At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, any mechanic designed around providing characters magic items at their discretion in a system not balanced around magic items seems broken by default.
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)
D&D Next - 5e Discussion
39 readers
2 users here now
A place to discuss the latest version of Dungeons & Dragons, the fifth edition, known during the playtest as D&D Next.
Join our discord! https://discord.gg/dndnext
-- Rules --
- Be Civil. Unacceptable behavior includes name calling, taunting, baiting, flaming, etc. Please respect the opinions of people who play differently than you do.
- Use Clear, Concise Titles.
- Limit Self-Promotional Links. External links to blogs, kickstarters, storefronts, YouTube channels, etc, must be related to DnD and posted no more than once every 14 days. Affiliate links are never allowed.
This is a new community and the rules are in flux. Please bear with us (and give your feedback!) as we navigate building this new community. Thank you!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
At least they preserved the DM having veto power... They probably should just do what Pathfinder does and develop actual numbers to associate with the power level of different magic items.
Ehh despite their claims, I think 5e was always built around having magic items.
It's unfortunate that they seem to want to make the cantrips less unique rather than more. All the interesting little wrinkles like Chill Touch's interaction with undead, Poison Spray's Con save, or Shocking Grasp's interaction with metal armour were reasons to use these spells over just using the highest damage dice cantrips all the time.
Shillelagh finally got its well needed buff though
I just posted that I love all the cantrip changes, but I change my mind. You're totally right. I like those little, unique effects.
I like the idea of the bastion system.
But when I think about my game. It's time that could be spent playing rp&combat together. And if we spend gametime on bastions it should be a group activity, not x solo turns.
There's definitely some good rules in there (everyone loves building a base!) but maybe a single base for the party would work better. Oh well, this is the point of playtest material, right?
Sounds like they're trying to get into the area that a lot of third parties have taken with Bastions, like the Strongholds & Followers book that MCDM already published or Walrock's stronghold's homebrew on DM's guild. Probably a good idea for people who don't use third-party material but seems too late and unnecessary for me now lol.
It might be a good combination, though, since it does look a little similar to me like a combination of those two systems. This makes sense since I think Matt Colville said he adopted systems and stuff that had been in past D&D versions, so it makes sense an official variant would have some similarities. I'll probably just use this as more options with Strongholds and Followers, which has been working for me so far.
As for the cantrip changes, nothing much to say except I love them all.
I would speculate that the vast majority of players don't use published third-party material, so putting something in the official rules will make it way more mainstream
Oh for sure. And it probably helps people in Adventurer League or cons and stuff like that, although I never play in official tables with strangers, I'm sure lots of people do.
Already some decent discussion about True Strike over in rpgmemes
...i play a bard-monk under the 2014 rules, so i'll admit that it's not saying much, but under the 2024 rules a single-class bard makes a better monk by pretty much every metric...
...i'm unconvinced that spellcasters are well-served by at-will melee parity with the melee classes...