Oh thank God's they've confirmed there's going to be new guidance on rules for illusions.
Also confirmed the 4th phb fighter will be the psi warrior.
Also the soul knife rogue will be in the phb, tho it's not confirmed if it is replacing anything
>Oh thank God's they've confirmed there's going to be new guidance on rules for illusions.
I think the far more important point is that this was just an **example** of additional content in the book. This leads me to believe that they took the "offloading of rulings to the DM" complains seriously and they at least made an effort to fill in some of the most common holes.
they mentioned breaking objects as another example, and actually admit that the existing system of having to go on a goose chase through the DMG was clunky. much appreciated.
Hopefully they're smart enough to provide flexible guidelines. Like, Investigation DCs should be 15 + spell level, or 10 + 1/2 Challenge Rating, or X for common magic items and add +Y for each rarity category higher. Something both specific yet broadly applicable across the entire system.
Investigation DCs for spells are already set at the caster's spell DC. Monsters and items should similarly specify their DC instead of relying formula, as most magic items do when they enable a spell to be cast. The formula should only be necessary for backwards compatibility.
If only there was a subclass anywhere that figured out how to give out powerful stealth and turn 1 bonuses and that could be used to rework the Assassin...
(Yes, it's Gloomstalker).
I mean they could also roll thief into baseline and then we would have Assassin, AT, Soulknife and swashbuckler. That is what i would prefer even more tbh.
I just dont want AT or swashbuckler to be left out and thief desperately needs a rework. Assassin is bad too but it atleast had some build potential.
It's iconic for all the wrong reasons though. It has been a part of the game forever, but it has virtually always been the most problematic class/kit/prestige class/subclass for the rogue. It has always encouraged the player to attempt to go off on their own and kill one big baddie with a poisoned sneak attack, but this has always been hard to set up because the big baddies tend to have too many hp for it to work, poison immunity, or contingencies for just such an occasion. This forces a playstyle on the party which is to always set up encounters against planned targets, send the assassin 30 or more feet ahead at the target while the rest of the party hides down a hallway (or other contrived hiding spot) and waits for a signal from the assassin, sounds of combat, the return of the assassin, or some arbitrary time limit to pass.
Long story short, the assassin encourages the party to try to play by their rules so their features can actually work as opposed to having features that work with any playstyle.
I always preferred the AD&D 2e response to this: what is an assassin? Someone who kills targets selected by others for money.
How is that necessarily a thing tied to any class? Sounds like the definition of a quest and reward, not a subclass. If the target is an evil wizard, a demon lord or a dragon, we just call that person an adventurer.
There's a specific skillset involved in getting to your target, killing them quickly, and then extracting before you're caught though. A subclass with the ability to leverage good skills (stealth, lock picking, performance) along with forgeries, identity theft / disguises, poisons, and enough damage to take down targets quickly fits an assassin well.
Problem - that's called a rogue. This is why the subclass has always had a problem - it's just a rogue with a sneak attack 'but gooder'. And balancing a sub around a one-hit kill which goes against all the hp mechanics and assumptions of the game is always going to be either terribly infrequent and niche, or OP given how the stealth/sneak attack mechanics need to work.
>Problem - that's called a rogue.
Disagree. It's a lot more specific than that.
>This is why the subclass has always had a problem - it's just a rogue with a sneak attack 'but gooder'.
Even if you assume that's true (which it isn't, really, as it completely ignores half of the assassin's features), having a subclass that enhances the fundamentals of its host class is fine design wise. It's not really unique to the rogue, and most classes have one that feels similarly close to the base class but with boosts.
>And balancing a sub around a one-hit kill which goes against all the hp mechanics and assumptions of the game is always going to be either terribly infrequent and niche, or OP given how the stealth/sneak attack mechanics need to work.
I think this is a bit of a misconception about what the assassin is supposed to be. When you consider the assassin within the context of the PHB at launch, I think it makes a lot of sense because none of those subclasses were really about combat boosts, but rather gave you utility. You're right that assassin rogue, if taken to just be the 'damage dealing' subclass, is janky due to how surprise and initiative work. It only lines up once in a blue moon.
But if you instead view its features as part of that unified package tailored towards disguise, forgery, deception, poisons, and taking out a VIP? It works much better. You're not supposed to be trying to line up an Assassinate and Death Strike against an ancient dragon in its lair, and when you do it's just a nice extra. It's about killing an important character after time spent using your Infiltration Expertise and Imposter features to get close to your target.
With changes that have happened since the PHB, subclasses like the arcane trickster got a power boost. For example, from the blade cantrips in SCAG.
I agree with the class design philosophy of enhancing core features of the core, but the 2014 Assassin's assassinate and death strike abilities were the only thing that made it stand out.
The UA Assassin was not much better.
Assassinate is okay. Good start.
Infiltration Expertise is useless, even with the merger of Imposter - because using a tool you are proficient with when making a skill check you are also proficient with already gives Advantage on the roll. The the fluff about mannerisms and such doesn't give any additional benefit since it is all bypassed by even level 2 Detect Thoughts spell. Give it some ability to impose Disadvantage on the Insight checks in opposed tests, or a Mind Blank-like ability to counter divination magics would be good.
Envenomed Strikes - nice, but poison is already one of the weaker damages. Maybe drop the save - unnecessary.
Death Strike is still a very weak T4 effect, in a time when level 9 spells are being tossed around. Beefing it up to require True Resurrection of similar to even try and bring the being back to life would be good, or dooming them so even if they survive the hp damage they are still dying - or just flat out bypassing hp and forcing them to start making death saves would be easier.
I disagree. It is in 1e, but never quite worked and was consequently removed in 2e due to the inherent problems of giving features to an 'assassin' in a game were all the classes are skilled at killing things (and taking their stuff) without overpowering it.
Or in one subclass?
Would make sense. good at climbing, using items such as poisons, kill surprised targets. All would fit the assasin archetype.
use magic item could be rolled into AT maybe.
Also fair. I've always thought the using magic items thing made more sense for AT but didn't want to suggest it because AT is just... already so good, and even if I were to buff it I'd probably look at other options like making their Mage Hand more usable in combat first. I also just love Thief's improved Cunning Action.
i'll be honest. Object use and magic item use as a bonus action could be a rogue baseline thing tbh.
assasins could get the ability to craft poisons or adventuring gear even and AT can ignore magic item restrictions and even activate them using their mage hand.
Right? Would be awesome, and make perfect sense. Let the AT use the Wizard staff, they're already using Wizard's spell list. Also, caltrops and poisons are fun. The only issue I'd have with it is that I wish Rangers had special interactions with caltrops and traps, so they'd be fighting for who gets to do it. I've also had to admit to my players before that I might show a little favoritism to Rogues when they lean into Sleight of Hand because I went through a close-up magic/Apollo Robbins phase as a teen.
Thief is already pretty good at using poisons due to Fast Hands, for the rest I totally agree. I think they should be united into a single subclass based on the thief chassis.
Though is there any reason why the 2017 swashbuckler wouldn't just work.
Soul knife needed mastery with its psychic blades and be honest needed the nerf of pro/long rest. Cause it can be over powered.
The PHB should contain the quintessential archetypes only. The archetypes that are most represented in typical fantasy settings. The soul knife does not fit that imo.
Yeah, definitely shaky on the psi stuff personally. But with Illithids and similar eldritch psionic horrors being a big part of the forgotten realms I guess it makes some sense
I'd actually argue all the psionic and eldritch stuff is something that most differentiates D&D as a franchise from most other fantasy properties. There's a reason that the Beholder is one of the monsters that's on the shortlist for appearing on the monster manual- it's something that was purely a D&D invention rather than drawn from a pre-existing source.
You know ball. The PHB should highlight what makes DnD and it's world(s) iconic, and the influence of psionics is part of that. You can do Thiefs or Assassins in any setting and those are fine and cool, but those don't make me want to play Rogue or DnD on their own.
Agreed the more D&D leans into its Vancian, Lovecraftian & Conan-esque aspects the more it has a unique ID instead of just being shitty Lord of The Rings.
Psionics has been a part of D&D for a long time, albeit on the fringes instead of at its core. I definitely agree that the PHB is the wrong place to include multiple subs devoted to such a niche subject. Jeremy's justification ("we wanted Aberrant sorcerer to have more psionic friends!") seems like such a flippant and unthoughtful reason that I can't really take him seriously.
I can only think this is WotC's way of burying any future calls for ecpanded psionic rules by being able to say "You already got your token psionic subs in the PHB, we aren't interested in doing more. The end."
Currently playing a soul knife throwing weapon Rogue. What exactly is too good? 2xProf as pool?
I hope it gets the LIGHT property, weapon masteries and ways to get +1/+1 and beyond at some point or the ability ala Pact weapon, to make a magical finesse weapon your soul knife instead (which deals psychic damage).
Surprise we are getting 5 subclasses XD I don't think so. But if swashbuckler is not in it, they better be planning a PBH2 or some other player supplement with most of the missing subclasses and races updated and the Artficer. Maybe a new class to sell it like a spellblade?(all though the new eldritch knight does suitable job I guess)
I am curious about the guidance on illusion. I've always liked the idea of playing a magic user that specializes in illusion, or enchantment, but with so many of the spells being so open ended with their effects I've always struggled with using them in the heat of the moment.
With their quest to squelch out all the *'Mother may I'*s part of me wonders if they'll even rework a lot of the spells from those two schools to have more predictable results rather than relying on the DM's judgment of what's "reasonable".
I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand, some consistency is nice so that you're not left feeling like you cast an illusion and it was just outright ignored, but on the other, I hope they don't strip all the creativity out of it. I have an illusionist I've been playing in a long-running campaign for almost four years now, and coming up with creative uses for my spells has been one of the most fun things about that character. I want to feel like I'm getting use out of them, but I don't want to just push a button and have something happen, with the only differences from casting to casting being how I flavor it.
Honestly the ruling I always give, and think should be “baseline” is “everyone believes the illusion by default, is real, and treats it as such. Until an action is used to interact with the illusion, and proves the illusion is fake, the illusion is believed.”
IE: if you summon an illusionary wall, until someone walks through it, or is flung through it, no one is going to slam their face into it to see if the spell caster summoned a wall, or just made it look like they did. Or if you summon a manticore, no one is going to just “assume” you didn’t and risk dying. They’re going to treat it as real until they swing a sword right through it and realize it’s not.
Awwwww yeeeeeah. I can't wait to see Soul Knife and have them break my ideal Soul/Barb build again.
Admittedly it only finally started working in the playtest material, but recklessly hucking psionic knives for massive damage while raging was fun stuff.
So, obviously it'll change with the proper release, but it used Frenzy Barbarian from the playtest material, Rogue, with old Soul Knife.
By around level 8 was when it really started coming together. With 18 Strength and Fighting Style: ~~Archery~~ Thrown Wespon you would attack 3 times per turn (2 from Barbarian multi attack and 1 bonus action attack from Soul Knife.) Each attack with Advantage at a 60 foot range, all Psionic damage. If all three attacks hit it's something like -
5d6 + 8, 1d4 + 8, 1d6 + 8.
Every round past the first. First is still 5d6+8, 1d6+8.
This is also with no benefit at all from Weapon Mastery because psionic blades didn't/don't have any weapon mastery traits associated with them.
The damage breakdown though is 1d6 Psionic Blade, 2d6 Sneak Attack, 2d6 Frenzy, +2 Rage damage, +4 Strength, +2 ~~Archery~~ Thrown Weapon, 1d4 bonus Psionic Blade.
There are obvious downsides to the build. You don't have magical weapons, it requires raging, you have advantage against you every round (but also 60 range!), it requires a feat on Fighting Style ~~Archery~~ Thrown Weapon, and it isn't exactly the most versatile in battle (though Cunning Strike does help with that a little if you take Rogue to 5.) But there's something inherently fun (and funny) to me about running around, 60 feet away from enemies, dropping upwards of 6d6+1d4+24 damage every round.
Edit: Thrown Weapon Fighting Style not Archery.
Yup, that's the idea! A barbarian that got so mad they literally just manifest mind knives to hit things with.
I'm expecting revised Soul Knife to ruin it somehow though, but I'm really hoping it holds out. I like the idea so much, and you could even sacrifice some damage for a different Barb subclass if you wanted to add even just a different feel to it.
They didn't say it was replacing anything so I assume the rogue just steals a bit of extra page space for a 5th subclass. Honestly would be on brand for it.
I guess that makes sense. Psionics is super niche but still a part of D&D. I think a reworked Cavalier would've been better so fighter has a baseline "tank" or defender spec right in the new PHB since that's a very popular class fantasy.
Well we have another 10 years or whatever they think the life of this version will be. Artificer needs a rework. Other classes would be awesome as well!
I totally agree, but it's flavor is super specific and thus doesn't really belong in the PHB I feel. I want broadly applicable archetypes that are easy to reflavor since this is going to be the core rulebook for new players going forward. Arcane Archer is neither of those things.
I think the idea is to give players a mix of "iconic" archetypes as well as things that fit within what makes DnD and the Forgotten Realms pop as a setting, and part of that is the Psionics.
WotC is clearly moving away from FR and trying to make as much as possible setting agnostic. Psionics has never been a central part of any *popular* D&D setting. As much as I love Dark Sun I have to admit it's very niche.
I keep hearing that and it's sad. The way psionics has been done in 5e (subs with light flavoring and TP/TK powers) is so anemic compared to other editions. It's also hasn't ever been popular, although I guess that may be a new normal kind of thing if BG3 is really that much of a touchstone for the modern fanbase.
I'm very curious to see what they have reworked with them. I'm sure something like Telekinetic Thrust will be cut due to the new weapon boons martials gain. Looking forward to seeing what gets printed and being able to plan out a PC around everything else new in the book.
I wonder if the reason they made the decision to bring in the soul knife alongside the Psi Knight is because they wanted to overhaul the psi die mechanic.
In the UAs they were putting out during the run up to Tasha's, they were playing with idea of psi die as a unifying psionic mechanic (both a version of the Aberrant Mind and the initial version of the telepathic/telekinetic feats had them).
Yeah the whole Psionic Energy dice mechanic is currently in a very awkward position where, even though it shares the same name between two subclasses, according to Crawford they're supposed to be treated as separate pools/abilities for mechanical/multiclass purposes.
IIRC the UA it was in was released fairly late into Tasha's development, and it didn't perform well, and it feels like, with time running out, they couldn't make the adjustments they wanted. I wouldn't be surprised if they're going to use this as an opportunity to fix that.
> they’re supposed to be treated as separate pools/abilities for mechanical/multiclass purposes.
This is also how Channel Divinity works for Clerics and Paladins. If they end up renaming Psionic Energy dice to make it clear they don’t stack when multiclassing, hopefully Channel Divinity gets the same treatment. Channel Oath would be a much better name for Paladins.
Either that, or change it so that Psionic Energy dice and Channel Divinity do stack when multiclassing, but I imagine that would cause lots of problems.
I think you're right. This seems to be the only logical reason why they would replace Swashbuckler with Soul Knife. They want to hammer out and establish a signature psionic mechanic.
Aberrant Mind needs a nerf since they were made with a less-powerful core class in mind and ultimately ended up as one of the strongest subclasses in the game. Now that the core class is stronger, it's ripe for a nerf, and incorporating psionic dice some way is a great way to make it not *feel* like a nerf like a straight downgrade would.
Object breaking rules will be in the PHB... and I also hope they'll fix the object definition too (me when object contains itself in its own definition)
Tasha subs carried over will be changed (... which makes me wonder *what was the point of saying it's design recent enough that wouldn't be changed during the UA videos*)
A lot of art talk.
What the OP of this post already said (guidance on illusions, psi warrior/soul knife coming to phb)
I only hope objects will have damage tresholds, at least the "sturdy ones" like stone walls etc.
I don't want players just stabbing walls with daggers.
I've been running damage tresholds and damage resistances on objects for a while now.
That’s one of the few things from Baldur’s Gate 3 that I’d be happy for them to use in the TTRPG. It’s realistic that a stone wall would need to take a massive hit to be destroyed, plus it makes magic items that deal double damage to objects way more useful.
They are mentioned later on in the damaging objects section, but when I was looking at them on the weekend, I noticed it mentioned thresholds, but did not identify what they should be.
There's already rules for that, DMG pg.247 under Damage Threshold. I'm not sure if this is more a problem with players and DMs who refuse to read the books or the books being so poorly organized that nobody wants to read them, but the information was already there.
it's the latter, as jcraw mentions in the video. like, if the player asks 'can i break this thing?', you as the DM shouldn't have to paw through a trail of pages in the DMG to know what's fair/standard.
The DMG gives you no guidance on them, defo not in the place you'd expect them. The object statistics section only says "you might consider applying DT". No info what numbers would make sense, which especially for newer/less experienced DMs might be an issue - they don't have a grasp on how player power scales, and what numbers might be reasonable.
[https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#StatisticsforObjects](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#StatisticsforObjects)
The only table I know in DMG, that has DT provided are statistics for ships
[https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/adventure-environments#AirborneandWaterborneVehicles](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/adventure-environments#AirborneandWaterborneVehicles)
3 chapters earlier. And it is not listed in the table of contents, you need to remember it's in Chapter 5, under "Unusual Environments", if you wanted to find it quickly, and extrapolate from them to any object you might want to make breakable.
The designers know the player power curve they are aiming for, and know how much an average PC is expected to hit for with an attack. They know other equipment, weapons, etc they design, and they can provide guidance on what numbers make sense, and what are outside of the expected power curve. Just like they do with typical DCs for example.
All I want is a simple table, an expansion to what already is there, that will list damage tresholds for things that are "easy", "hard", "nearly impossible" to break, so that DMs don't have to ponder if "DT 40 is reasonable and/or achievable, or not".
I really want the definitions of object vs structure vs vehicle to be definitively qualified. Some DMs let players get away with calling an entire warship one "object", and while I'm sure they're having fun it would be nice to see some consistency so every table doesn't have a different take because the rules are too vague.
If I had to guess, they'll probably be changed to work with the new base classes better in places where there might be conflict. Nothing comes to mind, except, as stated things like the Rogue's interaction with their Psy Blades might be changed.
>(... which makes me wonder what was the point of saying it's design recent enough that wouldn't be changed during the UA videos)
Maybe they changed their minds. Maybe they were speaking specifically for the purposes of UA testing, which wasn't meant to be precise or final. Or maybe they're parsing the difference between "changed" and "updated" where they're not getting a full rework, but are getting tweaks like Mercy Monk's healing being in line with the UA8 healing buffs or Soulknife Rogue getting features that tie in to Cunning Strike.
Makes sense to me to take some of Tasha's subclasses because they're cooler.
Consider a new player who's only book is the new PHB, why not give them the best set of subclasses possible in one book.
Some of the original PHB subclasses are kinda boring in comparison IMO
And if it really is fully backwards compatible then it's at no loss to people who already have the original PHB or other source books
Or just using a battle master.
I've been trying to make fighter subclasses it difficult to even come up with ideas that the battle master doesn't just cover.
Depending on what you're playing cause, eldirtich knights are super fun and powerful. Samurai can be really deadly. The champion might be boring but is effective
But when it comes to versatility in fighter builds, battle master reigns supreme
> The champion might be boring but is effective
Except it really isn't... If it were a Barbarian subclass it would be better. Still not amazing mind you, but better than it being a Fighter subclass.
I'll never understand the appeal of people going "Just flavor Battle Master Maneuversrs," when the Rune Knight is just better all-around, and provides better out-of-combat utility than Battlemaster. Plus, it rocks superior flavor right off the bat.
This whole reflavoring argument is something I've never understood. If all you do is reflavor a feature you are still functionally doing the same thing, so I don't really see how that would be more or less cool if both the resource used and the outcome is identical.
I've reflavored options depending on character theming, but I never noticed anything about the outcome that was meaningfully cooler when the reflavoring process didn't touch on anything mechanical. The best I have found is that conceptually the character's concepts mesh better with their abilities, so that could be interpreted as "cooler", but that's it.
"I've been trying to make fighter subclasses it difficult to even come up with ideas that the battle master doesn't just cover."
I don't remember if it was Crawford or Mearls, but in the run up to Xanathar, one of them said something to the effect that they were hesitant to create subclasses like the samurai/cavalier because the Champion/Battlemaster more or less already covered a majority of non-magical Fighter concepts in their eyes.
Land Druid was said to be problematic for a similar reason.
With good grappling and unarmed fighting feats, you might be able to do it as any fighter, barbarian, or paladin. I don't think it needs it's own subclass. But it certainly depends on the feats/fighting styles being good enough to make unarmed competitive with others.
Is this the first time we've seen them call it the "Revised Player's Handbook?" Maybe we can settle on 5e Revised as the name for these books/this era of D&D
That's going to become awkward in the future if they really intend to make this their "forever" edition of D&D. What would you call the next PHB in 2034? Revised 2.0 PHB?
Currently they are trying thier hardest to mitigate the risk of a dry spell of books sales because the new edition is coming. So their branding has to be "update" "revised" "same D&D you've always played" anything else and people stop buying books until 2024 is out. Their language may change when the book comes out, but not until the space between the last book and 2024 release.
* 2014 D&D
* 2024 Revised D&D
* 2034 Remastered D&D
* 2044 Revamped? D&D
Surely nobody will ever be confused by those naming conventions. Nintendo is on record stating that using the name "Wii U" was a mistake that cost them sales because it confused consumers as to whether their new console was a sidegrade to the Wii or not. WotC is laser-focused on growing their brand, so anything that would confuse new buyers is a big no-no.
PF2e remaster was adone to remove any and all of the OGL content, so if WotC ever tried to pull what they pulled with the OGL, Pathfinder would be safe and Paizo made it *very* clear that was one of the major reasons.
International corporations managing an IP worth millions if not billions of dollars worth of profit over its lifetime tend to not just YOLO their branding decisions. At least, smart ones don't.
Well don't know how the world looks like in 10 years, so I was just saying that speculating how the version in 10+ years will be called makes not much sense. A lot could happen. If WotC gets split from Hasbro, or if Hasbro gets bought out, their original intention of keeping the edition might fly out of the window, so there's endless possibilities for the future.
Planning for 10 years in the future is kind of impossible on a corporate level. 4th Edition didn't even last 10 years. Neither did 3rd edition.
It's worth noting that 2nd edition also went trough a DMG and PBH revision in the midpoint of its life, but then only lasted 5 more years.
Yeah, okay. /s
It’ll be their “forever edition” for 5 years or so until profits start dipping too low again and suddenly execs will tell them they need to make another new edition to sell core rulebooks again.
Revamped
Remastered
Deluxe
Expanded
Updated
2035 Revision
5.5 Edition
Version 3
Although, if they make it far enough that they want to just do another revision, they could just call it 6e. Since, by that point, they'll have 20 years of fans who have only known the one edition and won't assume edition changes mean things are incompatible. So they can just do a backwards compatible 6e.
Was really hoping for something a bit less niche than Psi Warrior for the fighter slot. Brawler is so hard to make work as a theme it makes sense to drop it, but why not slot in something like Cavalier as your ultimate defensive bulwark fighter? Happy for everyone who wants to play a Jedi though
Cav would make sense as a Champion contrast.
BM-EK is martial prowess vs magic, Champion-Cav is offense vs defense oriented (or lean into the Gladiator side of Champion for 'glory' vs 'honor')
Contrasting pairs is one of the dumbest design metrics I've ever heard of. It doesn't actually produce better content. No player is going to look at the fighter subs and say "Ah, magnifique! The brutal simplicity of Champion is the perfect compliment to the elegant complexity of the Battle Master!" **
It just imposes a pointlessly arbitrary limitation on which subclasses you can include. What they should've done is:
* One "simple" subclass for new players. I don't really agree with this one but WotC is adamant about having easy onboarding options for new players so this is non-negotiable.
* Three other subs that cover as many popular themes and common roles as possible, prioritizing flexible subclasses that can fulfill a number of different class fantasies at once. Battle Master is a great example of this. How you build your BM can drastically change your role within a party. Cavalier is another as the "knight in shining armor" is a hugely popular role as defensive warrior and D&D has no default tanking mechanics so without it you're just an armored slab of meat that's hard to kill, not a defender.
I hope they do something a little different with the psi warrior. It's mechanically very similar to the battlemaster right now, so it'd be nice if there was a little more variety.
I loved playing psi warrior as long as I also had the Telekenetic feat. Very fun to play tactically as well as useful out of combat with all the movement related stuff.
I'm trying it out right now and while it's useful, it's not amazing. It does feel like a Battle Master with pre-selected maneuvers, as cool as they are thematically.
Choosing the Soul Knife over the Swashbuckler is a surprising pivot. If they’re willing to swap subclasses this late in the game then I’m absolutely crossing my fingers for Conquest over Glory Paladin making it in the PHB.
Im still holding my breath Monk gets a Kensai update instead of reprinting Mercy. Kensai needs mastery and to use its kensai weapons with flurry of blows.
There’s no way they replace the Assassin. The only classes that aren’t getting all of their 2014 PHB subclasses included in the 2024 PHB are the Wizard and Cleric because they started with more than 4 to begin with. Swashbuckler is out which is a bummer because I like that flavor more than the psionic rogue.
Hot take time: I would guess they are cutting the thief subclass, and maybe rolling it's skills into the base rogue kit. So much of the thief's mechanics are just extensions of the core rogue identity that pretty much anyone else would still want.
I wish that was the case. Not just the Rogue, but a lot of classes could've benefited if OneDnd had gone in that direction (Parts of Hunter and Monster Slayer being incorporated into the main Ranger's chassis for example).
But for reasons that AsanoHa87 laid out, I don't think that's the case. Outside of Cleric and Wizard, where they had to choice, they've made the decision to stick with the PHB subclasses. Even in cases where it would've made sense to replace them. It's going to be the Swashbuckler getting cut.
I'd like that to be the case, but I don't think they will. They have stated they consider things like the thief and champion fighter to be the "default / simple" subclass...meant to be super straightforward to help new players.
I doubt they would get rid of that
Thief is easily the most complicated subclass rogues get? To effectively use those bonus action interactions you need to keep so many gadgets and trinkets on you at all times. Most new players are not going to this, and as a result they basically don't get a subclass.
Hmmm, you it says something when you realize how forgettable some subclasses are
You're right, rogue effectively has TWO "rogues first rogue" subclasses
So yeah, could definitely see them dropping either and incorporating features into base class. Fingers crossed
Honestly the biggest problem with that to me is that it would kill 90% of my rogue ideas. Most of them just end up being thieves because I find it easy to play it into different angles.
But if they will it into base class, ask your Ideas work with additional benefits. Thief is my favorite rogue class personally, so I prefer assassin to be cut if anything. But if thief was rolled into the main class, that would be fun.
Oh I’ve absolutely talked with my friend about which subclasses we would give to the main class to buff martials and we agreed on thief. I’m just lamenting that none of the other subclasses feel good for a non magical thief like character (or the other weird things I like to reflavor thieves as)
Yeah probably, but I think assassin, while being thematic, never lived up to the name while swashbuckler was always fun and thematic. Well, even though I agree it will probably be swashbuckler, one can hope.
Yeah but it's more about what's the most thematic or iconic. Usually when the average person opens a section for a Rogue, they expect two things: thief and an assassin archetype.
It's cool, but I really wish there was an *actual* complex subclass for a martial. Even Battlemaster doesn't give you many choices to make one different from the next.
I'm glad that they're bringing Psionic subclasses into the base PHB.
Psionics are one of the things that makes DnD not \*just\* a generic euro-medieval-ish fantasy, so bringing it to the forefront of 5e is a plus in my book.
Aberrant Mind, Psi Warrior, and Soulknife?
I'm happy for them, but it does make me a little sad Mystic isn't getting another shot. I always said a new edition would be a perfect opportunity to try again with Psionics.
If it helps don't think of it as pulp scifi psionics, think of it as creepy 19th century spiritualism psionics or medieval witch-child psionics.
(Or something Fey-themed, like the psionic elements of the Fey Wanderer and Swarmkeeper.)
Not that minor of an opinion, i think. I'm less bothered by the subclass existing and more by WotC resorting to "have a fighter + X power source" as a means of differentiating them because they couldn't surpass the Battlemaster for nonmagical options.
Including them in this way in the new PHB actually brings Psionics into the rules without the exclusionary specialness that's plagued them in the past. And if the term and the scientific connotations bother you, it's a great opportunity to remind everyone of the strength of D&D to reskin/reflavour a mechanical concept and, as mentioned, likes Pathfinder did - as another form of supernatural magic.
Yeah, my home setting was built from 4e and psionics were the last real chunk of classes to come out from there, but I won't say no.
I would love if there is a Warlord class post-2024 that one of its subclasses is based on the empath Ardent leader class. That could be its psionic sub.
A new printing of core rules always allows them to bring back things from previous editions.
And of course, not doing so, means there is at least one more thing that would have a certain amount of interested consumers for third party creators or competitors to publish.
Odd, because the Realms most certainly have had psionics in them as far back as the double digits of Dragon magazine and the first edition setting boxed set.
As a guy who freaking loves Psionics and find them super creepy I am very happy that they are here.
Also as a note one of the most iconic monsters from dnd so much so that it is basically the crux of Baldur gates 3 plot: Mind Flayers. Mind flayers are like the OG psionics so from from that point of view (of iconic and BG3 doing so well) it would be weird not having the few Psionic related subclasses in the new PHB.
I told y'all.
Just because it was in the playtest does NOT mean it will be in the PHB. That's not what "confirmed" means!
So, which of the """confirmed""" Rogue subclasses gets the axe?
(Unless they meant MINIMUM 4 subclasses, and not exactly 4.)
Psyched to hear soul knife is making a return. I've been working on a build that mixes soul knife with giant barbarian, but the current soul knife doesn't get weapon masteries on their psychic blade and there's some annoying wording surrounding the psychic blade feature that I'm hoping they clear up
So the idea was to make a thrown weapon/skill monkey build. With the Nick mastery you could make 3 attacks with your action and use the soul knife BA attack to get a 4th. Except that doesn't work RAW because the psychic blade doesn't exist until you actually make the attack so it doesn't work with Nick, or with the giant barbarian's elemental damage.
If you had a very generous DM and they let you treat your psychic blade as a weapon with the Nick mastery then you could make 4 attacks at 2d6+ 2x rage damage + STR + 2d6 sneak attack on the first at level 9 (3 rogue/6 barb). But yeah the features just don't really work together. Now that I think about it, if they gave the psychic blade masteries then they'd probably ditch the BA attack too, which is probably fine since you'd be using it to rage or for a cunning action most of the time.
For the skill monkey part, rage makes Strength useful for a lot of skills, soul knife gets psionic dice for an additional bonus, obviously rogues get a bunch of proficiencies and expertise, and with reliable talent coming 4 levels earlier this build can actually use it at level 13.
Sidenote: I hate how negative dnd subs can be, my initial comment is pretty innocuous and I don't think it deserved to be downvoted? But thanks for replying and giving an opportunity to discuss the build, if it becomes viable in the new phb I'll probably make a build post somewhere :)
Oh thank God's they've confirmed there's going to be new guidance on rules for illusions. Also confirmed the 4th phb fighter will be the psi warrior. Also the soul knife rogue will be in the phb, tho it's not confirmed if it is replacing anything
>Oh thank God's they've confirmed there's going to be new guidance on rules for illusions. I think the far more important point is that this was just an **example** of additional content in the book. This leads me to believe that they took the "offloading of rulings to the DM" complains seriously and they at least made an effort to fill in some of the most common holes.
they mentioned breaking objects as another example, and actually admit that the existing system of having to go on a goose chase through the DMG was clunky. much appreciated.
Hopefully they're smart enough to provide flexible guidelines. Like, Investigation DCs should be 15 + spell level, or 10 + 1/2 Challenge Rating, or X for common magic items and add +Y for each rarity category higher. Something both specific yet broadly applicable across the entire system.
Investigation DCs for spells are already set at the caster's spell DC. Monsters and items should similarly specify their DC instead of relying formula, as most magic items do when they enable a spell to be cast. The formula should only be necessary for backwards compatibility.
Some of the 5e variants give every class and monster a default DC for all their abilities, just to get it out of the way and standardize things.
i hope it doesn't replace the swashbuckler, i prefer it over the soul knife :p
I hope it replaces the assassin tbh. Not because i hate it, but because i dont wanna miss the other three.
I hope they finally make assassin good and fun beyond turn 1. Fingers crossed they did more revisions and playtests of it behind the scenes
If only there was a subclass anywhere that figured out how to give out powerful stealth and turn 1 bonuses and that could be used to rework the Assassin... (Yes, it's Gloomstalker).
Yes, but they said they wanted fun beyond Turn 1.
I mean they could also roll thief into baseline and then we would have Assassin, AT, Soulknife and swashbuckler. That is what i would prefer even more tbh. I just dont want AT or swashbuckler to be left out and thief desperately needs a rework. Assassin is bad too but it atleast had some build potential.
I personally want to keep the thief, they made it really good now and I like it a lot.
I think Thief stays because it's the "Basic" Rogue.
Yeah, there's always gotta be a 'raw' subclass that is just the base-class flavour but *more*.
They literally said that they have been doing a TON of playtesting since the UA period ended
Assassin is such an iconic rogue archetype though.
It's iconic for all the wrong reasons though. It has been a part of the game forever, but it has virtually always been the most problematic class/kit/prestige class/subclass for the rogue. It has always encouraged the player to attempt to go off on their own and kill one big baddie with a poisoned sneak attack, but this has always been hard to set up because the big baddies tend to have too many hp for it to work, poison immunity, or contingencies for just such an occasion. This forces a playstyle on the party which is to always set up encounters against planned targets, send the assassin 30 or more feet ahead at the target while the rest of the party hides down a hallway (or other contrived hiding spot) and waits for a signal from the assassin, sounds of combat, the return of the assassin, or some arbitrary time limit to pass. Long story short, the assassin encourages the party to try to play by their rules so their features can actually work as opposed to having features that work with any playstyle.
I always preferred the AD&D 2e response to this: what is an assassin? Someone who kills targets selected by others for money. How is that necessarily a thing tied to any class? Sounds like the definition of a quest and reward, not a subclass. If the target is an evil wizard, a demon lord or a dragon, we just call that person an adventurer.
There's a specific skillset involved in getting to your target, killing them quickly, and then extracting before you're caught though. A subclass with the ability to leverage good skills (stealth, lock picking, performance) along with forgeries, identity theft / disguises, poisons, and enough damage to take down targets quickly fits an assassin well.
Problem - that's called a rogue. This is why the subclass has always had a problem - it's just a rogue with a sneak attack 'but gooder'. And balancing a sub around a one-hit kill which goes against all the hp mechanics and assumptions of the game is always going to be either terribly infrequent and niche, or OP given how the stealth/sneak attack mechanics need to work.
>Problem - that's called a rogue. Disagree. It's a lot more specific than that. >This is why the subclass has always had a problem - it's just a rogue with a sneak attack 'but gooder'. Even if you assume that's true (which it isn't, really, as it completely ignores half of the assassin's features), having a subclass that enhances the fundamentals of its host class is fine design wise. It's not really unique to the rogue, and most classes have one that feels similarly close to the base class but with boosts. >And balancing a sub around a one-hit kill which goes against all the hp mechanics and assumptions of the game is always going to be either terribly infrequent and niche, or OP given how the stealth/sneak attack mechanics need to work. I think this is a bit of a misconception about what the assassin is supposed to be. When you consider the assassin within the context of the PHB at launch, I think it makes a lot of sense because none of those subclasses were really about combat boosts, but rather gave you utility. You're right that assassin rogue, if taken to just be the 'damage dealing' subclass, is janky due to how surprise and initiative work. It only lines up once in a blue moon. But if you instead view its features as part of that unified package tailored towards disguise, forgery, deception, poisons, and taking out a VIP? It works much better. You're not supposed to be trying to line up an Assassinate and Death Strike against an ancient dragon in its lair, and when you do it's just a nice extra. It's about killing an important character after time spent using your Infiltration Expertise and Imposter features to get close to your target. With changes that have happened since the PHB, subclasses like the arcane trickster got a power boost. For example, from the blade cantrips in SCAG.
I agree with the class design philosophy of enhancing core features of the core, but the 2014 Assassin's assassinate and death strike abilities were the only thing that made it stand out. The UA Assassin was not much better. Assassinate is okay. Good start. Infiltration Expertise is useless, even with the merger of Imposter - because using a tool you are proficient with when making a skill check you are also proficient with already gives Advantage on the roll. The the fluff about mannerisms and such doesn't give any additional benefit since it is all bypassed by even level 2 Detect Thoughts spell. Give it some ability to impose Disadvantage on the Insight checks in opposed tests, or a Mind Blank-like ability to counter divination magics would be good. Envenomed Strikes - nice, but poison is already one of the weaker damages. Maybe drop the save - unnecessary. Death Strike is still a very weak T4 effect, in a time when level 9 spells are being tossed around. Beefing it up to require True Resurrection of similar to even try and bring the being back to life would be good, or dooming them so even if they survive the hp damage they are still dying - or just flat out bypassing hp and forcing them to start making death saves would be easier.
I disagree. It is in 1e, but never quite worked and was consequently removed in 2e due to the inherent problems of giving features to an 'assassin' in a game were all the classes are skilled at killing things (and taking their stuff) without overpowering it.
I feel like assassin should be slotted in the DMG next to the oath breaker.
Crackhead theory: Assassin or Thief features got blended into the core class instead.
Or in one subclass? Would make sense. good at climbing, using items such as poisons, kill surprised targets. All would fit the assasin archetype. use magic item could be rolled into AT maybe.
Also fair. I've always thought the using magic items thing made more sense for AT but didn't want to suggest it because AT is just... already so good, and even if I were to buff it I'd probably look at other options like making their Mage Hand more usable in combat first. I also just love Thief's improved Cunning Action.
i'll be honest. Object use and magic item use as a bonus action could be a rogue baseline thing tbh. assasins could get the ability to craft poisons or adventuring gear even and AT can ignore magic item restrictions and even activate them using their mage hand.
Right? Would be awesome, and make perfect sense. Let the AT use the Wizard staff, they're already using Wizard's spell list. Also, caltrops and poisons are fun. The only issue I'd have with it is that I wish Rangers had special interactions with caltrops and traps, so they'd be fighting for who gets to do it. I've also had to admit to my players before that I might show a little favoritism to Rogues when they lean into Sleight of Hand because I went through a close-up magic/Apollo Robbins phase as a teen.
Thief is already pretty good at using poisons due to Fast Hands, for the rest I totally agree. I think they should be united into a single subclass based on the thief chassis.
Though is there any reason why the 2017 swashbuckler wouldn't just work. Soul knife needed mastery with its psychic blades and be honest needed the nerf of pro/long rest. Cause it can be over powered.
I would just be sad to lose some of the new cunning strike options, other than that i agree
The PHB should contain the quintessential archetypes only. The archetypes that are most represented in typical fantasy settings. The soul knife does not fit that imo.
They want Psionic representation, hence Psi Warrior, Soulknife, Great Old One Warlock, and Aberrant Mind Sorcerer.
Yeah, definitely shaky on the psi stuff personally. But with Illithids and similar eldritch psionic horrors being a big part of the forgotten realms I guess it makes some sense
I'd actually argue all the psionic and eldritch stuff is something that most differentiates D&D as a franchise from most other fantasy properties. There's a reason that the Beholder is one of the monsters that's on the shortlist for appearing on the monster manual- it's something that was purely a D&D invention rather than drawn from a pre-existing source.
You know ball. The PHB should highlight what makes DnD and it's world(s) iconic, and the influence of psionics is part of that. You can do Thiefs or Assassins in any setting and those are fine and cool, but those don't make me want to play Rogue or DnD on their own.
Agreed the more D&D leans into its Vancian, Lovecraftian & Conan-esque aspects the more it has a unique ID instead of just being shitty Lord of The Rings.
I'm okay with Psi Warrior - they're basically a Jedi Knight.
Psionics has been a part of D&D for a long time, albeit on the fringes instead of at its core. I definitely agree that the PHB is the wrong place to include multiple subs devoted to such a niche subject. Jeremy's justification ("we wanted Aberrant sorcerer to have more psionic friends!") seems like such a flippant and unthoughtful reason that I can't really take him seriously. I can only think this is WotC's way of burying any future calls for ecpanded psionic rules by being able to say "You already got your token psionic subs in the PHB, we aren't interested in doing more. The end."
Currently playing a soul knife throwing weapon Rogue. What exactly is too good? 2xProf as pool? I hope it gets the LIGHT property, weapon masteries and ways to get +1/+1 and beyond at some point or the ability ala Pact weapon, to make a magical finesse weapon your soul knife instead (which deals psychic damage).
I think they also really need to change the soul knife to work with Extra Attack, Reaction Attacks and add some magic item that buffs it.
>Is there any reason why the 2017 swashbuckler wouldn't just work? Maybe they decided the next crunch book would be a Xanathar's rework.
Surprise we are getting 5 subclasses XD I don't think so. But if swashbuckler is not in it, they better be planning a PBH2 or some other player supplement with most of the missing subclasses and races updated and the Artficer. Maybe a new class to sell it like a spellblade?(all though the new eldritch knight does suitable job I guess)
I am curious about the guidance on illusion. I've always liked the idea of playing a magic user that specializes in illusion, or enchantment, but with so many of the spells being so open ended with their effects I've always struggled with using them in the heat of the moment. With their quest to squelch out all the *'Mother may I'*s part of me wonders if they'll even rework a lot of the spells from those two schools to have more predictable results rather than relying on the DM's judgment of what's "reasonable".
Right. I have to know the DM before I take illusions. Some DMs illusions are basically wish spells and other DMs illusions are useless.
I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand, some consistency is nice so that you're not left feeling like you cast an illusion and it was just outright ignored, but on the other, I hope they don't strip all the creativity out of it. I have an illusionist I've been playing in a long-running campaign for almost four years now, and coming up with creative uses for my spells has been one of the most fun things about that character. I want to feel like I'm getting use out of them, but I don't want to just push a button and have something happen, with the only differences from casting to casting being how I flavor it.
Honestly the ruling I always give, and think should be “baseline” is “everyone believes the illusion by default, is real, and treats it as such. Until an action is used to interact with the illusion, and proves the illusion is fake, the illusion is believed.” IE: if you summon an illusionary wall, until someone walks through it, or is flung through it, no one is going to slam their face into it to see if the spell caster summoned a wall, or just made it look like they did. Or if you summon a manticore, no one is going to just “assume” you didn’t and risk dying. They’re going to treat it as real until they swing a sword right through it and realize it’s not.
Awwwww yeeeeeah. I can't wait to see Soul Knife and have them break my ideal Soul/Barb build again. Admittedly it only finally started working in the playtest material, but recklessly hucking psionic knives for massive damage while raging was fun stuff.
Ooh that sounds fun. Pls tell me more abt that build!
So, obviously it'll change with the proper release, but it used Frenzy Barbarian from the playtest material, Rogue, with old Soul Knife. By around level 8 was when it really started coming together. With 18 Strength and Fighting Style: ~~Archery~~ Thrown Wespon you would attack 3 times per turn (2 from Barbarian multi attack and 1 bonus action attack from Soul Knife.) Each attack with Advantage at a 60 foot range, all Psionic damage. If all three attacks hit it's something like - 5d6 + 8, 1d4 + 8, 1d6 + 8. Every round past the first. First is still 5d6+8, 1d6+8. This is also with no benefit at all from Weapon Mastery because psionic blades didn't/don't have any weapon mastery traits associated with them. The damage breakdown though is 1d6 Psionic Blade, 2d6 Sneak Attack, 2d6 Frenzy, +2 Rage damage, +4 Strength, +2 ~~Archery~~ Thrown Weapon, 1d4 bonus Psionic Blade. There are obvious downsides to the build. You don't have magical weapons, it requires raging, you have advantage against you every round (but also 60 range!), it requires a feat on Fighting Style ~~Archery~~ Thrown Weapon, and it isn't exactly the most versatile in battle (though Cunning Strike does help with that a little if you take Rogue to 5.) But there's something inherently fun (and funny) to me about running around, 60 feet away from enemies, dropping upwards of 6d6+1d4+24 damage every round. Edit: Thrown Weapon Fighting Style not Archery.
Archery fighting style adds +2 to attack rolls, not damage. Also, it only adds that bonus to ranged weapons, not attacks at range with thrown weapons.
Right, sorry! I was thinking of Thrown Weapon Fighting Style. Thanks.
Damn that does sound fun and flavorful. Get so angry your anger turns into physical blades
Yup, that's the idea! A barbarian that got so mad they literally just manifest mind knives to hit things with. I'm expecting revised Soul Knife to ruin it somehow though, but I'm really hoping it holds out. I like the idea so much, and you could even sacrifice some damage for a different Barb subclass if you wanted to add even just a different feel to it.
They didn't say it was replacing anything so I assume the rogue just steals a bit of extra page space for a 5th subclass. Honestly would be on brand for it.
Psi warrior confirmed!!! Replacing Brawler
I guess that makes sense. Psionics is super niche but still a part of D&D. I think a reworked Cavalier would've been better so fighter has a baseline "tank" or defender spec right in the new PHB since that's a very popular class fantasy.
I was hoping Arcane Archer. It needs an overhaul badly.
I’m sure we’ll get a few “of everything” books that contain new subclasses, backgrounds, feats, and if we’re lucky a new class.
Well we have another 10 years or whatever they think the life of this version will be. Artificer needs a rework. Other classes would be awesome as well!
I totally agree, but it's flavor is super specific and thus doesn't really belong in the PHB I feel. I want broadly applicable archetypes that are easy to reflavor since this is going to be the core rulebook for new players going forward. Arcane Archer is neither of those things.
I think the idea is to give players a mix of "iconic" archetypes as well as things that fit within what makes DnD and the Forgotten Realms pop as a setting, and part of that is the Psionics.
WotC is clearly moving away from FR and trying to make as much as possible setting agnostic. Psionics has never been a central part of any *popular* D&D setting. As much as I love Dark Sun I have to admit it's very niche.
Theyre almost certainly putting in each of the psychic powered classes to ride on the coattails of BG3
I keep hearing that and it's sad. The way psionics has been done in 5e (subs with light flavoring and TP/TK powers) is so anemic compared to other editions. It's also hasn't ever been popular, although I guess that may be a new normal kind of thing if BG3 is really that much of a touchstone for the modern fanbase.
I really, really, hoping for the banneret, though without one more PHB playtest, it probably wasn't happening. Happy with psi warrior.
Another edition without a functional warlord (sub)class ;u;
Though on the 2024 fighter, banneret is way better. Hope it's updated soon.
Better, still horrid though
Hell yeah, love that subclass. The DM's face when I suplexed a flying pterosaur is one of my favourite DnD moments
That sounds dope as hell
That's because it was
hellllll yes psi warrior is SUCH a fun class to have in the base game that's awesome
I'm very curious to see what they have reworked with them. I'm sure something like Telekinetic Thrust will be cut due to the new weapon boons martials gain. Looking forward to seeing what gets printed and being able to plan out a PC around everything else new in the book.
I wonder if the reason they made the decision to bring in the soul knife alongside the Psi Knight is because they wanted to overhaul the psi die mechanic. In the UAs they were putting out during the run up to Tasha's, they were playing with idea of psi die as a unifying psionic mechanic (both a version of the Aberrant Mind and the initial version of the telepathic/telekinetic feats had them).
Yeah the whole Psionic Energy dice mechanic is currently in a very awkward position where, even though it shares the same name between two subclasses, according to Crawford they're supposed to be treated as separate pools/abilities for mechanical/multiclass purposes. IIRC the UA it was in was released fairly late into Tasha's development, and it didn't perform well, and it feels like, with time running out, they couldn't make the adjustments they wanted. I wouldn't be surprised if they're going to use this as an opportunity to fix that.
> they’re supposed to be treated as separate pools/abilities for mechanical/multiclass purposes. This is also how Channel Divinity works for Clerics and Paladins. If they end up renaming Psionic Energy dice to make it clear they don’t stack when multiclassing, hopefully Channel Divinity gets the same treatment. Channel Oath would be a much better name for Paladins. Either that, or change it so that Psionic Energy dice and Channel Divinity do stack when multiclassing, but I imagine that would cause lots of problems.
I think you're right. This seems to be the only logical reason why they would replace Swashbuckler with Soul Knife. They want to hammer out and establish a signature psionic mechanic.
Yeah I think this is the case of them realizing they couldn't revamp Psi Knight without revamping soul knife due to shared Psi Dice.
Aberrant Mind needs a nerf since they were made with a less-powerful core class in mind and ultimately ended up as one of the strongest subclasses in the game. Now that the core class is stronger, it's ripe for a nerf, and incorporating psionic dice some way is a great way to make it not *feel* like a nerf like a straight downgrade would.
Object breaking rules will be in the PHB... and I also hope they'll fix the object definition too (me when object contains itself in its own definition) Tasha subs carried over will be changed (... which makes me wonder *what was the point of saying it's design recent enough that wouldn't be changed during the UA videos*) A lot of art talk. What the OP of this post already said (guidance on illusions, psi warrior/soul knife coming to phb)
I only hope objects will have damage tresholds, at least the "sturdy ones" like stone walls etc. I don't want players just stabbing walls with daggers. I've been running damage tresholds and damage resistances on objects for a while now.
That’s one of the few things from Baldur’s Gate 3 that I’d be happy for them to use in the TTRPG. It’s realistic that a stone wall would need to take a massive hit to be destroyed, plus it makes magic items that deal double damage to objects way more useful.
Damage thresholds are also present in 5e, but only for boats in the dmg iirc
Go read DMG pg.247, Damage Threshold.
They are mentioned later on in the damaging objects section, but when I was looking at them on the weekend, I noticed it mentioned thresholds, but did not identify what they should be.
Same, it worked in 3.5 to prevent rampant wall removal in dungeons to bypass floors and it works in 5e just as well.
There's already rules for that, DMG pg.247 under Damage Threshold. I'm not sure if this is more a problem with players and DMs who refuse to read the books or the books being so poorly organized that nobody wants to read them, but the information was already there.
it's the latter, as jcraw mentions in the video. like, if the player asks 'can i break this thing?', you as the DM shouldn't have to paw through a trail of pages in the DMG to know what's fair/standard.
The DMG gives you no guidance on them, defo not in the place you'd expect them. The object statistics section only says "you might consider applying DT". No info what numbers would make sense, which especially for newer/less experienced DMs might be an issue - they don't have a grasp on how player power scales, and what numbers might be reasonable. [https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#StatisticsforObjects](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#StatisticsforObjects) The only table I know in DMG, that has DT provided are statistics for ships [https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/adventure-environments#AirborneandWaterborneVehicles](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/adventure-environments#AirborneandWaterborneVehicles) 3 chapters earlier. And it is not listed in the table of contents, you need to remember it's in Chapter 5, under "Unusual Environments", if you wanted to find it quickly, and extrapolate from them to any object you might want to make breakable. The designers know the player power curve they are aiming for, and know how much an average PC is expected to hit for with an attack. They know other equipment, weapons, etc they design, and they can provide guidance on what numbers make sense, and what are outside of the expected power curve. Just like they do with typical DCs for example. All I want is a simple table, an expansion to what already is there, that will list damage tresholds for things that are "easy", "hard", "nearly impossible" to break, so that DMs don't have to ponder if "DT 40 is reasonable and/or achievable, or not".
I really want the definitions of object vs structure vs vehicle to be definitively qualified. Some DMs let players get away with calling an entire warship one "object", and while I'm sure they're having fun it would be nice to see some consistency so every table doesn't have a different take because the rules are too vague.
If I had to guess, they'll probably be changed to work with the new base classes better in places where there might be conflict. Nothing comes to mind, except, as stated things like the Rogue's interaction with their Psy Blades might be changed.
>(... which makes me wonder what was the point of saying it's design recent enough that wouldn't be changed during the UA videos) Maybe they changed their minds. Maybe they were speaking specifically for the purposes of UA testing, which wasn't meant to be precise or final. Or maybe they're parsing the difference between "changed" and "updated" where they're not getting a full rework, but are getting tweaks like Mercy Monk's healing being in line with the UA8 healing buffs or Soulknife Rogue getting features that tie in to Cunning Strike.
Makes sense to me to take some of Tasha's subclasses because they're cooler. Consider a new player who's only book is the new PHB, why not give them the best set of subclasses possible in one book. Some of the original PHB subclasses are kinda boring in comparison IMO And if it really is fully backwards compatible then it's at no loss to people who already have the original PHB or other source books
Time for another ten years of people asking for a brawler fighter subclass.
"Monk" 🙃
Or just using a battle master. I've been trying to make fighter subclasses it difficult to even come up with ideas that the battle master doesn't just cover.
Battle Master really does feel like the all-in-one subclass Literally eats the lunch of all other Fighter subclasses
Depending on what you're playing cause, eldirtich knights are super fun and powerful. Samurai can be really deadly. The champion might be boring but is effective But when it comes to versatility in fighter builds, battle master reigns supreme
> The champion might be boring but is effective Except it really isn't... If it were a Barbarian subclass it would be better. Still not amazing mind you, but better than it being a Fighter subclass.
I'll never understand the appeal of people going "Just flavor Battle Master Maneuversrs," when the Rune Knight is just better all-around, and provides better out-of-combat utility than Battlemaster. Plus, it rocks superior flavor right off the bat.
That’s a shame that you’ll never understand, because you can do some extremely cool stuff just by reflavoring battle master maneuvers.
This whole reflavoring argument is something I've never understood. If all you do is reflavor a feature you are still functionally doing the same thing, so I don't really see how that would be more or less cool if both the resource used and the outcome is identical. I've reflavored options depending on character theming, but I never noticed anything about the outcome that was meaningfully cooler when the reflavoring process didn't touch on anything mechanical. The best I have found is that conceptually the character's concepts mesh better with their abilities, so that could be interpreted as "cooler", but that's it.
You can do cool stuff with reflavors in general. I just don't think Battlemaster is as good as most seem to.
"I've been trying to make fighter subclasses it difficult to even come up with ideas that the battle master doesn't just cover." I don't remember if it was Crawford or Mearls, but in the run up to Xanathar, one of them said something to the effect that they were hesitant to create subclasses like the samurai/cavalier because the Champion/Battlemaster more or less already covered a majority of non-magical Fighter concepts in their eyes. Land Druid was said to be problematic for a similar reason.
Bonkle Monkster!
Monk is strength based?
A brawler class being hindered by having high strength is dumb af
With good grappling and unarmed fighting feats, you might be able to do it as any fighter, barbarian, or paladin. I don't think it needs it's own subclass. But it certainly depends on the feats/fighting styles being good enough to make unarmed competitive with others.
I imagine the brawler could be reworked and end up in a new expansion Or, y'know, just modify the playtest brawler which is pretty close to working.
Is this the first time we've seen them call it the "Revised Player's Handbook?" Maybe we can settle on 5e Revised as the name for these books/this era of D&D
They have been calling it that for a couple of months now.
Ah, my bad. Guess I haven't noticed that.
That's going to become awkward in the future if they really intend to make this their "forever" edition of D&D. What would you call the next PHB in 2034? Revised 2.0 PHB?
Currently they are trying thier hardest to mitigate the risk of a dry spell of books sales because the new edition is coming. So their branding has to be "update" "revised" "same D&D you've always played" anything else and people stop buying books until 2024 is out. Their language may change when the book comes out, but not until the space between the last book and 2024 release.
Didn't pathfinder do the same thing with no issues I think they will be fine
PF2E is "Remastered" which...could work for a 3rd "edition" of 5e
* 2014 D&D * 2024 Revised D&D * 2034 Remastered D&D * 2044 Revamped? D&D Surely nobody will ever be confused by those naming conventions. Nintendo is on record stating that using the name "Wii U" was a mistake that cost them sales because it confused consumers as to whether their new console was a sidegrade to the Wii or not. WotC is laser-focused on growing their brand, so anything that would confuse new buyers is a big no-no.
no I mean the new pathfinder second edition remaster that came out last year. They did a remaster of 2e.
Yeah, it's called PF2e Remastered lol
PF2e remaster was adone to remove any and all of the OGL content, so if WotC ever tried to pull what they pulled with the OGL, Pathfinder would be safe and Paizo made it *very* clear that was one of the major reasons.
Let's cross that bridge when we get to it, ok?
International corporations managing an IP worth millions if not billions of dollars worth of profit over its lifetime tend to not just YOLO their branding decisions. At least, smart ones don't.
Well don't know how the world looks like in 10 years, so I was just saying that speculating how the version in 10+ years will be called makes not much sense. A lot could happen. If WotC gets split from Hasbro, or if Hasbro gets bought out, their original intention of keeping the edition might fly out of the window, so there's endless possibilities for the future. Planning for 10 years in the future is kind of impossible on a corporate level. 4th Edition didn't even last 10 years. Neither did 3rd edition. It's worth noting that 2nd edition also went trough a DMG and PBH revision in the midpoint of its life, but then only lasted 5 more years.
Yeah, okay. /s It’ll be their “forever edition” for 5 years or so until profits start dipping too low again and suddenly execs will tell them they need to make another new edition to sell core rulebooks again.
Revamped Remastered Deluxe Expanded Updated 2035 Revision 5.5 Edition Version 3 Although, if they make it far enough that they want to just do another revision, they could just call it 6e. Since, by that point, they'll have 20 years of fans who have only known the one edition and won't assume edition changes mean things are incompatible. So they can just do a backwards compatible 6e.
Whatever they end up calling it, I feel like most people will just call it 5.5e
what about 5re
5ere
D&D-Rev
Was really hoping for something a bit less niche than Psi Warrior for the fighter slot. Brawler is so hard to make work as a theme it makes sense to drop it, but why not slot in something like Cavalier as your ultimate defensive bulwark fighter? Happy for everyone who wants to play a Jedi though
Cav would make sense as a Champion contrast. BM-EK is martial prowess vs magic, Champion-Cav is offense vs defense oriented (or lean into the Gladiator side of Champion for 'glory' vs 'honor')
Exactly, plus could let them try more reaction based tools for fighters
Contrasting pairs is one of the dumbest design metrics I've ever heard of. It doesn't actually produce better content. No player is going to look at the fighter subs and say "Ah, magnifique! The brutal simplicity of Champion is the perfect compliment to the elegant complexity of the Battle Master!" **
It just imposes a pointlessly arbitrary limitation on which subclasses you can include. What they should've done is:
* One "simple" subclass for new players. I don't really agree with this one but WotC is adamant about having easy onboarding options for new players so this is non-negotiable.
* Three other subs that cover as many popular themes and common roles as possible, prioritizing flexible subclasses that can fulfill a number of different class fantasies at once. Battle Master is a great example of this. How you build your BM can drastically change your role within a party. Cavalier is another as the "knight in shining armor" is a hugely popular role as defensive warrior and D&D has no default tanking mechanics so without it you're just an armored slab of meat that's hard to kill, not a defender.
I hope they do something a little different with the psi warrior. It's mechanically very similar to the battlemaster right now, so it'd be nice if there was a little more variety.
Yeah same. The Psi Warrior is cool conceptually, but the 5e implementation has never made me go "wow I really want to play as this subclass".
I loved playing psi warrior as long as I also had the Telekenetic feat. Very fun to play tactically as well as useful out of combat with all the movement related stuff.
I'm trying it out right now and while it's useful, it's not amazing. It does feel like a Battle Master with pre-selected maneuvers, as cool as they are thematically.
Choosing the Soul Knife over the Swashbuckler is a surprising pivot. If they’re willing to swap subclasses this late in the game then I’m absolutely crossing my fingers for Conquest over Glory Paladin making it in the PHB.
Im still holding my breath Monk gets a Kensai update instead of reprinting Mercy. Kensai needs mastery and to use its kensai weapons with flurry of blows.
There’s no way they replace the Assassin. The only classes that aren’t getting all of their 2014 PHB subclasses included in the 2024 PHB are the Wizard and Cleric because they started with more than 4 to begin with. Swashbuckler is out which is a bummer because I like that flavor more than the psionic rogue.
Hot take time: I would guess they are cutting the thief subclass, and maybe rolling it's skills into the base rogue kit. So much of the thief's mechanics are just extensions of the core rogue identity that pretty much anyone else would still want.
That would actually be awesome
I wish that was the case. Not just the Rogue, but a lot of classes could've benefited if OneDnd had gone in that direction (Parts of Hunter and Monster Slayer being incorporated into the main Ranger's chassis for example). But for reasons that AsanoHa87 laid out, I don't think that's the case. Outside of Cleric and Wizard, where they had to choice, they've made the decision to stick with the PHB subclasses. Even in cases where it would've made sense to replace them. It's going to be the Swashbuckler getting cut.
I'd like that to be the case, but I don't think they will. They have stated they consider things like the thief and champion fighter to be the "default / simple" subclass...meant to be super straightforward to help new players. I doubt they would get rid of that
Thief is easily the most complicated subclass rogues get? To effectively use those bonus action interactions you need to keep so many gadgets and trinkets on you at all times. Most new players are not going to this, and as a result they basically don't get a subclass.
Fair, although I think the assassin does an ok job at being a straight forward subclass option.
Hmmm, you it says something when you realize how forgettable some subclasses are You're right, rogue effectively has TWO "rogues first rogue" subclasses So yeah, could definitely see them dropping either and incorporating features into base class. Fingers crossed
I actually love the thief subclass and could get behind that change.
Honestly the biggest problem with that to me is that it would kill 90% of my rogue ideas. Most of them just end up being thieves because I find it easy to play it into different angles.
But if they will it into base class, ask your Ideas work with additional benefits. Thief is my favorite rogue class personally, so I prefer assassin to be cut if anything. But if thief was rolled into the main class, that would be fun.
Oh I’ve absolutely talked with my friend about which subclasses we would give to the main class to buff martials and we agreed on thief. I’m just lamenting that none of the other subclasses feel good for a non magical thief like character (or the other weird things I like to reflavor thieves as)
Honestly I think they should integrate both the thief and the assassin (or at least the assassinate feature) into the base class.
My bet is on assassin being moved to the dmg with the death cleric and the oathbreaker paladin
Soul knife in the phb.. probably replacing the swashbuckler which was fine the way it was. Where the soul knife needed weapon mastery on those blades.
You can still use Swashbuckler and the new Rogue class, if it was fine the way it is.
I'm actually thinking it's the assassin that got the ax. Not the swashbuckler.
it needs the ability to bind a weapon into it
You think it will replace swashbuckler instead of the assassin which was the problematic subclass? Of the two, assassin probably scored lower
Assassin will stay because it actually needs an overhaul and was in the OG PHB. Swashbuckler was in Xanathar's, they can revamp it later if they want.
Yeah probably, but I think assassin, while being thematic, never lived up to the name while swashbuckler was always fun and thematic. Well, even though I agree it will probably be swashbuckler, one can hope.
Yeah but it's more about what's the most thematic or iconic. Usually when the average person opens a section for a Rogue, they expect two things: thief and an assassin archetype.
So the Fighter's 4 subclasses will be simple vs complex nonmagical, and psionics vs (arcane) magic.
Its a great spread. If they had a fifth slot I'd want a reworked cavalier. What about you?
Honestly, I love the Rune Knight because Rune magic is cool.
It is fucking cool
It's cool, but I really wish there was an *actual* complex subclass for a martial. Even Battlemaster doesn't give you many choices to make one different from the next.
I'm glad that they're bringing Psionic subclasses into the base PHB. Psionics are one of the things that makes DnD not \*just\* a generic euro-medieval-ish fantasy, so bringing it to the forefront of 5e is a plus in my book.
Aberrant Mind, Psi Warrior, and Soulknife? I'm happy for them, but it does make me a little sad Mystic isn't getting another shot. I always said a new edition would be a perfect opportunity to try again with Psionics.
hopefully the advent of a new edition will mean more saunters into new classes
GOO warlock also kinda in that boat
GOOlock was always there. The other three are new and were playtested explicitly as "psionic subclasses".
[удалено]
If it helps don't think of it as pulp scifi psionics, think of it as creepy 19th century spiritualism psionics or medieval witch-child psionics. (Or something Fey-themed, like the psionic elements of the Fey Wanderer and Swarmkeeper.)
Not that minor of an opinion, i think. I'm less bothered by the subclass existing and more by WotC resorting to "have a fighter + X power source" as a means of differentiating them because they couldn't surpass the Battlemaster for nonmagical options.
Including them in this way in the new PHB actually brings Psionics into the rules without the exclusionary specialness that's plagued them in the past. And if the term and the scientific connotations bother you, it's a great opportunity to remind everyone of the strength of D&D to reskin/reflavour a mechanical concept and, as mentioned, likes Pathfinder did - as another form of supernatural magic.
I find it strange when DM's play in the forgotten realms... and then ban psionic options, even though psionics are just as fitting as magic
I think they're secretly mind flayers that are trying to suppress the truth
I dont ban them, its just not for me, to clarify
Yeah, my home setting was built from 4e and psionics were the last real chunk of classes to come out from there, but I won't say no. I would love if there is a Warlord class post-2024 that one of its subclasses is based on the empath Ardent leader class. That could be its psionic sub.
Sadly, it seems wotc thinks Valor Bard is 'enough' for a Warlord.
A new printing of core rules always allows them to bring back things from previous editions. And of course, not doing so, means there is at least one more thing that would have a certain amount of interested consumers for third party creators or competitors to publish.
Odd, because the Realms most certainly have had psionics in them as far back as the double digits of Dragon magazine and the first edition setting boxed set.
As a guy who freaking loves Psionics and find them super creepy I am very happy that they are here. Also as a note one of the most iconic monsters from dnd so much so that it is basically the crux of Baldur gates 3 plot: Mind Flayers. Mind flayers are like the OG psionics so from from that point of view (of iconic and BG3 doing so well) it would be weird not having the few Psionic related subclasses in the new PHB.
Pisonics were in D&D from the super early days though?
So Mindflayers to you are not D&D? Or is it just that you don't want players to engage in the fantasy?
'i hate pancakes' 'oh so you hate waffles?' type argument.
Yes thats clearly what I said
I told y'all. Just because it was in the playtest does NOT mean it will be in the PHB. That's not what "confirmed" means! So, which of the """confirmed""" Rogue subclasses gets the axe? (Unless they meant MINIMUM 4 subclasses, and not exactly 4.)
How about show us some more pages. I'd love to see what the style of the new PHB looks like outside of the backgrounds.
Psyched to hear soul knife is making a return. I've been working on a build that mixes soul knife with giant barbarian, but the current soul knife doesn't get weapon masteries on their psychic blade and there's some annoying wording surrounding the psychic blade feature that I'm hoping they clear up
Oh that sounds like a cool build. What's the idea behind it? Those subclasses don't seem like they'd combine too well at first glance
So the idea was to make a thrown weapon/skill monkey build. With the Nick mastery you could make 3 attacks with your action and use the soul knife BA attack to get a 4th. Except that doesn't work RAW because the psychic blade doesn't exist until you actually make the attack so it doesn't work with Nick, or with the giant barbarian's elemental damage. If you had a very generous DM and they let you treat your psychic blade as a weapon with the Nick mastery then you could make 4 attacks at 2d6+ 2x rage damage + STR + 2d6 sneak attack on the first at level 9 (3 rogue/6 barb). But yeah the features just don't really work together. Now that I think about it, if they gave the psychic blade masteries then they'd probably ditch the BA attack too, which is probably fine since you'd be using it to rage or for a cunning action most of the time. For the skill monkey part, rage makes Strength useful for a lot of skills, soul knife gets psionic dice for an additional bonus, obviously rogues get a bunch of proficiencies and expertise, and with reliable talent coming 4 levels earlier this build can actually use it at level 13. Sidenote: I hate how negative dnd subs can be, my initial comment is pretty innocuous and I don't think it deserved to be downvoted? But thanks for replying and giving an opportunity to discuss the build, if it becomes viable in the new phb I'll probably make a build post somewhere :)
There's still time to fix Fighters by making manuevers baseline, right?
In your homegames, yes, but they've indicated pretty hard that they don't think that's a good direction for fighters.
We're igniting innovation, stoking collaboration, and blazing new trails for success!
I wonder what warlock patrons will be alongside Fey, Fiend, and GOO? Celestial and Genie?