Why One D&D just doesn't feel right...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2024
- The Druid & Paladin One D&D Unearthed Arcana playtest document dropped and it's renewed my concerns that One D&D is just... not great.
Seer the Unearthed Arcana playtest document here: www.dndbeyond....
Wanderer's Guide to Merchants & Magic:
eventyrgames.s...
Milando's Guide to Magical Marvels:
eventyrgames.s...
Support us on Patreon:
htttps://patreon.com/eventyr
Check out our web apps:
app.eventyrgam...
Eventyr Games webpage:
eventyrgames.com/
Twitter:
/ eventyrgames
I want to reiterate once again, that I have no ill will against the designers behind these playtests. I have no idea what circumstances they are working under, how much say they have in the process, and how much of any of this can be blamed on any specific person or group at all. It could very well be a leadership, work environment, or budgetary issue.
The point of this video isn't to blame anyone but to voice my concerns that for whatever reason, these One D&D playtest documents just don't feel ready, like at all. At this pace and with this quality of playtest content, I have a hard time seeing a polished and better version of Dungeons & Dragons released in 2024. And that's a shame. I want One D&D to be great.
So yeah, I don't enjoy being this negative, but I think something needs to change. Be kind to each other in the comments! :)
Basic state blocks are a horrible freaking idea, you should be able to turn into any beast in the game, it would be much better to balance that by making wildshape last a limited time or consume spell slots what they have done is kill the only subclass anyone ever played as druid.
I think what's amazing is that there is a plethora of homebrew available for Wild Shape revisions, some of which are extremely similar to what they put out in the playtest (specifically Treantmonk's Wild Shape fix), yet, that publicly available homebrew is often much more well thought out and fully realized than what they put in the Druid & Paladin packet. There seems to be either a large design skill gap at WotC or a lack of time to properly review their designs before throwing them out in the playtest.
Exactly!
We homebrewed a Druid wildshape table where your transformation could select from a number of beast features that unlocked as you leveled up, and the hit points of the beast form were equal your hit points unless you chose a small/tiny creature, where you’d cut your hit points to 1/2 or 1/4 accordingly. So if you wanted to wildshape into a bear, your form could choose grapple and climbing speed bonuses, if you wanted to fly(at 5th level) you gained vulnerability to bludgeoning damage, you could double your carry capacity by transforming into a beast of burden at the cost of multi-attack. My table loved the rule change, and we’ve always had a Druid in the party because of it being fun and creative, and simplifying the confusing hit points and stat block looking up process.
This sounds great and is likely the direction most have tried to shift towards, or at least what I seem to be seeing as a "fix"
Now THAT is what I want to play!
@@kurtoogle4576 if you want I can try and copy paste the table into a comment if you wanna play test it. We’ve found it to be balanced and fun.
@@MechAdv Please do.
I used a moon Druid like class that could sac spell slots to mutate the animal I was currently. Used it a lot to rp a talking cat that took a lot of short rests
Thank you for putting words to how I've been feeling about the One DND playtest. It feels... lazy. If it isn't lazy, then the staff are not being given the time and resources they need to actually do the job.
I agree with you overall, but I'd like to nitpick one point:
The playtest wildshape isn't more balanced, it's just as broken, but in the other direction. Moon Druids are certain levels, as you point you, are way too much. Making a major feature that takes up so much design space useless (I actually don't think I'd ever want to use it over being in caster form) is also broken. It's like they don't know how to balance things in moderation.
The mount was in AD&D a central feature of the Paladin, and in that regard I think it is neat to have that old school feeling to that class back.
I never did play AD&D, so I missed that experience. Not my cup of tea though - I could see it being a choice between three ribbon features, kinda like the cleric orders we got in the last playtest. But I dislike it as a mandatory feature.
I know where you're coming from, but let's be real here: The mounted combat rules for 5e were so half-baked it's embarrassing. I don't expect OneD&D to ace it after that, honestly. You'll just end up seeing Paladins using their Steed as a source of advantage in Melee, or as ranged cover shenanigans at most tables.
@@EventyrGames So in other words, based on what you say in the video: unless it conforms to your personal experience, you feel it objectively doesn't make sense for the class?
Or could it be that your understanding of the class and its history is incomplete, and you weren't aware that the Paladin originally had a Bonded Mount as a central class feature, that was later converted into the spell Find Steed, which is now being converted back into a class feature?
I do agree that it would be neat to see other options in place of Bonded Mount, but the fact remains that you didn't see the rationale behind the Find Steed class feature, and your lack of understanding informed your opinion, leading you to suggest that it wasn't part of the Paladin experience, when it has been for most of the game's history.
@mikevides4494 your comment comes across as rather aggressive. There is no reason why a TH-camr should study every previous version of the game in order to comment on 5e to oned&d changes. Find Steed was a reasonable implementation of a feature which I believe in AD&D gave you a horse not a flying mount. The find steed stat block in the playtest is objectively better than the druid wildshape stat blocks in the same playtest document. Why can your paladin fly faster than a wildshaped Druid? It makes zero sense. The internal playtesting at wotc is clearly not working. Too much energy is being devoted to fixing things that were not broken. Have they looked at how the improved smite spells will work on a cleric. I very much doubt it. Clerics as full casters may be outsmiting Paladins. Was that a design intention? I doubt it. Likewise giving the paladins access to spirit guardians requires careful thought. Not a blanket these two classes get all the divine spells approach. Most playtests aren't going to catch these new exploits. We need confidence in wotc to be thorough. Did they intend to remove crit fishing from divine smite but allow it on all the other smite spells and allow Clerics to crit fish too in the same way? They haven't stated so and I very much doubt it.
I mean I get how it's a neat part of the theme of Paladin, but as such a big feature to the class it feels really clumsy and useless? My longest running character was a Paladin and I used find steed once in a two year game - and it ended up not being useful because I can only find one steed, and I had a party of several others - without other horses we were still stuck at walking speed, so like... functionally it does very little for the game as far as I can tell?
I suspect WotC is a bureaucracy -- usually in bureaucracies the directors and managers don't listen to their subordinates. Often they will hire a consultant at high cost instead to tell them what to do or to recommend what the director wants to do. The more highly paid the consultant the more clout they will give to the opinion even if it's completely invalid. Employees sometimes know more about a product or service than their manager or director does. Especially the internally motivated employees who care. The managers and directors sometimes care more about their career or salary than about the good or service they are supposed to provide.
In this case it looks like WotC managers and directors are caught between what the public wants and what Hasbro tells them to do, the two cannot be reconciled.
I'm gonna be honest here. I'm tired of 5e and the One D&D playtest. The direction they going for with the new 5e supplements and the One D&D playtest show a lack o interest for doing fun stuff for the game. They are just making something that sells and people are getting more and more tired of that. I don't want more subclasses or lazy playtests, i want actual mechanincs that enhance the game and solve the problems that the system have. I want crafting and travel mechanics, something like that. Anyway, do you think you cold start making some other RPG systems videos? It would be fun seeing some Pathfinder or Shadow of the Demon Lord content. Oh and nice video by the way.
Have you tried the OSR?
Not going to lie. Pathfinder 2e is super amazing. Their publish adventures are some of the best in the space.
Paizo did their playtest right with Pathfinder 2nd Edition. They started off by releasing an ENTIRE finished game called Pathfinder Playtest, and even went so far as to print a limited amount of core rulebooks for it. Then, as they gathered data both from surveys as well as from community managers who interacted directly with the community, they released waves of errata that changed whole swaths of the system. They threw out whole subsystems (like the much-hated Resonance system for magic items), added new subsystems, and reworked/rebalanced pretty much everything about the system until they were happy with it. By doing it this way we always knew the full context of the system when evaluating changes, so we were able to give properly informed feedback.
That is true maybe now.
But at the time I remember everyone hating that playtest a lot, lead to a lot of bad feedback for the game, and almost ruined a lot of peoples impressions of the game
Not to mention, Find Steed/Find Greater Steed are spells, and I think if you choose Knight Background (or Noble) or taking the Spell as one of your choices is a "Flavor" choice. I think this is the design team grasping at straws.
There will not be a caster/martial divide when everyone has spells.
The Ranged Weapon Inclusion on the Divine Smite is just ridiculous... and the way they have it worded, they use the words "Ranged Weapon" - they do not specify which weapons, implying that all ranged weapons are included in this... including... Wait for it - Ballista that shoot 400 meters.
So I can stand on a hill above a moving column of Peltasts or Spearman and Divine Smite them on a Ballista Strike? This is bonkers...
I think a lot of the issue is that the 5e/ODND design team are heavy homebrewers that run stereotypical characters and enforce table rules that curtail powergaming. So they themselves never see the same issues the community experience as they play differently and houserule out most of the issues. That's the only way you could miss so much.
Which comes to the issue of them not really testing out the game in house because they only run basic old school PCs and characters.
The nice thing about 5e is that at least it is pretty easy to make a reasonably balanced homebrew feature by comparing and contrasting with the other parts at work, which made it feel very modular if you have a DM open to that sort of thing, where my problem with the playtest is that it really seems like even outside of subclasses a lot of the classes have this weird "generic" feel that simultaneously has a very specific vision of what each class is supposed to be. "Bards need to always be off healers again, even though they're in the Expert character type, also rapiers are too good for them even though it fits their image, Simple Weapons only even if that means making Shortswords simple weapons", "Every Party should have at least one class from each of the four Class Categories", Every Paladin being pressured into a steed just so they have the option, Clerics getting this weird vaguely "whole pantheon" sounding vibe because they don't pick their domain (or presumably god since that is so closely tied to domain usually) until 3rd level, etc.
Neat abilities that let you engage more with the D&D specific mechanics here and there (though sometimes in a boring way because giving both Bard and Ranger Expertise for free means you have to give All Rogues stuff like Always getting advantage in cases where Sneak Attack is on the line after a certain point (or the allies Standing within 5 feet part anyways). Also returning to subclassing restrictions I don't remember being in 5e before, and a bunch of stuff that seems like its trying to superficially be 4th and 3.5th editions at once in vibe, if admittedly seemingly less trap options in there.
Also not sure how I feel about statblocks and a bunch of Species Features and AGIs being trapped in barely customizable "background" kits that don't have the interesting roleplay utility if I read them right and instead makes it harder to get exactly what you want for characterization, while also having some bad overlap with both races and classes that can result in duped traits that waste the trait? Seemingly mostly to prevent potential abuses of their "Species" template style writeup in Tasha's that is the new way....except also less interesting a lot of the time compared to great stuff like the Faery writeup recently.
Like the only thing I'm particuarly liking the sound of so far is Ranger actually sounding cool instead of a niche use case you can never count on ever being the case, but also Hunter's Mark Ranger has existed for a while as an alternate and uh....Ranger being generally reviled in 5e as the worst martial class...and also still insisting on having spells no matter what fans want? Well, that and ONE supposedly not replacing 5e, thats a nice perk too.
Completely agree with most of your points. Since the first packet, that's what I've been saying / feeling. They, WoTC, are just putting stuff in a box, shaking it and dropping it on the floor to see what comes out. That's my feeling. There's no sense of direction, no sense of 'These guys know their stuff'.
I can't believe they can't afford good, creative people. 3PP and the OSR scene are outputting better stuff than them by a mile. I don't understand what's happening.
You hit the nail on the head. That's the exact feeling I'm getting.
@@EventyrGames Then I feel sad for the both of us, my friend. D&D will live on nonetheless.
This video really speaks to me, I've recently decided to stop giving feedback to WOTC on OneDnd because I don't feel like I owe them my design expertise anymore. If I'm going to work on a game, it's going to be my game!
I fully agree, the ideas just don't seem fun or exciting. I got more hyped from the first playtest of Black Flag than I did for all of the One D&D UA's combined simply because it felt exciting and fun and new and well thought out.
I’m starting to understand the 2e and 3e die hards now lol they are really dumbing down the system well beyond what is necessary.
I'm a supporter of the dev team and believe that they are truly working toward improving weak, op and broken areas that have been identified in the 2014 version.
I also believe that it is almost impossible to predict what the community is it going to "get hysterical" about and what they are going to miss entirely. That said, shame on the developers not properly identifying the goals - intent on some of these changes. For instance, depending on the DM looseness and the players style, there are certain things that could ruin entire encounter and modules, such as wild shaping into a tiny spider and mapping every room of the dungeon as soon as someone could wild shape. Some GM's never had an issue with this, others had modules and play sessions ruined by it. Making a change moving tiny to level 11 without saying why is just asking for uninformed criticism.
So those are defenses to some of what's happening. However one thing you said truly does ring true. Hasbro Wizards keeps talking about how efficient and profitable WoTC is. I think they have down staffed their full-time experts who can actually write and predict the effect of rules in favor of contractors who come in to write one book or section and then move on. I don't think they have enough people OnStaff not full-time expert employed capacity to produce the quality that you're describing, and throwing stuff out there so the community can help them with mistakes is the best can do right now. 🤷♂️
These are insightful observations I mostly agree with. The one area I’d disagree is the paladin auras: a charisma-based character like the paladin should be out in front, confident in their armor and their god to protect them. Cowering behind cover should have a negative impact on the energy the share with their party.
Honestly, I really agree with pretty much everything you're saying here. Some good, but overall not enough thought seems to be put into what's being released. Thanks for this you said it better than I could.
I wonder how the OGL mess affected the design team. Feel bad for Jeremy Crawford. He comes across as someone who really loves the game.
At this point, we, all of us participating in One D&D, are the design team. The OGL debacle cost them $129mil in losses. They might not have an in-house design team beyond the few developers we know haven’t quit yet.
So this document really helped me confirm my decision to move to PF2E.
Yes, it has its own issues, but I completely agree with what you are saying - This is lazy.
Or, and worse, it's been intentionally released as a half-baked idea. And I don't feel good about that either- why? Mind games and lack of transparency.
It's really pretty easy to fix the wildshape issues:
-Wildshapes don't get Multiattack until the druid is level 5.
-Wildshaping only gives you half HP unless you spend a hit die, possibly more than one at higher levels.
-You can assume a form no smaller than 1ft in length/a house cat until you reach level 8 maybe. The point where wizards get Arcane Eye.
On paladins, I feel like they might need the warlock or totem barbarian treatment. At some point in the middle point of your career perhaps at level 9-11, you get to choose a nice boon- A mount and support features, a greater aura range, etc.
I know the critical smite feels super duper powerful, but I don't know that it actually causes as much of a balance problem as suggested. It's no more than the extra damage of a hit or a miss when you take into consideration the fact that they probably have 2 ready to go. Critical strikes don't feel super impactful except on the Paladin and Rogue already, so I feel like they need to go in another direction to solve that.
Anyway- I really agree here with what you are saying. I'm happy to revisit One D&D at a later date, but between the OGL saga and the lackluster playtest packages, I'm pretty close to losing interest in the debacle.
PF2 It's not a perfect game, but at least you can appreciate that they focused a lot of their attention on having a solid, well thought out core, that has some clear assumptions, and they actually put out revisions and erratas of the rules quite often, like the Core rulebook has been revised 4 times i think
As usual, spot on assessment and opinions. Enjoyed the video
Regarding ranged smiting: I think conceptually, you channel the energy through the arrow (or ranged weapon) at the time of release. As for the effect taking place after a hit, well, if you miss, then there's nothing to smite.
Edit: I see you addressed this point a little later. Honestly, I don't know why having to declare a smite before the attack isn't a thing already, not just in ranged, but even melee.
As for Healing Blossoms, I think it's okay conceptually as a nature-focused character (or class) being a healer is actually common in fantasy and whatnot. However, the execution is extremely botched. Healing 20 max HP at level 2 is fine (and arguably borderline game breaking at that level), but at level 20?! Here is an easy fix: upgrade the dice at certain levels. For example, you roll d6s at level say, seven, d8s at level eleven, d10s at level...I don't know....14? And finally at level 17 or 19, d12s. There is even precedent for that with class skills in other editions, including 5e. Same thing with adding more dice as you level up. If the rouge can get more Sneak Attack dice per level up, why can't the druid get more healing dice per level up?
Really cogent analysis. I’ve personally moved on from 5e and will probably not dip into 1dnd and this playtest is not making me come back at all.
My favourite part of WOW paladins is the Thrown hammer and throwing the shield in a boomerang. Now we could do that in DnD with Divine Smite and I like that concept. And mechanically I think it's easier to think of less as a "concious choice" and more of a "This time I hit it just right to trigger the divine smite" and ensuring you don't waste it on a miss.
Finding the steed is literally core feature to the Paladin. In the AD&D version it was a level class feature and even then often it was not used because the rest of the party was not mounted or could not effectively operate mounted. The issue (minor at best) has always been not the Paladin getting a steed but a way to have others get one or interested in using one.
The issue I have with one D&D is really that they are trying to dum it down when that is not the issue. Yeah a Paladin may eat your boss mister on 5% but as I have noticed very few DMs are putting resource pressure on parties. Also, how is this Paladin play style different then many others. Truth is a Paladin going Nova is a thing that no one else can really do.
This is another case of making the game incompatible with 5e for little gain.
I think they showed their hand a little bit. I agree that they’re using the community to design the game. They nearly stripped wildshape down to nothing but a stat block so that the feedback could tell them what to add back to the class feature
At this point I’m hoping you’ll do a Kickstarter to fund you making a 5.5 alternative for us. Your content (digital and printed) is significantly better than WotC’s.
About the paladin: I think they nerfed it too hard. It's still pretty damn powerful but as someone who plays 5e it became much more boring now.
Removing the extra damage on crits and fiends was bad in my opinion becuse it made those crits so much more fun and added flavor, not being able to use it more than once per turn would be a pretty ok nerf, it would make you think if you wanna risk using it on an attack that hits just to see if you crit in the next one, but you could also just miss the next attack.
Not being able to use it when you cast a spell seems bad for me, most of his spells are very situational or are special smites that you can't choose to use after a hit, so they are not as op as divine smite, if the paladin wishes to burn through their slots to demolish an enemy I wish they could. They can still cast it before combat, if they have time to prepare, and attack smiting in the next since it's concentration.
Once we were fighting an adtul shadow dragon and I managed to crit while concentrating a smite and used divine smite on top of it, and it was glorious, turned a very hard fight into an ok/easy one. Sure it can ruin a DM's encounter, but the DM can also bump the enemy health and keep it satisfying. At higher levels most things need to get a buff in 5e anyway.
Being able to smite on ranged attacks is noice because it makes dex based paladins possible (and I say that mostly because I have one). For me it's easy to rationalize the smite as it bursting with radiant energy when it hits, the paladin shoots, sees it is about to hit and ir shines, pretty similar to the sword attack since the moment of contact should be a very small time gap. I do think maybe they should make the smite less powerful at range, but I don't think it changes that much because of the other nerfs to smite.
Since you can take cantrips now it isn't such a problem not having range since you could use those in a pinch.
I don't care too much about the finding steed because it's a spell paladins would need to have anyway in 5e to be viable, they don't have the speed to reach most enemies and since they didn't have range before the spell was a must have.
I can see a ranged paladin running arround with their steed and avoiding close combat, but I doubt a player would do that too much because of their oaths and role play flavor, for me it's just more options to be useful on the battlefield, and that part I like.
In the beggining of One D&D I had hope they would mostly buff the weaker classes and the monsters, but some of their tweaks are very odd, the strangest one being removing sneak attack from critics too. I know some things are OP in 5e but I'm the kind of guy who thinks buffing is much better for balancing than nerfing, it makes players more excited about the changes and the whole thing more fun, but maybe they don't wanna have to buff the enemies and rethink encounters, IDK.
While some of the fixes are in a loosely good direction (wildshape statblocks) they are very unimaginative and basic. The statblocks are almost verbatim the statblocks for beast master ranger companions from Tasha's. There is yet to be an interesting mechanic in any of the released play test materials. All of it is dumbing down existing mechanics.
There is lots of ttrpg community love going out to Kelsey Dionne's Shadowdark rules. My playgroup is not looking at One D&D anymore.
I take issue that that Proficiency bonus features at level one are a PROBLEM cause of multiclassing. Its not that big a deal. Multiclassing isnt a big deal, and I'd prefer to not punish it...let features run off Proficiency bonus and make those dips impactful. Personal preference anyway.
There's an untapped market for PF2e AP guide ;)
Yep, all this just makes me think how much fun I've been having getting into Pathfinder 2e recently. Looking at the comments I'm not alone.
You can't say "druids needed nerf" aka are overpowered, and then say it's the least playable character, cause if it was OP then it would be the most playable character.
I think that wotc along with the most TH-camrs, fail to understand the real reason why people don't play Druids.
My opinion on the matter is that the problem is with the CR of the beast (wanna fix druids, fix that), giving more options to the players is not bad, if you can't deal with it just pick 1 beast (most likely bear) and you is Gucci.
The main reason why people don't play Druids is that DMs can handle them from level 2 to 4 (after that they are same as fighters and soon after the fall hard), so they ended up homebrew nerfs for the wild shape, discouraging PCs to play them.
The most common issue with people getting discouraged to play Druids is the banning of certain spells, yeah of course we are talking about conjuring spells, they are made so sloppy that it's kind of impossible to use them and not ruin everyone's fun at the table, due to the action economy, battlefield space issues etc.
That and so many others are the real reason why people don't play Druids, not because it's complicated and overpowered
So it's still a design issue
Hopefully they have some bold ideas in the works to shake things up
I agree, fellow Dane! 😁 the shoehorning is the biggest issue for me too.
"Find steed shoehorns paladin into a decision"
Also
"Paladins need to be shoehorned into melee"
I agree with some of what you're saying, I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment
Melee is a very big box to fit in. A horse riding knight is a very small box. But I can see an argument for making the ranged paladin more viable, just shouldn't be as good as melee. Same with find steed - as an option, I like it, as a mandatory thing, not so much :/
@@EventyrGames I mean, find steed doesn't have to summon a horse, you don't have to be a knight, and you don't have to ride it. I agree that at least some classes should have reasons to be in melee, but hopefully that's what the new weapon UA will achieve. I'm ok with the steed not being mandatory though. I was mostly just pointing out the juxtaposition of his two viewpoints, as personally I think most of the UA is somewhere between fine and good
Pathfinder has never looked soo good.
Good video, our table has found that other games often do D&D better than official D&D.
Any plan to make content for non-5e games?
I'm not sure if you have looked at Level up Advanced 5e yet, they do a lot of the same things as OneD&D now are trying and struggling with and actually making it work. Not all is perfect, but its far better then OneD&D imo.
Sorry did I miss hear. Ranged smites. O heck no. No. No. No. that sounds like to much trouble to change the self reliant tank too turn into force the enemy’s to funnel out the door and shoot your cannon of a bow
Man I remember look at every single beast to make a versatile moon druid. And this looks horrible, making wisdom important is ok but they over relied on it. Literally your ac, hit, damage, and bloody physical stats all equal your wisdom making any item or stat up going straight into that stat cause they no they can change on wildshape is size. I’d rather play with a 2 hp cat than a cat that has stats that rival a bear
A freakin' men! 100% agree with you. These folks are supposed to be game design professionals. My 4 year old cousin could have done better than this crud...
WotC sees druid as fey magicians, not shamanic. Shamen are clerics.
So no inherent hp. So all you’re doing is losing everything unless you can use in that form. That’s ridiculous!
Please try to say something is "obvious". When anyone says something is "obvious" that is the first indication that it is not.
100% agree
The one rules don't even feel like a alpha. As a fighter enjoyer the brawler is one of the clunkiest things I ever saw. 3rd party content puts it to shame.
WotC is completely incompetent and just want the players to design the game for them
Play test only exists to cover for their lack of releases, if you send anything into them using their official channels it will never see the light of day again.
WotC are just people. There really isn't any reason their stuff is any better than yours or mine.
WotC is a company that profits from D&D. Their workers should be on bigger, more stable teams that should be able to concentrate on creating this content, they charge a pretty peny for it and it needs to be good, but for while now their content is lacking.
@@orestesbastos "They charge more" has never been an strong indication of quality. "They're professionals"... that's never stopped people from putting out poor products before. At the end of the day, D&D can only be as good as the people making it.
@@solaries3 It's not about it being an indicator of quality to be honest, more like an expectation. They should be better because of the conditions I said, but they are not being better than people who are much more restrained in their resources.
I truly do not feel that the play test is ment to improve any of the mechanics of the game. I feel like the goal is to remove all of the "problematic" components of the game so in the end no player character race can have an advantage over another unless you play the super non-conforming, non-gendered ooze. As far as classes/subclasses. Anything that can do more than 2d6+5 in damage in an attack had better use all of the PC resources and action economy and can only be done once a round. Oh and no one should be forced to play a cleric so we will give them all the good stuff and then heckle you for falling in the trope because Cleric is and has been one of the most powerful classes in the game. (The only better argument is Hexblade 1/Divine Soul Sorcerer XX for the best spell list on one character.) But I tangent.
In the end they want everyone to play ooze Cleric so everyone is non-descript and a full casters while being a full martial at the same time. And then there is only one optimization path for greater diversity in the game.