Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?

[fectin]

I think that 2E D&D had the best treasure system out of all of the D&Ds

Why? Which aspects of it were good?
(I don't disagree, but it's not an aspect most people praise)

[Lago PARANOIA]

The part where treasure was separated into several tables and you rolled to see what you would get. The only way you could influence the roll was by changing the scope of your adventure and getting to roll on a different table. What's more, since more powerful treasure was not cordoned from earlier piles there was a very real chance of grabbing a Holy Avenger at level 1 depending on what you rolled on Lair Treasures. This is in addition to magical items not being able for purchase except by DM fiat.

This has several ramifications:
[*] People found the treasure after-action report phase exciting. They didn't know what they were going to get and thus it engaged people more. No one gives a shit about what they discover in 3E and 4E D&D because they know ahead of time what they're going to be getting or what they'll be boiling down the magical item into.
[*] Because players weren't assured of getting any particular piece of treasure, it made the items that they did get more special. Instead of the 4E D&D/WBL solution of boiling down items they didn't exactly want into pixie dust and buying what they really did want. And if they can't do it right away, you just bore and frustrate players by making them dance for their dollar until you let them have it.
[*] There was a direct correlation with what you fought with what you gained. If you fought monsters of Type F you got a lot more non-weapon magical items. Simple at that. None of this bullshit in 3E D&D where if you pilfer the Dark Lord's +4 Fiery Shocking Longsword at level 2 you knew that you wouldn't be getting anything else for the next 9 levels. And certainly none of the bullshit in 4E D&D where if the Medusas shot you with Seeking Arrows fired from a Poisoned Bow you could pick them up.
[*] Because the players weren't assured of getting a particular kind of treasure the game had to design characters so that they'd be badass without it. How many character optimization guides for 3E or 4E D&D have you read which demand that you buy a certain item by level X or your character sucks?
[*] Finally, people weren't forced to choose between upgrading their lair and replacing the stabled warhorses for their minions with unicorns and upgrading their sword another plus. Since you couldn't buy magical items for love nor body without fellating the DM then there was no reason to force your player to live like a naked vegan ninja-hobo in order to gain more power. Contrast to how 3E and 4E D&D players behave.

Now, 2E D&D, being 2E D&D, did have some retarded-ass shit stapled on top of the magical item system like not allowing intra-player between people running multiple characters in it. Along with encouraging the DM to break the fourth wall if the players got too much treasure. And continually reminding the DM that rolling for treasure was a backup and you should just select it. But the basic system itself was quite workable.

(EDIT: I just had a friend tell me that 1E D&D's treasure system was even better because it had more generous payouts and amazingly enough required players to jump through fewer metagame hoops. C'est za meme.)

[Voss]

That may or may not be a step in the right direction, Voss. It depends on what the rest of the magical item acquisition system looks like.

Yes, well, unfortunately, the 'acquisition system' isn't going to come into focus until fucking November. The outlines of the items themselves are worrisome since they combine tree and not tree simultaneously (attunement exists, and is limited to 3, but most things don't need to be attuned); most weapons and armor are limited to +1 (which is boring), but sometimes they go up to +3, and at other times there are probably exceptions (which is math fucking); and there is shit like gauntlets of ogre power which sets your strength to 19... which is either almost full combat capability or completely useless for any strength guy who already hit level 6 (as a fighter) or level 8 (as not a fighter).

The final playtest had random tables which yielded magic items of varying rarity (uncommon, rare, very rare and legendary) and directed the DM to another table. This was a d20 roll, and each rarity had a different number spread (and some items weren't available at all for different rarities- no scrolls of very rare or legendary, no staff was anything but rare, and so on.
But armor was 1-2 for all categories except legendary (which didn't exist), and weapons were rolls of 3-5, 3-7, 3-9, or 1-4 depending on the rarity. If there was logic behind some of that, I have no idea what it is.

But essentially it came down to random bullshit or DM fiat, which considering the items came down to +1 or a random paragraph of abilities with a +3 on top, is unlikely to be for the good.

[Previn]

I give you, the 5e Ambush Drake:

AC 13, 22 HP, gains advantage on attacks if an ally is within 5' of the target and deals an extra 2d6 damage if it hits in the first round of combat on top of it's normal attack of +4 for d6+1 damage.

CR 1/2, 100 xp

[Dean]

How much AC and HP can you possibly get in a character using the latest rules we know of? Lets say by 2nd level how hardy can you possibly get. Because everything's hit score seems to suck balls but things dealing enough damage to one shot first or second level characters seems extremely common.

By 2nd or 3rd level how close to "fuck off" can you make your AC and how high can you get your hp in one character?

[Voss]

I give you, the 5e Ambush Drake:

AC 13, 22 HP, gains advantage on attacks if an ally is within 5' of the target and deals an extra 2d6 damage if it hits in the first round of combat on top of it's normal attack of +4 for d6+1 damage.

CR 1/2, 100 xp

Seriously, how many fucking critters get some variation of sneak attack as 3rd level rogues on the side?

I count at least 4 so far (hobgoblins, this drake, dopplegangers and bugbears get the surprise round element). Maybe its just a weird bias in the monsters they're showing off, but really...

How much AC and HP can you possibly get in a character using the latest rules we know of? Lets say by 2nd level how hardy can you possibly get. Because everything's hit score seems to suck balls but things dealing enough damage to one shot first or second level characters seems extremely common.

By 2nd or 3rd level how close to "fuck off" can you make your AC and how high can you get your hp in one character?

Fuck off AC? It depends how you do it. At low levels you can only do it through heavy armor (assuming point buy, you can't get fuck off levels of AC with light armor until 8th (6th if dex fighter)

But plate is 18. Shield is +2. So the starting point is 20.
Fighters can do +1 AC all the time from their basic class feature.
Clerics can pull shield of faith as concentration (i.e., a fight) for +2.
Warding bond (spell level 2) gives another +1, and isn't concentration, but the caster takes the same damage the target does, but the target has resistance (so half) to all damage. (effectively the damage is split 50/50, as resistance kicks in first, then you take the same damage.

Mages can fuck with numbers even more with blur as a 2nd level spell, which is disadvantage for all attacks (self only), but if some cleric domain gets that as a domain spell, then fuck everyone forever.
Low level magic armor is another +1, which you may or may not be getting.

But out of the things that are absolutely definite...
fighters can clock in a 21, 22 with +1 armor. With the two cleric buffs above, that can hit 25.
clerics can clock in at 20, 21 with +1 armor, +2 with shield of faith for 23. (24 if the party has multiple clerics... which is not a bad plan at all)
keep in mind, other domains are limited to medium armor, but that seriously works out to -1 AC once you can afford half-plate (which is 750, half the cost of plate mail, and doesn't have the bullshit low-strength speed penalty if you aren't a dwarf). But if (when the PH comes out) another domain means you get to snaffle some wizard spells, you probably want to do that.

By way of comparison
At 2nd/3rd levels, rogues get to eat dicks, and are stuck with a cap of AC 15. 16 with +1 armor. (Yes, you snipe people with crossbows and you fucking like it. Hope nothing shows up to gank your ass.). If you survive to level fucking five, you can take reactions every turn to halve damage when you're hit. But that presumes you survive to level 5, or just didn't take the criminal background for some class that doesn't fucking die all the time so you can have proficiency in lock picks.
Alternately, you can go with a mountain dwarf strength rogue, and sit slightly happier at 17/18 AC (assuming +1 armor for that second number again).


Mages get an even worse deal at low levels, as they get to sit on a max AC of 13, or 16 if they burn one of their few spells slots on mage armor. Which... yeah, you do. A mountain dwarf wizard can be behind on Int (attacks and save DC) until level fucking 12 for medium armor, but that still caps out at 17, because that doesn't include shields. Fuck that.
(warlocks, as an aside, get the privilege of wearing light armor, which is to say, AC 15 like a rogue. Go team shitty armor. Unlike a rogue, they're not going to be prioritizing dex* as they level, so... yeah. They're stuck with that shit for longer.

Which is basically the problem with light armor. If you've capped dex, they're equal to medium armor, and only 1 point behind plate mail. But at low levels (unless you've rolled stats and got lucky) you don't hit the stat cap until level 8. And then you get the spell casters who have priority in raising stats that _aren't_ dex, and they're proper fucked. For heavy or medium armor characters, they can maximize their AC at level 1- either 14 dex or 10 dex, and never care about again: they'll keep up organically as they can afford armor. Light/no armor characters are pretty fucked for at least 7 levels, possibly more. Monks get to double down on this shit and while they can start with a 16 and end up with a 20 (equal to plate+shield) that is a gradual evolution over their entire adventuring life as they slowly max out dex and wisdom.


As a further aside, looking at the classes at the end of the playtest, barbarians can do the same thing with Dex and Con, or they can just go medium armor and shield. Nakedness, apparently, is a high level thing.
Rangers are a medium+shield class, and paladins of course get it all. Keep in mind that the other melee classes in the playtest got the 'fighting style' of the fighter, the extra attack at level 5 (but not later on), spells (with auto-scaling DC) and better class abilities than what the fighter ended up with. So, really, fighters: fuck those guys. Rogues too, with their once per round sneak attack sniper shot that depends on having a friend standing around.



******
TL;DR version:
Now, there will probably be more things to pillage for bonuses in the PH, but that is the limit of what I can find: AC 22/21, pushed up to 23/25 if need be. Or 20 (to 23) if you're limited to medium armor, or being fucking bait if you don't get that.
******
Which is to say, basically, that a hell of a lot of things need 17+ or 18+ to hit you in just normal walking around situations. Not having heavy (or at least medium) armor means you are likely to be a fucking burden on your party, or dead. Or the DM is going to have to pull punches for your character, because the first paired hobbo squad that looks in your direction is going to murder the shit out of you.

As a corollary, I'm not particularly sold on two handed weapons, and frankly, with the 'disadvantage for standing next to you' problem, I'm really dubious about over-reliance on missile weapons. And given that WotC still really has a hard on for encounter design that starts the combat music in move+attack range for melee characters, not going armor/shield seems like a bad plan.


For archers/spellcasters, cover (which includes other people) gives +2, and really good cover gives +5. Super cover is 'fuck you, people can't attack you'
Now, keep in mind for people pondering a ranged character, just having someone hostile standing next to you gives you disadvantage on _any_ ranged attack (including magic that makes attack rolls (mage attack cantrips, but not magic that focus saves (cleric attack cantrip) ), and moving away without provoking AoOs takes the action you were going to use to attack (unless you are a 2nd level rogue, then you can disengage as a bonus action). But drawing a weapon is part of an attack action, so if you're an archer, carrying a shortsword or something is a definite plus- you're basically going to go from +5 to hit, 1d8+3 damage to +5 to hit, 1d6+3 damage. Not optimal, but you might as well stab a fool rather than try to fuck around with kiting as a non-rogue. Though if you're a fighter archer, you can go with rapier instead and still do 1d8+3. If you're a non-elf wizard, you're stuck with daggers as your only viable melee backup, but that makes you an unoptimized idiot, since high elf wizards are just better. Alternately, shocking touch can and should be prepared, and at 5th level, its doing 2d8 damage so has better scaling anyway.

*well... for light or no armor there is the option to avoid any spell with a save or attack roll. I'm not convinced that the breadth of spells make this a good option, but there is a possibility for some classes/paths to prioritize being an archer who also casts spells that doesn't totally suck. In theory, at least. Its probably better than several of the alternatives.

[Dean]

I was just tooling around with the playtest document just to check up on what Voss said and holy fuck is this edition boring. Almost every choice is meaningless or some +1 bullshit. There's nothing to create. The most optimal starting character I could see was a Human cleric who's amazing powers would be having a 20 AC and a +5 to hit bonus. The best character and the worst character are different by such a small degree as to be largely meaningless. The thing 5th edition is trying to make suboptimal is choicemaking.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't think that the 4E or 5E D&D developers ever realized that lowering the stakes only make people crave what bonuses remain that much more. Not to say that they shouldn't have tried to rein in the numbers because 3E/PF definitely do go pear-shaped. However, if they thought that by making an advantage boring or marginal this wouldn't put people into a bonus-hunting, number penis-comparing frenzy then they have another think coming.

[Voss]

I was just tooling around with the playtest document just to check up on what Voss said and holy fuck is this edition boring. Almost every choice is meaningless or some +1 bullshit. There's nothing to create. The most optimal starting character I could see was a Human cleric who's amazing powers would be having a 20 AC and a +5 to hit bonus. The best character and the worst character are different by such a small degree as to be largely meaningless.

I don't entirely agree with this, partly because I'm not entirely sure how valid some of the playtest material will be, and a lot of things are altered by system changes elsewhere, like the 1/short rest idea, which was functional when that was 5 minutes and translated to 'encounter,' but fucking terrible when it amounts to an hour and isn't really doable between rooms in a small cave complex.

The other thing is the huge difference between the best character and worst character is going to be the choice of class. Spells are unsurprisingly a huge deal (provided you pick game changing spells, and not shitty spells, of which there are fucking lots), but the designers really don't understand that getting something cool later doesn't matter if you can't survive the initial levels.

The massive gap in AC between a rogue and armored classes is fucking ridiculous. That they can kite is nice, but sneak attack starts out as situational great sword damage... if you include base weapon damage, and the fact that they can take half damage once a round at level 5 is nice, but honestly too late.

The fighter, on the other hand, is a lot more survivable, but gets fuck all for class features, and the ones it does get are killed by the 1/short rest mechanic. That the fighter has essentially no class features by design is pretty ludicrous, because with the attack bonus convergence, the other things classes can do is where they shine. The fighter was also noticeably nerfed from the playtest version, with the change to short rest, with defy death getting kicked all together and Indomitable getting changed from 'advantage on all saves' to 1 save reroll per day. (2 at 13th, 3 at 17th).

So while the attack bonuses converge to the same point, the gap in AC is massive and the gap between abilities is fucking mind boggling. The cleric can get a better, if temporary AC bonus, and can get extra attacks from spiritual weapon at level 3 (rather than level 5). And still has the rest of the spell progression, channelling, etc. That the paladin and ranger may not get the late game extra attack progression the fighter gets doesn't matter, because they get real stuff and spells at low level, where it actually comes up in play.


But as far as optimization goes, it's weird. I saw a fair number of posts on ENworld when I found the sorcerer pages, and several were celebrating the 'death of optimization' and other such shit.* But to me, the fact that the optimization is really easy and obvious seems to bring it further forward. I would not be willing to play a poor race/class combination, and there are several classes that just look non-functional below a certain level, part of that has to do with light armor not being functional until mid game, and part of that is key class features simply don't happen until far too late. And of course, other classes just never provide abilities or options to actually care about.

That you can't optimize attack doesn't strike me as a big deal- for the most part monster AC is shit anyway (with a notable exception or two. Damn hobbos). But that you can utterly fail to optimize survivability is fucking huge. There are large chunks of the game that have 'This is a goddamn trap' written in letters 50' high. In fire.

*an interesting exception was a thread on the mountain dwarf armored wizard, where the poster was crowing about the higher AC and how it made it a clear winner. It was gently pointed out that the AC bonus over mage armor was tiny, the first level spell slot mattered less and less over time, and the dwarf would be behind the curve for being a damn wizard for 11 fucking levels.

[tussock]

I just had a friend tell me that 1E D&D's treasure system was even better because

It also had a thing where you got XP for finding magic items and using them, but more XP for selling them as treasure instead. A lot of XP, 4000 to recover a Holy Avenger for a PC, 20000 to merchandise it.

Which makes it important in the structure of the game. Finding treasure is not just a way to get another +1, it's what gives you most of your level ups, especially if it's surplus to needs. Skipping the fights and stealing the treasure away is a superior game strategy, there's even a bunch of spells designed to locate treasures, avoid the monsters, deal with the traps, make sure you don't miss anything magical, and carry the stuff out. Not that it's easy with all the randomised "no, fuck you" built into just moving around, but still.

[ishy]

That literally none of the classes or races* designed for 4e show up in 5e says a lot to me, even the flagship 'new class' of the edition, let alone the avenger,

Well the avenger is in as a paladin subclass.
And here a site I don't know with the bard preview.

- Edit: weird. In the article posted by Meals:

Each bard is inspired by a college

and yet in the bard preview they talk about different inspiration sources (like fey)

[Mistborn]

I know I floated this before but noone answered last time so I'll ask again. What is the net effect of bringing Tarnowski and Zak S in on 5e going to be. Obviously they don't have anything meaningful to say about game design, but are the knuckle dragers they have pull with a big enough group that stroking their ego a good move marketing wise. Also if/when 5e flops are they going to admit any fault/rethink their beliefs.

[Voss]

I know I floated this before but noone answered last time so I'll ask again. What is the net effect of bringing Tarnowski and Zak S in on 5e going to be. Obviously they don't have anything meaningful to say about game design, but are the knuckle dragers they have pull with a big enough group that stroking their ego a good move marketing wise. Also if/when 5e flops are they going to admit any fault/rethink their beliefs.

Seriously, nothing at all. Most people legitimately don't know who the fuck those asses are, and those that do will lose interest in another five minutes.

That literally none of the classes or races* designed for 4e show up in 5e says a lot to me, even the flagship 'new class' of the edition, let alone the avenger,

Well the avenger is in as a paladin subclass.
And here a site I don't know with the bard preview.

Hmm. The avenger path did show up in the playtest. It has a few more features of the 4e class than I thought, but its mostly an excuse to have a non-good paladin that murders the fuck out of people. It got the accuracy of the 4e class as a channel divinity thing and a limited ability to move as a part of an AoO reaction. But it doesn't really map well to the class beyond that. No force field, no damage bonus, and... huh. Other than powers, that was a class in 4e. Yeah.

That bard is so fucking different from the playtest version it isn't even a related concept. Its also another full caster! and treads all over the exact same design space as the sorcerer (with the same damn spells known mechanic) and has another shedload of random abilities- including the rogue's Expertise, which makes the rogue even more redundant.

It also suffers from Armor Class fail, however. (though from the opening bit I'd guess one of the colleges (probably Valor) gets medium armor access.

- Edit: weird. In the article posted by Meals:

Each bard is inspired by a college

and yet in the bard preview they talk about different inspiration sources (like fey)

Keep in mind, the bard wasn't finished until the very, very end of the playtest. Seriously when they did the Infamous Video, they weren't even done with the damn thing. They've since rebuilt it from the ground up. That it is incoherent and contradictory is only to be expected.

But the traditional 'Bardic Colleges' (from the 1e bard) have Excessively Celtic Names (and may even be based on actual Irish things); but just tying them to fey would be something lame I'd expect from WotC.


Personally, I'm amused by how uneven the classes are when it comes to the real choice of paths/archetypes/domains/whatever. Several get two options. A few get three. The cleric and wizard seriously get 7 and 8. That says a lot to me about their design process.

[Username17]

To a first approximation, P.T. Barnum was right and there is no such thing as bad publicity. I'm sure that people who refused to buy 3rd edition D&D materials because Ed Greenwood is a skeevy pervert exist, but they are few enough in number that they hardly matter. It is really hard for a consultant or tertiary writer to produce a scandal big enough that it actually damages a brand.

So I can only think that people like Shitmuffin and Tarnowski must logically be modest plusses for the D&D brand. Just by generating discussion they are getting people to look at the product, to be aware that the product exists when they otherwise would not be. You can talk about favorable/unfavorable opinions all you want, but an absolute requirement for a sale is that the potential customer is aware that they can buy the product.

Now, I think you could get better people on hand to drum up interest and support. 4th edition was fucking brilliant by getting the Penny Arcade guys and Scott Kurtz to make some 4e comics. They probably picked up a lot of initial sales from the interest that piqued. Getting some people who write old school gaming blogs to shill for you is obviously going to touch a lot less eyeballs.

But you'll also notice that 4th edition fucking withered on the vine. That's because when the chips are down, the edition lives or dies by word of mouth, not marketing savvy. I don't think that an edition run by Mearls can ever do well enough to not be considered a colossal failure by WotC.

As for rethinking their positions: Shitmuffin cannot fail, he can only be failed. If 5e doesn't do well, it will be because Mike didn't take enough of Shitmuffin's advice. Tarnowski, same deal.

-Username17

[zugschef]

Good luck selling 5E to kids and their parents if it comes out that it was designed for pornstars on coke...

[Ferret]

Can't lie, I like the 5e bard chassis. Alpha phb draft says Valor College gets medium armor, shields, and martial weapons. Need to take a look at the spell list again, but if think they accidentally made a class that really can do everything. Expertise, healing, arcane magic, skills, knowledges.

[Voss]

Can't lie, I like the 5e bard chassis. Alpha phb draft says Valor College gets medium armor, shields, and martial weapons. Need to take a look at the spell list again, but if think they accidentally made a class that really can do everything. Expertise, healing, arcane magic, skills, knowledges.

Not surprised. Not surprised at all. The only things that seems to be missing is extra attacks, but it does everything else the game is capable of doing. And since it is a full caster, extra attacks don't mean much. With valor dealing with the AC problem (not top tier, but med +shield is good enough), they're the full package. The useless charisma saving throw bonus seems to be the only downside.

From whats in the basic rules, these previews and a few conservative assumptions based on the playtest materials, we can easily start dividing classes by worth.

Good: Cleric, Bard.

Average or Uncertain: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Druid (AC issues, which force MAD issues, if nothing else) Paladin and Ranger probably fall here, like the bard, they have a bunch of special abilities, but they were only partial casters in the playtest. Worlds better than fighters and rogues though.

Barbarian is definitely still uncertain, but I'd lean toward bad, just for the combat only tilt.

Bad: Fighter, Rogue, Monk.

If I were to play/run a 5e game, I'd pretty much openly encourage a party of clerics, bards and paladins. Oddly enough, they all have good 'charisma saves' (and so far, nothing targets that). I wonder if that is an intentional attempt at 'balance' for the better classes.

[animea90]

I don't think that the 4E or 5E D&D developers ever realized that lowering the stakes only make people crave what bonuses remain that much more. Not to say that they shouldn't have tried to rein in the numbers because 3E/PF definitely do go pear-shaped. However, if they thought that by making an advantage boring or marginal this wouldn't put people into a bonus-hunting, number penis-comparing frenzy then they have another think coming.

The thing is, 3.5 and Pathfinder are complicated enough that min/maxing is difficult. Unless they actively seek out guides to OP combos, most players are going to have trouble breaking the game.

In 5E, the choices are very simple and the optimal decisions are obvious, even if they are weaker.

[Voss]

I don't think that the 4E or 5E D&D developers ever realized that lowering the stakes only make people crave what bonuses remain that much more. Not to say that they shouldn't have tried to rein in the numbers because 3E/PF definitely do go pear-shaped. However, if they thought that by making an advantage boring or marginal this wouldn't put people into a bonus-hunting, number penis-comparing frenzy then they have another think coming.

The thing is, 3.5 and Pathfinder are complicated enough that min/maxing is difficult. Unless they actively seek out guides to OP combos, most players are going to have trouble breaking the game.

Except by accident, which is a real risk.
That said, the guides are readily available

In 5E, the choices are very simple and the optimal decisions are obvious, even if they are weaker.

You'd think so. But there are a lot of half-formed opinions out there (and the play tests actively made this worse, since a lot of assumptions on how 5e works comes from various stages of testing and not how it currently works- it certainly bit me in the ass during the fighter first look before the basic rules went up.

Of course, there are a lot of grotesquely stupid opinions out there too, which is going to lead to a lot of suboptimal to the point of TPK decisions by various players and groups.

And part of that is intentional design decisions on the part of the developers, who'd rather have the fighter be 'easy to play' rather than 'functional'

[Ferret]

Alpha PHB leak gives College of Valor Bard an extra attack at 6th also.

Take Ritual Caster for unlimited rituals known/per-day, take War Caster for casting while armed plus spells as opportunity Attacks, take Shield Master to be immune to Dex Save effects. Maybe toss on Toughness to boost average HP up to barbarian levels or whatever.

That's not as offensively powerful as a half Orc paladin stacking offense effects, but it's pretty much a one man party.

[Ferret]

Also the monk can throw a stupid number of attacks per round at level one; they're pretty cool in the leaked phb.

They're throwing 4 unarmed attacks per round when they flurry if they want.

[Voss]

Hmm. Is there a good link to the alpha version somewhere?

Some of things are such a departure from the playtest that it seems incredible they'd put them in. I also hate having a discussion without access to the information.

[nockermensch]

Hmm. Is there a good link to the alpha version somewhere?

Some of things are such a departure from the playtest that it seems incredible they'd put them in. I also hate having a discussion without access to the information.

good old 4chan delivers.

[Koumei]

To a first approximation, P.T. Barnum was right and there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Try telling that to Rolf Harris :3c

[Voss]

Hmm. Is there a good link to the alpha version somewhere?

Some of things are such a departure from the playtest that it seems incredible they'd put them in. I also hate having a discussion without access to the information.

good old 4chan delivers.

Thanks. Holy fuck, paladins kept a lot of shit I wouldn't have expected, like the add charisma bonus to all saves (and friendly saves within 10'/30' depending on level). And the Oath of the Ancients gets 'take half damage from all spells' at level 7, and that is also an aura.


Sorcerer is weird. Font of Magic Gives 'sorcery points' which can be turned into bonus spells slots (of level 5 or less), and vice versa. Or spent on metamagic, though several of the options are bad or very circumstantial.

Warlock spellcasting is a joke. those 1 to 4 spells come back as a long rest just like anyone else.


Huh. Necromancy and animate dead is a thing 5e can do. I honestly didn't expect that- 4e really lowered my expectations.