]

I think feats like "power attack" (-5 atk and +10 dam) and "whirlwind strike" (melee AoE) will become major feats again, like in 3.5E. The leveled nature of these new feats seems to be leading to feat trees. If they give extra feats back to martials, which will allow them to customize like this, then you could use these to balance martials with casters.

[@Kheldul]

I do wonder if they will have an attack mechanism outside of any feat, that you can take some negative to hit for an equitable bonus to damage.

[@szymonskalka3319]

I agree with you guys on the Epic Boons. Some are epic, some are not. Also great to see you guys delve into 4e. There's a lot 4e got wrong when it came to fluff. But it got a hell of a lot right crunch wise. Especially when it came to building encounters, and skill challenges.

[@PokeNaru29]

This document wasn’t them updating it from the responses. They stated they’re trying out different rules in each one to see what the reaction is. They probably didn’t have time to look at all the responses to update the document. I wouldn’t fully count our no critical hits on ability checks yet though. Just cause some rules are different in this one than the last one doesn’t mean that the previous one was written out. They just said they want to try a bunch of different versions for each rule.

[@russelldavis1359]

18:38 My understanding was if you used half your walk speed, 3 seconds of the 6 seconds of movement, Then you'd only have half your fly speed to use. Largely based off the idea you have 6 seconds to move and speeds are measured assuming per 6 seconds

[@CrownlessStudios]

That's how it currently works for 5e. One D&D makes you choose the movement type when you take the move action.

[@rontrobertson]

I'm hoping for a 4th- or higher-level feat that gives a -5 penalty to hit and a 10 bonus to damage for all weapons. It might also be applicable to spell attacks, but I haven't thought that through.

[@Kantohammer]

I’ve been using a homebrew version of the 4th ed knowledge checks for weaknesses. It helps to level the playing field between players who know the monsters and newer players. It can also help prevent people from wasting turns on something the monsters are immune to.

[@stovenven]

I love the new exhaustion rules just because I can actually remember what it does now. I also implemented a house rule where my players can do a little more on their turn in exchange for some exhaustion. One player regretted an earlier movement decision, so I let them move 5 extra feet and gave them 3 levels of exhaustion. They enjoyed the tradeoff.

[@arkdeniz]

I have a long track record of saying GWM and Sharpshooter are broken and OP. No feat should be a ‘must have’. So pleased to see the proposal to remove them!

[@evanmurphreegamble575]

I definitely agree with Kelly about how removing these power feats makes other interesting feats and options more appealing. It would be cool to see them come back for martials in another way. For instance, what if around 10th level martials could pick an advanced fighting style? Weapon master or armor master for example. Weapon Master would be a -5/+10 mechanic that wasn’t locked to a specific weapon type, just to weapon damage, and Armor Master could be a buff to AC and saving throws. This could even play into epic boons, where you could choose a stronger version at 20th level.

[@LongStrider42]

You misread EB of Dimensional Travel. It refreshes on sort rest, long rest or on rolling Initiative. So it's once per combat. This makes it significantly better than several of the others, but worse than several low level Invocations. You are entirely correct about the EBs being underwhelming though.

[@sandrockman]

My take on the Guidance cantrip for best utilization would be to let players benefit from its use a number of times equal to one's proficiency bonus. This makes the cantrip just as viable in later levels for those that rely on its use and every player would get two uses per lonh rest at 1st level. They then need to weigh when would be a good time to use it.

[@connerduncan3574]

If you look at the section titled skills they changed acrobatics to use strength. (I love this)

[@silvinity4939]

I've heard that they said the reversion to crits wasn't actually because of feedback, but they were intending to try different crit rules with each playtest anyways. I don't know though because I've only just heard this from other people discussing the topic.

[@madisonmcclure8243]

Potentially hot take: You shouldn’t have to choose between feats and ASI. I think that feats should be tied to class/subclass progression paths, with exclusives for each category. Maybe a handful of feats tied to specific backgrounds. They should be more like skill tree unlocks.

[@TheJurzerker]

Also with the way Rogues have been written out of getting sneak attack on other people's turns, that's evidence maybe that damage overall is going to be compressed somewhat. My first reaction to the "squish" was anger, but so was it when i went from big numbers in 3.5 to little numbers in 5e, and now i love the little numbers.

[@meswain1123]

I agree that the changes to GWM and Sharpshooter are good. They made it so every build that didn't use them felt almost worthless in combat.

[@RWCFORESKIN]

It is really tough to touch on the hard nerfing of the power attack options like sharpshooter and gwm. Mostly because we haven't seen how they decide to nerf casters if they decide to do so at all. I truly hope they don't decide to nerf casters and decide to revert this power attack in some way

[@robertling2221]

I would prefer a cross the board nerf to damage and combat prowess. Being a character already means you are superhuman compared to common folk and that is just stupid.

[@techbeef]

Yeah because casters aren't too powerful or anything. They SHOULD be able to do everything, right?

[@RWCFORESKIN]

@@techbeef yea they should. I think martials should too. You're missing the point and getting upset

[@christianneikirk3723]

I think casting should be nerfed a bit not cause it's to powerful but because a wizard can potentially just do everything by themselves with spells no rouge to pick locks wizard cast knock. Want to do any other party members thing there is a spell for it that they could get I feel like when a spell can counter a class main thing that is a problem at the table but maybe that's me.

[@techbeef]

@@RWCFORESKIN no I'm not. Every time casters get nerfed people cry foul but martials are nerfed and we're like "ah yes, casters are finally better at everything" It's a ROLE playing game, pick your ROLE and play it. Stop trying to take everyone else's

[@jamessquires6168]

Here is a neat idea. Epic Boon: choose an additional subclass from your existing class up to its 1st, maybe 2nd subclass feature. Or, choose two subclass features from another subclass in your existing class. That type of option seems more on an "epic" scale. Maybe too much, but just a thought.

[@runicdragon3183]

I think it's the misty step epic boon is well an epic boon. is cause of this line more specifically the word with the * to show which word I'm taking about "Once you use this benefit, you can’t use it again until you roll Initiative* or finish a Short Rest or a Long Rest"

[@21506ash]

I like the climber or swimmer trait ideas I think they should have a set multiplyer to there base movement speeds. So with a 2x swim speed assuming base 30 movement speed you spend 5 feet to get to the pool but but now your remaining 25 feet will be 50 for the sake of swimming. Voce versa you swim for 10 feet to the shore and now you have 25 feet land movement speed remaining

[@m_capsa7093]

I agree that exhaustion levels are less punitive. I am wondering if they are going to add a level of exhaustion every time you are revived/resurrected or maybe even when you go down to 0 hp.

[@XXpettywigginsXX]

I agree with the ruling on swim speed because very few times do I jump into a pool or space and within 6 seconds get trucking unless there is a specialty. Like a Navy man could probably but not guitarist Van Halen or the dude from The Crow.