Great fair assessment. I'm glad you continually cautioned viewers we can't properly access how powerful or weak these are until we see the totality of classes/rules. Also love that you verbally announce "be back after commercial break"
7:08 actually u can use your climb speed for regular movement since climb speed in UA is defined as: >A Climb Speed can be used to move on a vertical surface without expending the extra movement normally associated with climbing. A Climb Speed can also be used in any situation in which your Speed is usable. This means that climb speed is 'regular' speed, but better.
Yeah that change to speeds is neat, but you can just use your Climbing or Flying Speed at all times and never have to worry, it really only affects swimming or if your walking speed is faster than your climbing/flying speed.
@@buraeen5735 huh!!!! well im pretty shock that its actually a heavy weapon, (yah i checked) lol i guess ive been playing it wrong for the last 8 years >.
I wanna meantion for the durable feat, you now regain ALL hit dice when finishing a long rest. In my opinion this make the feat a lot better, because you are encouraged to use all you hit dice each day. I could see this on a classic frontline barbarian, if they lack a good Bonus Action to use.
I think it is exactly what I'd want on a Big stupid fighter barbarian that's doubling as a tank. Let's say you're using a maul or greatsword as a 2h weapon - You don't innately have a bonus action attack, or anything for that matter after you rage with it round one. Would I take durable before GWM? If there's low healing or if there isn't another tank -- Yes. If there is another tank or plenty of healing, well I'd certainly take GWM first.
It's not really reliable though. It's an awful design to let someone regain 1 or 2 hit points if they're using a BA and expending a limited resource AFTER having to forgo a full ASI to gain the feat in question. It gets worse: the hit die size (and therefore the magnitude of healing) doesn't scale, it's the number of uses. At low levels you don't want to use up all your Hit Dice but at higher levels a Hit Die of healing doesn't contribute. Consider that Fighter's Second Wind is already considered to scale badly, and it's essentially a fighter hit die + fighter level BA self-heal. Durable is just worse than that...
@@matiskrawiec you still get constitution +1 if you take durable, you also have a lot less chances to die because of the death saves advantages and if you don't have anything to do with your bonus action, you could heal yourself, in a barbarian yeah, you could get a 1, but you also could get a 12 so its 6.5 healing, not that high but at low levels its the whole base hit points a wizard have. For now we only have 3 feats that increase constitution in 1, athlete, shield master and durable. so if you need a +1 in constitution is a nice option
@@adriel8498 I don't disagree that the Adv. On death saves is good, it really is. But there are actually two other feats to up Con you forgot, Resilient and Heavy Armor Master. It's just that the healing ability of the feat, as I said, is only useful at lower levels when you can't use it often enough, and stops mattering when you have enough Hit Dice so unless you really don't have anything else to do with your bonus actions then maybe?
In regard to Inspiring Leader, I don't mind the addition of Wisdom as an option. Charisma is certainly a distinct personal quality, and in DnD an Ability Score, but there are ways to inspire without being particularly Charismatic. Sometimes, understanding (Intelligence) or intuiting (Wisdom) what to say might be as important as how (Charisma) you say it. More than once, I've allowed Wizards to impress a listener with knowledge and logic and a Cleric to persuade with wise counsel. (Persuasion INT and WIS, respectively.) Though I'm surprised to Wisdom here in this feat, I don't mind it for those reasons. I do think the feat's name might be up for review. Maybe "Inspiring Leader" is still a solid name, but maybe we can do better?
I personally don’t see a problem at all with an seasoned veteran officer that’s not particularly eloquent being inspiring to their comrades. Wisdom still fits here even with this name.
I think maybe the idea behind the Observant feat is that if you "search" insight, you still have your action to attack or do "magic" against the entity that seems dishonest ?! (i.e. you can start the fight)
21:53 Nice, the changes to Heavy Armor Master are literally *exactly* what I've been suggesting for years. Always thought this feat was super cool, but the balancing was really poor. -3 damage to every hit at level 1-3 was really really good, but then it became very lackluster pretty quickly. Scaling with the PB means it won't make you practically unkillable at level 1 (though it is still great for enhanced durability), and it will remain a bit more relevant as you level up. Nonmagic damage is nice, depending on your DM/the campaign, magical weapons making your feat worthless could feel really crappy. Can't wait to play with this - it's nothing ridiculously powerful, but just a nice quality of life change for one of my thematically favorite feats!
As currently written, Charger has basically added circle strafing to D&D. The change to Keen Mind puts an end to all those Wizards trying to "memorize their spellbook".
Regarding Observant, I think taking the Search action as a bonus action could be more useful than you give it credit for, in particular in combat against enemies that utilise the new stealth rules. If you're a martial character or don't otherwise have access to large AoE effects, being able to use a bonus action to make a Wisdom (Perception) check (which the feat can give you expertise in as well) and leave your action free to deal with any enemies you may find can lead to a lot less frustration fighting hidden enemies, especially with hiding becoming a flat DC15 likely making it easier for enemies to hide as it's quite easy to get a passive perception higher than that in 5e.
It's kind of confusing so it's easy to miss but crossbow expert was buffed overall. While it's true you cannot BA attack with the same crossbow. The new rules allow you to dual-wield crossbows. And the attack action changes ensure you always have a free hand to reload them. As part of any attack, you can stow or equip a weapon. Combine that with your once-per-turn interaction you never have to worry about having a free hand to reload your crossbows. The buff 2 this feat being the ASI increase and no longer having to use your bonus action. Also, dual-wielding crossbows is just awesome.
Heavy armor master is a must pick for heavy armor tank builds now. This makes me very happy as I always saw it as a feat that was better than most people thought but it could still use some love. So I hope wotc doesn't drop the ball and change this anymore, they actually nailed it.
For a design feel I would perfer allow 2 non light weapons. If they really wanted it to be more accurate then they should of limited it to daggers. I mean how awful is an extra average +1 to damage rolls.
@@blackpeoplestorytime802 I often thought that those should be combined too - especially for a Rogue or Bard without access to Shield. I hope that a parrying dagger or sword breaker is added to the new 6th...I mean, 1 D&D weapons list too
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj And how much better is an extra average +2? It's negligible either way, lol. The item interactions & +1 AC was always the real reason to take the feat. If you really want more damage out of it, a better fix would be to let Extra Attack work with twf but still limit it to at least one light weapon.
@@MatthewDragonHammer the difference in damage is negligible, and I see why they removed the +1 to ac due to ability score improvement even though it is the most useful feature. For a role play feel, forcing us to use 2 different weapons throws off the symmetry in my head.
Small correction I've seen in a couple videos: You can Move along the floor and climb speed on the wall the same turn, since you can use the Climb speed to walk. Under Climb Speed it says "A Climb Speed can also be used in any situation in which your Speed is usable." So instead of 15 ft Speed -> 15 ft Climb Speed. Its 15 ft Climb Speed (along floor) ->15 ft Climb Speed (along wall)
I think they held back on the dual wielder feat on account of the light property changes essentially giving pre level 5 extra attack that stacks with extra Attack.
Honestly they over reacted to dual wielder. By switching from 2 light weapons to 2 non light it only gave u an average damage increase of +2. I can understand getting rid of ac bonus since its now a half feat. But when it comes to image of dual wielding, most people image holding 2 identical weapons.
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj yeah I agree, they really threw off the fantasy of dual wielding here out of fear of the "buff" it received. Its that classic "we are scared of stunning strike so monks will not have strong class features" dilemma.
@@AoAD I'm still holding put hope that there will be level 8 and beyond feats that reintroduce these mechanics, but yes. The nerfs are killer for us martial boys.
It seems likely that non-light non-simple weapons will have new attack actions. Using a longsword mainhand will probably have a new type, maybe even 1 of 3, attack actions that have additional effects. Hence the value of 1 non-light weapon seeming to be overvalued compared to 5e’s 2-non-light. Yet to be seen but I would bet on it. In the UA video it was hinted to also. Some examples may be the special attacks of BG3 based on weapon type.
33:40 I'm very surprised that you consider the current Sentinel + Pam interaction a loop hole. That's precisely how these weapons were used in real life, and why spear/pike was the king of the battlefield: you keep the enemy with a shorter weapon from getting to you. If anything, I think it's weird that you need two feats for polearms to work like they do IRL.
I agree that's like saying it's a loop hole that you can still attack a creature in a web spell. It's one of a martial character's few options to control the battle field
A lot of claims of polearm this and polearm that are armchair historian D&D players trying to make a single person act as entire spearwall. Becaus ethat's where a lot of the power of polearms was a lot of men using them together. A single dude with polearm definitely has an advantage against someone with a shorter weapon, but a single spear can be blocked, knocked aside and then suddenly is a foe in your face. Please stop the fallacy of taking what worked in a battlefield full of people and reducing it into whatever claim you want to make. In a more gameplay term. The whole combo was an abuse without a clear counter. I'm all for giving martials some control options, but not some abusive meme combo.
Considering how much WOTC disregards reality in terms of weapon balance it’s probably accurate to assume this is a loophole even if realistic. Consider spear vs longsword. The fact the only reach weapon you can use with a shield is a whip… The fact a great sword and great axe do more damage than a halberd or Glaive. The fact the longbow has a longer range than a heavy crossbow. Plus many more comparative inaccuracies.
@@Kummitusv6lur I wasn't thinking only the context of a formation battle, but also that of a duel. I base my statement on my own sparring experience and demonstrations by hema content creators in youtube. Everything else being equal, a spearman will beat a swordsman 8/10 in single combat. Knocking that spearhead aside is easier said than done against resisting opponent. You have to be A) better than your opponent or B) have a shield/full plate armor to be able to close the distance. Same goes for sword vs dagger: the longer reach is a really significant factor. You might be able to win with shorter weapon, but the odds are heavily stacked against you.
I'm not the only one pleased with the current form of GWM, it seems. We'd already played with Sharpshooter in its OneD&D form several times. [Edit: Actually, we did not give +1 Dex and did give +PB damage.] I've never encountered a DnD ranged weapon that should logically allow one to "shoot harder" at the expense of accuracy. I like the "shoot in melee" boon, since Crossbow Expert is kind of goofy. Everyone has their personal peeves, and mine triggers anytime something departs so far from reality that I can't ignore it.
It's not the element of shooting harder it's aiming for the dragons eye and risking missing altogether or the head shot instead of the body. I thought a compromise would be a -2 or -3 to great hit and you get another damage die of that weapon. Same with great weapon mater except make it a strength based attack instead of heavy weapon then even a one one handed weapon and shield could work with it. Martials need options and IM MADE AS HELL ABOUT IT.
@@nathanieldutile8383 I guess I can see that: going for a headshot at the risk of a miss, or whatnot. I appreciate you putting that image into my imagination. It might help me tolerate effects like current Sharpshooter a bit better. I still say it's too early to be mad about martials. Didn't Jeremy Crawford try some low-level hype for what they'd reveal in the Warriors playtest? I'm inclined to give them a chance. No reason to get mad just yet. Besides, it's a playtest. If they nerf martials, you won't be the only one giving negative feedback. It's a constant topic in DnD forums.
I have no issues with GWM as long as there is an additional 8th level feat that gives heavy weapons another boost. My only problem is that under the current playtest rules it seems like a no brainer to use a polearm over a great axe or greatsword again. Also I’d say that any feat that u make or “fix” should include a +1 to an ability score bc if not, ur operating outside of what the game appears to be intended to do as far as feats.
It's not shooting harder it's you aiming at a specific part of the body Other systems give a similar penalty for aimed shots like Cyberpunk red gives you a -8
@@therandom58 I mean it's actually far more realistic to use polearms over a greatsword or a purely fantasy Greataxe. They're objectively better weapons in just about any use case.
I like the redundancy of not having disadvantage in melee on sharpshooter and crossbow expert. I like ranged characters and I hated only having crossbow expert as the choice for ignoring the disadvantage in range. I made a knife thrower feat that basically combined the removing disadvantage at long range from sharpshooter and the ignoring disadvantage in melee from crossbow expert just so I wouldn't have to take crossbow expert.
Why would you have disadvantage with a thrown weapon in melee range, in that case you'd just use the weapon. Like instead of throwing the dagger you'd just slash/stab them with it?
I just did a playtest with two-crossbows-wielding crossbow expert using thri-kreen ranger + magic initiate feat taking hex. Imaginr having 4 hands, carrying two crossbows, wielding a shield, with one free hand to load ammunition. Add free-concentration hunter’s mark and hex attacking 3 times at 5th level.
Actually the quick draw on dual Wielder does matter from my understanding, as if you have no weapons currently drawn and have only one attack per turn, you go in for your first attack, you equip one of your light weapons, and then you don't have an off hand light weapon in your other hand, so you don't meet the requirements of the light property. Although the exact wording of the Light property does leave it a bit vague as to whether you can equip an off hand light weapon as part of making the attack with one. I think you could make that argument, but I don't think it's a good one. Kind of results in a sort of bootstrap paradox imo. Edit: the above does also depend on whether the equipping on attack replaces or supplements drawing a weapon as an object interaction in the full version of 1dnd
I really hope the +5/-10 comes back as a general feature for martial characters. It sucked that picking either Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter was basically a requirement to make a martial character that could even hope to keep up with spell casters. Hopefully it gets opened up to all martial weapons and you are no longer penalized for wanting to play a character who fights with a one handed melee weapon.
Yeah! Just like every Expert class has Expertise, every Warrior class could have Power Attack. Maybe it could scale this way: -PB on the attack roll, +PB*2 on the damage roll. So, just attacking without proficiency bonus to then add it to the damage roll twice. The damage output starts a little lower but is also less punishing at lower levels.
Mechanically powerful, but probably bad for the game. At least if anyone can pick it up and use spells and the like with armor. Armor feats like this are really only buffs for casters.
They removed armor proficiency from Mountain Dwarf, but you still can get it with a free feat. That a great way of balancing mechanics and character archetype fantasy.
@@Capt.Fail. Yeah, and with martial damage also getting nerfed... In heaven, the martials are from Exalted, the casters are from DnD, and the rulebooks are made like Dark Heresy's. In hell, the martials are from DnD, the casters are from Dark Heresy, and the rulebooks are made like Exalted's.
I have a sneaking suspicion we might see a level 8 or 12 feat that has Elemental Adept as a prerequisite and let’s you ignore or treat immunity as resistance. Ngl, this is why I like having level-gated feats, because before adding immunity as resistance to EA might’ve seemed too strong for something you could pick up at level 1 or 4. But now with the prerequisites, it makes more sense.
I think it's strange that actor only gives advantage to performance now. In 5e, performance is described as "delighting a crowd". Because of this, deception takes the role of trickery most of the time, be it just verbal or also using your body (e.g playing dead). Perhaps this is a clue showing us that they're gonna change the definitions of skills a bit. Performance does feel a little narrow in base 5e.
I find it quite odd. It would need lots of other changes. Lots of places would need replacing Deception with Performance. Maybe Deception just does not exist anymore?
Charger also needs to clarify that your movement should be towards an enemy. If you are standing adjacent to an enemy on a diagonal square, you can move 10 feet to the other diagonal and get the bonus without ever leaving engagement range.
Not sure if I mind this, especially if it is done with an unarmed strike, get tackle vibes. But it definitely shouldn't be FURTHER away from the enemy you are attacking than when you started, and it definitely should be melee attacks only.
crossbow twf does actually work once you take into account the new rules on stowing weapons. Take note: TWF does not require you to dual wield, just that if you attack with light weapon, you can make another attack with a different light weapon. Additionally it does not give a limit on how many weapon equips or unequips you can do, just one per attack. lets say you have crossbow expert and a hand crossbow with a short sword here is the sequence. attack with shortsword, then stow shortsword Load hand crossbow and fire, then draw short sword repeat if you dual wield crossbows its a bit wonkier, but with the dual wielder feat you can draw or stow two weapons at once. Depending on interpetation you could say that you can draw one weapon and stow the other. in which case you get the following: Load and fire Hand crossbow 1. then stow HC 1 and draw HC 2 at same time Load and fire Hand crossbow 2, then stow HC2 and draw HC1 at same time.
@@andrewshandle maybe? But if you are taking up your feat just to get an interaction like this, I think that's fair. But the melee weapon plus hand crossbow works without being clunky at least, Idk if TM forgot the drawing/stowing rules when he talked about the new CBE feat
@@fullmetalpotato1258 Clearly a lot of the changes in OD&D is getting rid of all the cheesy interactions that optimizers have found due to really poorly written rules in 5e. WotC knows that eventually "degenerative" gameplay flows downhill and sooner or later a vast portion of the player base starts abusing XBE and Hand Crossbows became the most popular ranged weapon in the game, hell even Sam Reigel's rogue in Critical Role (a largely narrative game) did this. Removing all the Sneak Attack, SS/GWM, PAM +Sentinel Cheese only to leave in a way for duel wielding Hand Crossbows would be just silly, so other ideas that players should expect to stow, wield, reload multiple times a turn to get off extra shots just isn't realistic.
Totally ok with the changes to GWM/SS, etc. Evening the playing field helps provide more options for optimization instead of a bunch of martials with SS/XBE and GWM/PAM.
The problem is that GWM/SS weren't overpowered, martials without it were underpowered compared to casters. I think people would be much less irate if -5/+10 was changed to a universal "called shot" option for weapons, but instead we got buffs to casters like Lightly Armored, so people are taking this as a red flag.
We won't know for sure until we see more of their plans for the "Mage" classes. But if the goal is to bring things into more balance so that there are more meaningful choices, I'm on board. If they get it wrong, we can all help them continue to give them ever increasing survey responses.
@@darthwikkie I'm on board with a goal of more balance and more meaningful choices, but again, this change to GWM/SS doesn't feel like it's doing that. It feels like it's taking away options without actually fixing the problem. I'm reminded of the hullabaloo over "Amphibious" in the early days of Elder Scrolls Online. At first, every potion focused character was an argonian who only made use of their Amphibious racial (which gave a buff for using potions), and every argonian focused on Amphibious and using potions. Bethesda took this to mean that Amphibious was overpowered and nerfed it. Instead of potion users and argonions diversifying their builds, people just stopped playing potioneers and argonians.
With Inspiring Leader I like Charisma and Wisdom. This represents a leader drawing on the Wisdom of his past battles or the past battles of other great generals for example.
@@TheZubazit will most likely still be better to be ranged rather than melee. Plus technically you could take great weapon master and use it on longbow/heavy crossbow.
7:08 If you look up Climb Speed in the rules glossary, it says "A Climb Speed can also be used in any situation in which your Speed is usable." This means you can walk and swim with your climb speed, and if your Climb Speed is equal to your Speed, this is functionally equivalent to the old wording, not a downgrade as you suggest, since the only difference between your speed and your climb speed if they are the same value is that climbing doesn't cost double movement.
I never liked sharpshooter having the same damage increase as HWM because it basically removes the reasons to use a melee weapon for damage. I like how they didn't copy it over.
Thank you for your insightful rundown! For the most part I agree with you, but I disagree on your thoughts on the Sharpshooters feats function, to not impose disadvantage in melee. While I always thought, crossbow expert is one of the best feats in the game mechanicly, I also always thought it is terribly deisgned, because most of its properties are things, that every ranged combatant would love. This is especially the case with it not impsoing disadvantage in melee. I always thought that it is a bad design choice, that other ranged weapon users and even spellcasters had to take crossbow expert just to get this part of the feat. So the new version makes a lot of sense to me, because I see it to rather likely beeing part of the sharpshooter feat, than a feat, that is uniquely centered around crossbows. So I think if they would want to remove it from one or the other, I think it would be better to remove it from Crossbow Expert, but I think it is a good decision to leave it in both, so dual wielding light weapons with crossbows will still work. It is just a double edged sword. One way you would force bow users to take a feat completely designed around crossbows, which is bad, but only having the property on the other feat, would mean even characters centered around dual wielding with crossbows and light weapons would have to take Sharpshooter, even if they do not plan on fighting ranged at all.
The only thing I'll say about Dual Wielder is that current 5e makes it pointless to dual wield a rapier with a dagger (like in historical dueling), or a whip, and a shortsword, etc. At least with this, you can at least feel like your not penalized for wanting that aesthetic. but definitely should make it a 1st level feat/not require Martial proficiency.
The Durable feat is nice, if you pair it with the current version of the Bloodwell Vial for sorcerers. "In addition, when you roll any Hit Dice to recover hit points while you are carrying the vial, you can regain 5 sorcery points. This property of the vial can't be used again until the next dawn."
I've been pulling this trick with a Dwarf Enemy for my players that has the Dwarven Fortitude ability. That combination has surprised them twice when they tried to catch him. The Pumpkin gets away again!
Just noting that both the Heavy Crossbow and Longbow qualify under the Great Weapon Master feat for the extra damage once per round. I actually like this, as it makes them better choices for dedicated ranged fighters.
about crossbows, you can now take the weapon as part of the attack action, so you can draw a light weapon as part of the attack, then seathe it with an object interaction, and shoot with crossbow expert. I think that's how it works
*Re: Dual Wielder:* I suspect (but have no basis for this suspicion) that the changers to Dual Wielder was an attempt to address a niche--but unexpectedly powerful--build with TWF and Dual Wielder. For example, there is a way to (mis?)use the fact that the Lance can be wielded in one hand while you are mounted. With the Dual Wielder feat, a mounted paladin can dual wield *two* lances, for 2d12 melee damage with a 10-ft. reach and a +1AC--at 1st level, if he was a Variant Human--even if he was just "mounted" on a donkey. (Remember: Lances do NOT have the Two-Handed property, OR the Heavy property) What's more, each "lance strike" could be used to trigger a Divine Smite, and these attacks stacked with the Extra Attack that Paladins gain at 5th level. So a paladin at 5th level could take the Attack action (+Divine Smite), Extra Attack (+Divine Smite), and a Bonus Action Attack (+Divine Smite) with a base 1d12 for each attack that hits, every round, *from 10 feet away.* With just a slight change to the rules of Dual Wielder, Sir Lance-a-lot is back to being forced to use just one lance at a time.
Observant is probably better than keen mind given how stealth seems to work, you no longer use your passive perception to find them but would need an action, with a bonus action you can find them, move to them and attack them. I suspect that comes up a lot more often than hey the red dragon don't use fire.
Observant would be really handy vs stealth enemies (since anyone finding a hidden enemy ends the hidden condition for all) and presumably vs illusion spells as well. Ending the effects of hidden and illusions on a bonus action is really nice.
Great Weapon Master simply allowing you to add your proficiency mod to the damage of attacks you make with heavy melee weapons wouldn't be that insane I think. New shield master and less of a damage disparity between one handed and two handed melee weapons is now making it look like sword and board is the way to go in one dnd. Giving what is essentially 16th level power attack from Pathfinder to a 5th edition character at level was always going to cause problems, but they've just gutted this feat. Edit: You said resilient is entirely unchanged, however this isn't true. Resilient is NOT REPEATABLE, so you can only take it once and gain proficiency in one save. This is a bit of an unlikely case, but having a character with resilient (wis) and resilient (con) is no longer possible.
I'm pretty sure Dual Weilders Quick draw benifit actually is useful, as the drawing or stowing a weapon the way its worded to me basically means only 1 Weapon per attack action not every attack
I like the way they broke up the actor feat from the deception into performance. D&D has the problem of consolidating way too much power into very few skills. This at least now gives you a bit more reason to take performance instead of deception.
I agree that the changes to GWM and Sharpshooter although a nerf is better in DnD1 then in 5e as taking away the -5/+10 mechanic puts it line with other feats. I just hope that martial classes all get additional extra attack at around level 11 similar to the fighters in 5e so that they don't fall so far behind casters at those levels. Also I can see the -5/+10 mechanic itself being a separate feat at higher levels perhaps called all or nothing and affects all weapon attacks so one hander weapon users, unarmed fighters can all scale the same as ranged and two handed weapons.
They need to separate feats from stat bonuses already. I really doubt they would be considering this good design if they were making a brand new system rather than patching the holes of the old one. Better than the original for sure though, but it is very limiting from a design space I think.
I am very glad GWM and SS have been brought back in line with other feats. It was always a DMing nightmare to balance lower level fun encounters around the ridiculous damage boost provided by those feats. I hope they have higher level feats then that expend on earlier feats, like a shield master +1 or something. I'd like every weapon type to get a feat for it like the UA had years ago.
They stood out for sure…. But they were the only thing allowing an optimized martial build to come close with pure spellcasters. Now the gap is even bigger. Other feats needed to be brought up in power and those feats needed to be able to be applied more generally instead of specific weapons.
After playing the entirety of Descent into Avernus up to level 15, with 6 to 10 encounters per long rest, it was always my spellcasters struggling the most for damage, longevity and survivability. Spellcaster dominance is from the RP and campaign influence they can provide at high levels, not through them having fireball or whatever. If your martial players can't out-fight your spellcasters, you need to run more than a single or two encounters per adventuring day.
@@sneedfest3399 This. Way too much of the talk around casters vs martials relies on the casters having all of their spell slots to just spam out all of their strongest abilities at all times, when that isn't how that works in reality. One of my favorite examples of this was when AHero was comparing the defensive capabilities of fighters vs wizards in one of his recent videos, just said "Shield is practically a cantrip," and then treated the wizard as always having a +5 AC bonus. Ridiculous.
@@BaronSterling Yeah in a whiteroom casters dominate martials in combat (literally if you use the spell) but in practicality things like positioning, line of sight, friendly fire, saving throw successes, magic resistance, surprised at initiative and so many other factors can drastically influence how good spell combinations, tactics or usage are. I agree that spellcasters have way more toys than martials, and have way more means to influence a campaign which is what I chew on the bit at. But in pure gritty combat and dungeon crawling, martials have the consistency on which an adventuring party actually bases any plans on. All they need is more mechanics, more feats and more differences in weapons and better usage of useless weapon properties like versatile.
@@sneedfest3399 my group for Avernus campaign dissolved shortly after making it to Avernus, but I think the general consensus is that most published adventures don't throw around magic resistance as much as that adventure did. My warlock felt so pathetic, lol.
ב"ה Athlete is not worse, you can use your climb speed to do everything you can do with your speed. It is under "climb speed" in the glosary, it explicitly say "A Climb Speed can also be used in any situation in which your Speed is usable".
The changes to the great weaponmaster and sharpshooter could perhaps ne offset by your previous siggestion of everyone, atleast everyone with martial weapon proficiency (and monks) could take the -5/+10 on their weapon attacks. So that we dont need them to be part of any feat, but a general abillity
Got to the end of the video: I would REALLY love to see martial weapons to be a LOT better than simple. That would help with balancing fighty types and spellcasters. Like, adding Proficiency to damage with martial weapons would be cool. Or a straight up extra damage, like simple weapons do at most 1 die, while all martial weapons do 2 dice of dmg.
@@Synetik i believe that would step on the BM toes, and ut may overcomplicate things a bit. Honestly giving a boost to all martial weapons would make it so that all become more viable, and make martial pcs more relevant.
@@Synetik I think they may be heading in this direction. Baldur's Gate 3 has given weapons one or two features that gives an ability to use in combat. Some are actions, some are bonus actions, and I think some are static. So I can see the designers learning from this and incorperating it in.
I think it would be nice for martial characters to see some exclusive benefits, but I would be hesitant to tie those benefits directly to the damage of the weapons without any compensating factors. That strategy excludes certain fantasy flavors of combatants from being good options. Spears are already quite weak mechanically despite being one of the most powerful weapons throughout history. The fantasy of a Greek-style fighter using spear and shield has to take some limitations to realize within the game setting and it looks like this build will be even worse now in One D&D with the changes to the Polearm Master feat. I would lean toward all weapons doing 1d6 (one-handed) / 1d8 (versatile) / 1d10 (two-handed) damage with martial weapon proficiency unlocking the additional weapon classes and changing the damage die to 1d8 / 1d10 / 1d12 for all weapons. Then add special effects to weapons to differentiate them in some way, such as damage type specific effects (similar to the Crusher/Piercer/Slasher feats) and/or weapon-specific effects (i.e. daggers could have a bonus to hit or critical range when used in melee range), but it would be limited to one bonus for each class of weapon to try and avoid overcomplicating things.
The crossbow shuffle doesnt require _dropping_ the hand crossbows. You can simply unequip and stow each crossbow as needed because of the new equip rules of the Attack action - which I believe were changed specifically just to make double hand crossbows 'legal' with this feat without weapon dropping silliness. (As I can't think of many other times the rule would actually come up during this playtest)
The weapon master feat giving you martial weapons is only good for trying to get feats outside of your intended class. But the 4th level restriction hampers that ability. It would be better at level 1, but then it doesn't quite give enough which is probably why they made it a half feat. But then it needs to be level 4 because of their system....
I think Inspiring Leader allowing Wisdom lets you be a sage, giving philosophical advice rather than direct encouragement. In other words, you can be Uncle Iroh.
The revised Attack action makes the double crossbow easy because we can now stow or draw a weapon with each individual attack made as part of the action. Begin with Right Crossbow (RC) in Right Hand. Make attack(s) with RC. On final attack stow the RC. Then as your dual wield attack, draw the Left Crossbow (LC) and fire once. On the next turn, you make all your primary attacks with LC before stowing it and drawing the RC for another off-hand attack. Repeat this juggling maneuver until combat ends.
At 22:50 Inspiring Leader. Honestly, the answer to why is Wisdom available as a bonus is simple, it's so when you take a feat that provides an ability increase you are not punished for having already hit the maximum in that ability. If you are a Bard who takes Inspiring Leader after having already hit 20 in Charisma. Then you are screwed, half the benefit of the feat is wasted, and that feels bad, but being able to put that point into Wisdom instead feels good. Also, how many leaders in history have been inspiring due to their Wisdom? Many, right? So I think this makes sense.
I could also see INT working for Inspiring Leader; you demonstrate that you know what to prepare for (and with the monster lore component of INT skills, you likely do) and the target audience is inspired because you’ve relieved some uncertainty. Fear of the unknown is the hardest fear to handle, and a ‘maybe’ is worse than a known negative. WIS covers Insight, so if you can demonstrate that you understand how an enemy thinks, you could inspire confidence by passing that Insight on to the audience. Really, splitting Intelligence (mental Dexterity), Wisdom (mental Constitution), and Charisma (mental Strength) is a very abstract game mechanic. People use all of them together synergistically, so defining what they do separately is fuzzy at best. You may as well try to define a consistent translation from GP to a real-world currency.
RE: Sharpshoot, I agree that both CBE and SS giving the ability to used ranged weapons in melee smells but why remove it from Sharpshooter rather than CBE? When I think of a fantasy ranged character the first thing that comes to mind is Legolas shooting Uruk Hai through the eye at point blank range with a longbow. I don't have an equivalent for crossbows specifically. I'd much rather we took it off crossbow expert.
Having so many level 4 feats sort of suggest Wizards intend for players to choose at least two to three 4th level feats as they advance in levels. Looking at the doc I can see that at level 11, there is not only a significant increase in power but also gaining different powers for most of the expert classes and subclasses. Thus my guess is it is the same with feats. The next set of feats to be released will be smaller in number but are significantly stronger than 4th level feats, and would come with level 12 requirements.
Was thinking the same! although they would need to include some kind of clarification that you need to run towards the target. Now you can run 10 ft away and hit harder, which is a bit strange.
Duel wielding may be less optimized but is actually closer to how it was historically done. A long sword in each hand would get in each other's way where a rapier and dagger in Europe or two short swords in Asia was more plausible. I know that people want fantasy physics, but I think that there's some that this would appeal to.
At 15:23 you say that the new rules glossary change to drawing a weapon as part of an attack makes the Quick Draw ability in Dual Wielder redundant, but it doesn't. Reread the attack action in the glossary it says: "You can equip or unequip one Weapon before or after any attack you make as part of this Action". ONE weapon, not TWO weapons, or ANY weapons, one. So no, it's not redundant because without that feat you can only get one weapon out in the first round, which means if you have to draw weapons at all then you'll need two rounds to get out both for a dual weilding attack.
I think dual wielder would be fine if it allowed the two-swing attacks TWICE rather than once. Make you feel like you're actually attacking with a flurry of attacks, like the theme of dual-wielding would feel like.
Dungeon coach actually did this as his homebrew and it's still mathematically less damage than gwm/Ss or PAM. But slightly more than sword and board (which it should be as you trade for more AC)
Dual Wielder: Persistent Striking - If you have hit and damaged with you main hand weapon and with your offhand weapon, you can use your bonus action to make an attack with one of those weapons; you can do this a number of times equal to your prof. mod. and you regain the uses with a long rest. That's all it needs, and maybe let feats have more freedom to pick which stat to boost.
I love the change to GWM! The fact that it was the ONLY feat you could take to be an effective damage dealer as martial. It also was near useless against anything with high AC. Now its effective at all times and is more balanced. LOVE IT!
In my game, the process of casting a spell can be disrupted. If an opponent readies a melee or ranged attack to strike a caster within short range, any damage caused during the process of casting requires the caster to make a concentration check or lose the spell without effect, wasting the spell slot. The benefit of Mage Slayer lets those with the feat attack as a reaction instead of a readied action. Many community guards and personal bodyguards are trained to recognize and disrupt spellcasting, so murderhobo mages beware.
I looked up the crossbows, etc after reading the crossbow expert and it does say that the loading is part of the action and they start loaded so duel wielding two hand crossbows is in theory possible in 5e. This is the magic gunslinger. Your right it needs clarification but I suspect that will come in the section on ammunition. Dual wielding two crossbows and reloading them in the process should probably require prestidigitation or telekinesis spell or a tinker gnome gadget. I will be suggesting that. Note these rules should work for the blow gun too.
Worth pointing out that great weapon master pb attack can now be used with any ranged heavy weapons too, although the asi and bonus action features are completely useless if you're using it on a ranged character
As I reviewed the feats, a human Ranger at 2nd level could have 3 fighting styles. Human Traits, Versatile grants one feat; Background Features, choose 1 feat; Ranger Class Feature 2nd Level, Fighting Style. All the fighting styles presented are listed as 1st level feats. I don't see an advantage to having 3 fighting styles, but two at first level might have some appeal.
-My issue so far with the feats is that martial feats are getting nerfed and those feats and their combination stacking was the only thing that let them compete with casters. -I like that there is an effort to level the feats so there isn't an imbalance but to down grade a martial's power is awful. -Many of the caster feats are better or rules changes make caster more powerful than 5e. -Lastly, martials need more options. Casters are fun because you get tons of spell choices that with specific choices in spells can be augmented with feats, class abilities, and sub class abilities. Martials get one thing that works a few times and they are back to stab stab hack hack.
I agree with you, but I'm hopeful that the buff to martials will come built into the martial classes themselves. For example, what if... - Barbarians and fighters now get power attack as class feature and you can apply it to any attacks? - Barbarian brutal critical no longer applies to just critical hits, but to all attacks? - rage adds proficiency bonus to damage instead of just +2? I think rebalancing the fighting styles was necessary and good. We haven't yet seen the whole picture. Yeah, if this was everything, it would be really bad, but let's give feedback and hope it's not.
@@PiiskaJesusFreak I view the rogue as a martial and in many ways they lost abilities, again I commend them for making language clearer but the bard gained the rogue lost and the ranger shifted slash gained a little bit. That doesn't bode well for the other martial classes.
I don't think we can yet say, "Casters are buffed and Martials nerfed." Thus far, we've seen two "Experts". I need to see the rest of the class groupings as well as the spells to make a judgment. Given D&D's history, it's natural for us to believe we are again seeing the rich casters getting even richer, and the poor martials poorer. It might even prove true, but I'm witholding judgment until I see more. I can't give feedback regarding alleged buffs and nerfs before those rules and spells are even presented.
@@elementzero3379 we can say it about this play test. Rogues are martials, call them experts sure call bards experts fine, but bards are casters and rogues are martials. Bards got better except with Prof bonus vs charisma for bardic inspiration. Rogues are worse and less versatile, even the thief sub class. No we don't know what warriors and mages look like but this gives us an idea.
@@nathanieldutile8383 Maybe, maybe not. I won't assume. I'll wait for the other playtests. I do share your concerns and doubts. I think their intention will be to give martials a boost. Significant damage boosts might be part of 8th-level and higher feats, for example. At the very least, and perhaps more importantly, I think they will try to add some tactical options via the Warrior feats. We'll see. I could be setting myself up for disappointment on the latter point. I don't think martials will ever match casters in versatility and general capability. I'm not sure it would even feel like DnD to me if the martials we know started rivaling the shenanigans of full-casters. If they want to add some "Book of Nine Swords" type of "blademagic", I'm interested; but it wouldn't be the standard for all Warriors. I think that kind of stuff could make for some awesome subclasses. In short, I think the only way you rival magic is with magic. I'm not interested in Paul Bunyan as a 20th-level Warrior, performing epic feats without magic. I would be interested in a 20th-level Swordmage (warrior subclass?) or whatnot.
Bad take on SS. The feat is great as is (in the playtest). The fact you no longer need two separate feats to get long and close range sorted is nice. You’re right that it feels bad that there is overlap with CBE, but that doesn’t mean that this feat should be butchered to avoid the overlap.
Regarding the UA Great Weapon Master Feat. Based on my calcs, doing +PB damage once per round almost always does MORE DPR than doing -5/+10 with every single attack per round. For instance: *Level 5 vanilla GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +3 against an AC of 16:* - Disadvantage DPR. *4.95* - Straight Roll DPR. *17.27* - Advantage DPR. *29.73* *Level 5 UA GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +3 against an AC of 16:* - Disadvantage DPR. *9.46* (4.51 more DPR) - Straight Roll DPR. *17.22* (0.05 less DPR) - Advantage DPR. *24.66* (5.07 less DPR) *Level 11 vanilla GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +4 against an AC of 18:* - Disadvantage DPR. *7.06* - Straight Roll DPR. *24.62* - Advantage DPR. *42.39* *Level 11 UA GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +4 against an AC of 18:* - Disadvantage DPR. *14.58* (7.52 more DPR) - Straight Roll DPR. *26.05* (1.43 more DPR) - Advantage DPR. *37.13* (5.26 less DPR) *Level 20 vanilla GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +5 against an AC of 21:* - Disadvantage DPR. *9.36* - Straight Roll DPR. *32.58* - Advantage DPR. *56.05* *Level 20 UA GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +5 against an AC of 21:* - Disadvantage DPR. *21.18* (11.82 more DPR) - Straight Roll DPR. *36.92* (4.34 more DPR) - Advantage DPR. *52.16* (3.89 less DPR) The reason why vanilla GWM's numbers are generally lower is because you have to account for the 25% accuracy drop (the -5 to attack) found in the original feat, which for sure affects DPR. The +PB damage per round being generally higher than -5/+10 pretty much applies across the board for every class, too. Viewed in this light, the flat damage boost change to GWM seems like a damage nerf on paper, but is more a damage buff when you math it out. Its also less complcated, which I personally prefer! Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk
Feats like GWM and the like being taken so much was in response to what I think is a deeper problem: weapons in 5e are overvalued and more restrictive compared to cantrips. Without factoring in feats, Cantrips offer comparable damage and most feature upside to using them, all while keeping your hands free. Meanwhile, weapons come with restrictions and downsides and, without feats or class features, offer no utility to the user. The kicker is, of course, that spellcasters almost never needed to use their cantrips because it doesn’t take long for casters to have access to enough spell slots on most adventuring days (Warlock and its reliance on Eldritch Blast is an exception for exactly this reason). In other words, the opportunity cost is too great. Meanwhile, the standout martial classes are the ones that have access to resources to expend and keep pace (Paladin Smites, Battle Master Maneuvers, and Stunning Strike being the key examples). Most other classes have no other opportunities in the first place without feats.
Charger also doesn't specify in which direction the creature is pushed. You could push them 10 feet in the direction you came from, or 10 feet up in the air
You missed a change in the Sentinel feat, it now gives you the opportunity attack when an enemy takes the disengage action while within 5 feet of you. That wording means, if the enemy took the disengage action while being outside of that range, it can then just walk straight past you without provoking any attacks from you.
I think the Ability Score Increase feat is more than just semantics. I think making ASI a feat is smart game design to help show that the intent is for feats to be the standard going forward.
With regards to the Dual Wielder feat, I agree it's a step down from the old one but I honestly prefer it in terms of flavor because, historically, people would often have one normal-sized weapon and one shorter weapon (e.g. a rapier and parrying dagger) when dual wielding. This was mostly because weapons of equal length would interfere with each other when used together (unless using some kind of very specific fighting style). I also still hope that they further expand on higher level feats when they release the Warrior archetypes because it'd be interesting to see something like an 8th level feat called "Dual Wielding Expert" that would give a +1 to AC when dual wielding, be able to wield two non-light weapons as if they were light weapons, and get a bonus action attack when dual wielding.
22:47 i feel thematically you can be a "wise" leader like an archdruid or a temple priest.. and mechanically insight into another person's psyche can enable you to cater their needs better in the sense of inspiration as well like building them up through understanding how they feel and where they come from... to be completely honest... i feel they just wanted to make it accessible to more PCs... maybe share a few drops of the twilight cleric's juice with the other clerics? if that's "wise" i don't know.. but then again it is WotC...
Crossbow Expert's design space was always in the vein of Drow Raiders, scimitar in main hand with a poisoned crossbow in the offhand. Pretty sure they only allowed 3 attacks per round because it was how *everyone* was using it. One D&D seems like it's trying to reign "exploits" and power builds back in which is honestly whatever to me.
In my opinion what made 5e crossbow expert feat so deadly was its combination with sharpshooter. With 3 attacks at level 5 all with the bonus 10, but without that plus 10 ur now looking at an extra 6 damage per turn.
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj I mean that's not inconsequential at level 5, especially for Ranger adding an extra d6 with Hunter's Mark to that 3rd attack. I think we need to see creature and spell design and if 8th level feats are a thing before fully judging, but just based on the first 2 playtests it looks like they're trying to constrain damage output and the action economy in the first couple of tiers. It's a huge if, but if WotC can deliver a more tightly-tuned experience in the levels that the majority of games are played in I can't say that's necessarily *bad.*
@@Xynth25 I get what ur saying about not seeing how they will redo spells or the stackable fests light in the giants ua, but looking how they felt the need to nerf rogue makes me hesitant. When it comes to hunter's mark with ranger it is no different from 2 weapon fighting shortswords, but it would have a cost of ur bonus action like polearm master. Now the way u may be right is if the change or remove the ammunition property in later ua.
Great Weapon Master damage portion also works for Longbows, the only ranged bow that got screwed was shortbows. What is weird is I think Sharpshooter works for any ranged weapon (to shoot and not have disadvantage in melee) while crossbows expert spells out it only works for crossbows. So if you don't want a free attack, you can take sharpshooter even with a crossbow and still shoot in melee. Crossbow Expert can shoot while dual wielding, just requires you to stow weapons right after attacking with them, so you will have the 1 hand free. Constantly need to draw/stow to gain those features though based on old ammunition rules. I think both feats should have the no disadvantage within 5 ft, but should call out the other feat in that if you have both, maybe you get the PB bonus once per turn in damage with attacks with a ranged weapon that is made not at long range? Like a point blank shot bonus if you have both?
A neat thought for improving Martial classes could be to allow Martial's to have 1 or 2(or more?) weapon properties/modifiers/effects with Weapons they wield. The number of modifiers available are affected by the weapon quality. Spit balling some ideas here but some examples could be: *Master Work- Increase damage die by one *Deadly-Increase critical threat range by 1 *Assassin's(Dagger only)- This modifier can be accessed by a Rogue class. On a critical hit this weapons get to roll x3(or x4) weapon dice. Does not effect sneak attack damage or any other additional damage dice. Honestly you could get as creative and generous/stingy as you want.
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф Give Monk PB*10 ft bonus movement, make their bonus Dash/Disengage free and add the mechanic that spending a Ki point on those removes the bonus action (making them On Turn actions). Make monk the true blitzers. Maybe even give them an ability to make a free unarmed strike against any enemy they pass by to incentivize them to use their movement. :Edit: Also looking at it the monk gets movement for the feat similar to what I suggest but pushed back by 1 level.
Great fair assessment. I'm glad you continually cautioned viewers we can't properly access how powerful or weak these are until we see the totality of classes/rules. Also love that you verbally announce "be back after commercial break"
7:08 actually u can use your climb speed for regular movement since climb speed in UA is defined as:
>A Climb Speed can be used to move on a vertical surface without expending the extra movement normally associated with climbing. A Climb Speed can also be used in any situation in which your Speed is usable.
This means that climb speed is 'regular' speed, but better.
Yeah that change to speeds is neat, but you can just use your Climbing or Flying Speed at all times and never have to worry, it really only affects swimming or if your walking speed is faster than your climbing/flying speed.
Another funny fact on sharpshooter, if you are using a longbow, great weapon master also gives you a damage improvement.
not really, longbow is not a heavy weapon, it specify "when you hit a creature with a Heavy weapon as part of the attack accion"
@@edsucre Longbow currently has the heavy weapon property.
@@buraeen5735 huh!!!! well im pretty shock that its actually a heavy weapon, (yah i checked) lol i guess ive been playing it wrong for the last 8 years >.
@@edsucre Yep it is easy to miss in that jumble of properties for the Longbow.
I wanna meantion for the durable feat, you now regain ALL hit dice when finishing a long rest. In my opinion this make the feat a lot better, because you are encouraged to use all you hit dice each day. I could see this on a classic frontline barbarian, if they lack a good Bonus Action to use.
I think it is exactly what I'd want on a Big stupid fighter barbarian that's doubling as a tank. Let's say you're using a maul or greatsword as a 2h weapon - You don't innately have a bonus action attack, or anything for that matter after you rage with it round one.
Would I take durable before GWM? If there's low healing or if there isn't another tank -- Yes. If there is another tank or plenty of healing, well I'd certainly take GWM first.
It's not really reliable though. It's an awful design to let someone regain 1 or 2 hit points if they're using a BA and expending a limited resource AFTER having to forgo a full ASI to gain the feat in question. It gets worse: the hit die size (and therefore the magnitude of healing) doesn't scale, it's the number of uses. At low levels you don't want to use up all your Hit Dice but at higher levels a Hit Die of healing doesn't contribute. Consider that Fighter's Second Wind is already considered to scale badly, and it's essentially a fighter hit die + fighter level BA self-heal. Durable is just worse than that...
@@matiskrawiec you still get constitution +1 if you take durable, you also have a lot less chances to die because of the death saves advantages and if you don't have anything to do with your bonus action, you could heal yourself, in a barbarian yeah, you could get a 1, but you also could get a 12 so its 6.5 healing, not that high but at low levels its the whole base hit points a wizard have. For now we only have 3 feats that increase constitution in 1, athlete, shield master and durable. so if you need a +1 in constitution is a nice option
@@adriel8498 I don't disagree that the Adv. On death saves is good, it really is. But there are actually two other feats to up Con you forgot, Resilient and Heavy Armor Master. It's just that the healing ability of the feat, as I said, is only useful at lower levels when you can't use it often enough, and stops mattering when you have enough Hit Dice so unless you really don't have anything else to do with your bonus actions then maybe?
Second Wind as feat bullet. Nice.
In regard to Inspiring Leader, I don't mind the addition of Wisdom as an option. Charisma is certainly a distinct personal quality, and in DnD an Ability Score, but there are ways to inspire without being particularly Charismatic.
Sometimes, understanding (Intelligence) or intuiting (Wisdom) what to say might be as important as how (Charisma) you say it. More than once, I've allowed Wizards to impress a listener with knowledge and logic and a Cleric to persuade with wise counsel. (Persuasion INT and WIS, respectively.)
Though I'm surprised to Wisdom here in this feat, I don't mind it for those reasons. I do think the feat's name might be up for review. Maybe "Inspiring Leader" is still a solid name, but maybe we can do better?
I can see a Cleric being an inspiring leader.
I personally don’t see a problem at all with an seasoned veteran officer that’s not particularly eloquent being inspiring to their comrades. Wisdom still fits here even with this name.
I think it's meant to give an alternative to the good speaker with a more of a mentor giving advice kind of speech, thus wisdom
it works thematically well with clerics, samurai fighter, and some rangers. Who can be a leaders, but lack mechanical use of charisma.
How about just leader?
that commercial break line got a laugh outta me
I think maybe the idea behind the Observant feat is that if you "search" insight, you still have your action to attack or do "magic" against the entity that seems dishonest ?! (i.e. you can start the fight)
or more often, Searching for a hidden target and then attacking them
With this feat investigator rogues are now redundent.
@@DigijuniorMC anyone who has fought goblins knows how useful this would be. Somewhat situational feat.
21:53 Nice, the changes to Heavy Armor Master are literally *exactly* what I've been suggesting for years. Always thought this feat was super cool, but the balancing was really poor. -3 damage to every hit at level 1-3 was really really good, but then it became very lackluster pretty quickly. Scaling with the PB means it won't make you practically unkillable at level 1 (though it is still great for enhanced durability), and it will remain a bit more relevant as you level up. Nonmagic damage is nice, depending on your DM/the campaign, magical weapons making your feat worthless could feel really crappy. Can't wait to play with this - it's nothing ridiculously powerful, but just a nice quality of life change for one of my thematically favorite feats!
There are many features that always should have been proficiency based.
Thanks for adding "right after this commercial break". I feel like this expands on your ad technique. The meta lore is growing.
As currently written, Charger has basically added circle strafing to D&D.
The change to Keen Mind puts an end to all those Wizards trying to "memorize their spellbook".
Regarding Observant, I think taking the Search action as a bonus action could be more useful than you give it credit for, in particular in combat against enemies that utilise the new stealth rules. If you're a martial character or don't otherwise have access to large AoE effects, being able to use a bonus action to make a Wisdom (Perception) check (which the feat can give you expertise in as well) and leave your action free to deal with any enemies you may find can lead to a lot less frustration fighting hidden enemies, especially with hiding becoming a flat DC15 likely making it easier for enemies to hide as it's quite easy to get a passive perception higher than that in 5e.
Agreed but you'd still have disadvantage if you can't see the creature and you have to use your bonus action. While Skulker gives you blindsight
It's kind of confusing so it's easy to miss but crossbow expert was buffed overall. While it's true you cannot BA attack with the same crossbow. The new rules allow you to dual-wield crossbows. And the attack action changes ensure you always have a free hand to reload them. As part of any attack, you can stow or equip a weapon. Combine that with your once-per-turn interaction you never have to worry about having a free hand to reload your crossbows. The buff 2 this feat being the ASI increase and no longer having to use your bonus action. Also, dual-wielding crossbows is just awesome.
Heavy armor master is a must pick for heavy armor tank builds now. This makes me very happy as I always saw it as a feat that was better than most people thought but it could still use some love. So I hope wotc doesn't drop the ball and change this anymore, they actually nailed it.
Screw tanks. I want this on every build!
Agreed, Duel Wielder needs the +1AC back to be worth a feat.
For a design feel I would perfer allow 2 non light weapons. If they really wanted it to be more accurate then they should of limited it to daggers. I mean how awful is an extra average +1 to damage rolls.
I would add defensive duelist to the feat so you could reaction parry. In addition to +1 AC
@@blackpeoplestorytime802 I often thought that those should be combined too - especially for a Rogue or Bard without access to Shield. I hope that a parrying dagger or sword breaker is added to the new 6th...I mean, 1 D&D weapons list too
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj And how much better is an extra average +2? It's negligible either way, lol. The item interactions & +1 AC was always the real reason to take the feat. If you really want more damage out of it, a better fix would be to let Extra Attack work with twf but still limit it to at least one light weapon.
@@MatthewDragonHammer the difference in damage is negligible, and I see why they removed the +1 to ac due to ability score improvement even though it is the most useful feature. For a role play feel, forcing us to use 2 different weapons throws off the symmetry in my head.
Small correction I've seen in a couple videos: You can Move along the floor and climb speed on the wall the same turn, since you can use the Climb speed to walk. Under Climb Speed it says "A Climb Speed can also be used in any situation in which your Speed is usable."
So instead of 15 ft Speed -> 15 ft Climb Speed. Its 15 ft Climb Speed (along floor) ->15 ft Climb Speed (along wall)
I think they held back on the dual wielder feat on account of the light property changes essentially giving pre level 5 extra attack that stacks with extra Attack.
Not to mention the other weapon feats like GWM or Sharpshooter is took nerfs too.
Honestly they over reacted to dual wielder. By switching from 2 light weapons to 2 non light it only gave u an average damage increase of +2. I can understand getting rid of ac bonus since its now a half feat. But when it comes to image of dual wielding, most people image holding 2 identical weapons.
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj yeah I agree, they really threw off the fantasy of dual wielding here out of fear of the "buff" it received. Its that classic "we are scared of stunning strike so monks will not have strong class features" dilemma.
@@AoAD I'm still holding put hope that there will be level 8 and beyond feats that reintroduce these mechanics, but yes. The nerfs are killer for us martial boys.
It seems likely that non-light non-simple weapons will have new attack actions.
Using a longsword mainhand will probably have a new type, maybe even 1 of 3, attack actions that have additional effects. Hence the value of 1 non-light weapon seeming to be overvalued compared to 5e’s 2-non-light.
Yet to be seen but I would bet on it. In the UA video it was hinted to also. Some examples may be the special attacks of BG3 based on weapon type.
33:40 I'm very surprised that you consider the current Sentinel + Pam interaction a loop hole. That's precisely how these weapons were used in real life, and why spear/pike was the king of the battlefield: you keep the enemy with a shorter weapon from getting to you.
If anything, I think it's weird that you need two feats for polearms to work like they do IRL.
I agree that's like saying it's a loop hole that you can still attack a creature in a web spell. It's one of a martial character's few options to control the battle field
A lot of claims of polearm this and polearm that are armchair historian D&D players trying to make a single person act as entire spearwall. Becaus ethat's where a lot of the power of polearms was a lot of men using them together. A single dude with polearm definitely has an advantage against someone with a shorter weapon, but a single spear can be blocked, knocked aside and then suddenly is a foe in your face. Please stop the fallacy of taking what worked in a battlefield full of people and reducing it into whatever claim you want to make.
In a more gameplay term. The whole combo was an abuse without a clear counter. I'm all for giving martials some control options, but not some abusive meme combo.
Considering how much WOTC disregards reality in terms of weapon balance it’s probably accurate to assume this is a loophole even if realistic.
Consider spear vs longsword. The fact the only reach weapon you can use with a shield is a whip… The fact a great sword and great axe do more damage than a halberd or Glaive. The fact the longbow has a longer range than a heavy crossbow. Plus many more comparative inaccuracies.
I mean "loophole" not to suggest that weapons weren't used that way, but in that it's a non-obvious interaction.
@@Kummitusv6lur I wasn't thinking only the context of a formation battle, but also that of a duel. I base my statement on my own sparring experience and demonstrations by hema content creators in youtube. Everything else being equal, a spearman will beat a swordsman 8/10 in single combat. Knocking that spearhead aside is easier said than done against resisting opponent. You have to be A) better than your opponent or B) have a shield/full plate armor to be able to close the distance. Same goes for sword vs dagger: the longer reach is a really significant factor. You might be able to win with shorter weapon, but the odds are heavily stacked against you.
The Weapon Training feat makes me think that maybe weapon-specific traits/abilities are going to be a thing
I'm not the only one pleased with the current form of GWM, it seems.
We'd already played with Sharpshooter in its OneD&D form several times. [Edit: Actually, we did not give +1 Dex and did give +PB damage.] I've never encountered a DnD ranged weapon that should logically allow one to "shoot harder" at the expense of accuracy.
I like the "shoot in melee" boon, since Crossbow Expert is kind of goofy. Everyone has their personal peeves, and mine triggers anytime something departs so far from reality that I can't ignore it.
It's not the element of shooting harder it's aiming for the dragons eye and risking missing altogether or the head shot instead of the body.
I thought a compromise would be a -2 or -3 to great hit and you get another damage die of that weapon. Same with great weapon mater except make it a strength based attack instead of heavy weapon then even a one one handed weapon and shield could work with it.
Martials need options and IM MADE AS HELL ABOUT IT.
@@nathanieldutile8383 I guess I can see that: going for a headshot at the risk of a miss, or whatnot. I appreciate you putting that image into my imagination. It might help me tolerate effects like current Sharpshooter a bit better.
I still say it's too early to be mad about martials. Didn't Jeremy Crawford try some low-level hype for what they'd reveal in the Warriors playtest? I'm inclined to give them a chance. No reason to get mad just yet. Besides, it's a playtest. If they nerf martials, you won't be the only one giving negative feedback. It's a constant topic in DnD forums.
I have no issues with GWM as long as there is an additional 8th level feat that gives heavy weapons another boost. My only problem is that under the current playtest rules it seems like a no brainer to use a polearm over a great axe or greatsword again. Also I’d say that any feat that u make or “fix” should include a +1 to an ability score bc if not, ur operating outside of what the game appears to be intended to do as far as feats.
It's not shooting harder it's you aiming at a specific part of the body
Other systems give a similar penalty for aimed shots like Cyberpunk red gives you a -8
@@therandom58 I mean it's actually far more realistic to use polearms over a greatsword or a purely fantasy Greataxe. They're objectively better weapons in just about any use case.
I think Great Weapon Master's "add PB to damage" feature works with longbows and heavy crossbows (both are heavy weapons) in its current iteration.
I like Grappler, Great feat for Monks. Actually gives these guys something to do; also reminds me of the Giant Crab actions.
I like the redundancy of not having disadvantage in melee on sharpshooter and crossbow expert. I like ranged characters and I hated only having crossbow expert as the choice for ignoring the disadvantage in range. I made a knife thrower feat that basically combined the removing disadvantage at long range from sharpshooter and the ignoring disadvantage in melee from crossbow expert just so I wouldn't have to take crossbow expert.
There should be a thrown weapon feat. There needs to be more feats for the other weapon types.
Why would you have disadvantage with a thrown weapon in melee range, in that case you'd just use the weapon. Like instead of throwing the dagger you'd just slash/stab them with it?
I realized Great Weapon Master works with ranged attacks with heavy weapons like a heavy crossbow or longbow. I might be late on that one.
I just did a playtest with two-crossbows-wielding crossbow expert using thri-kreen ranger + magic initiate feat taking hex.
Imaginr having 4 hands, carrying two crossbows, wielding a shield, with one free hand to load ammunition. Add free-concentration hunter’s mark and hex attacking 3 times at 5th level.
Actually the quick draw on dual Wielder does matter from my understanding, as if you have no weapons currently drawn and have only one attack per turn, you go in for your first attack, you equip one of your light weapons, and then you don't have an off hand light weapon in your other hand, so you don't meet the requirements of the light property. Although the exact wording of the Light property does leave it a bit vague as to whether you can equip an off hand light weapon as part of making the attack with one. I think you could make that argument, but I don't think it's a good one. Kind of results in a sort of bootstrap paradox imo.
Edit: the above does also depend on whether the equipping on attack replaces or supplements drawing a weapon as an object interaction in the full version of 1dnd
I really hope the +5/-10 comes back as a general feature for martial characters. It sucked that picking either Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter was basically a requirement to make a martial character that could even hope to keep up with spell casters. Hopefully it gets opened up to all martial weapons and you are no longer penalized for wanting to play a character who fights with a one handed melee weapon.
Yeah! Just like every Expert class has Expertise, every Warrior class could have Power Attack. Maybe it could scale this way:
-PB on the attack roll, +PB*2 on the damage roll. So, just attacking without proficiency bonus to then add it to the damage roll twice. The damage output starts a little lower but is also less punishing at lower levels.
Hopefully it will be -5/+10, and we don't get +5/-10
@@XJenoin lol good catch
One DnD take on the Light armor feat. Is great
First level feat, free light/medium armor and shield proficiency
That is too great
Mechanically powerful, but probably bad for the game. At least if anyone can pick it up and use spells and the like with armor. Armor feats like this are really only buffs for casters.
They removed armor proficiency from Mountain Dwarf, but you still can get it with a free feat. That a great way of balancing mechanics and character archetype fantasy.
@@Capt.Fail. Yeah, and with martial damage also getting nerfed... In heaven, the martials are from Exalted, the casters are from DnD, and the rulebooks are made like Dark Heresy's. In hell, the martials are from DnD, the casters are from Dark Heresy, and the rulebooks are made like Exalted's.
Haven’t watched this yet, but just want to say thanks as always Chris. Been looking forward to your take on this for a while.
I have a sneaking suspicion we might see a level 8 or 12 feat that has Elemental Adept as a prerequisite and let’s you ignore or treat immunity as resistance. Ngl, this is why I like having level-gated feats, because before adding immunity as resistance to EA might’ve seemed too strong for something you could pick up at level 1 or 4. But now with the prerequisites, it makes more sense.
That'd be awesome. I'd love to see more skill tree or improved feats like that.
I think it's strange that actor only gives advantage to performance now. In 5e, performance is described as "delighting a crowd". Because of this, deception takes the role of trickery most of the time, be it just verbal or also using your body (e.g playing dead). Perhaps this is a clue showing us that they're gonna change the definitions of skills a bit. Performance does feel a little narrow in base 5e.
I could see how deceiving via performance could be argued.
I find it quite odd. It would need lots of other changes. Lots of places would need replacing Deception with Performance.
Maybe Deception just does not exist anymore?
Charger also needs to clarify that your movement should be towards an enemy. If you are standing adjacent to an enemy on a diagonal square, you can move 10 feet to the other diagonal and get the bonus without ever leaving engagement range.
Not sure if I mind this, especially if it is done with an unarmed strike, get tackle vibes. But it definitely shouldn't be FURTHER away from the enemy you are attacking than when you started, and it definitely should be melee attacks only.
crossbow twf does actually work once you take into account the new rules on stowing weapons.
Take note: TWF does not require you to dual wield, just that if you attack with light weapon, you can make another attack with a different light weapon.
Additionally it does not give a limit on how many weapon equips or unequips you can do, just one per attack.
lets say you have crossbow expert and a hand crossbow with a short sword here is the sequence.
attack with shortsword, then stow shortsword
Load hand crossbow and fire, then draw short sword
repeat
if you dual wield crossbows its a bit wonkier, but with the dual wielder feat you can draw or stow two weapons at once. Depending on interpetation you could say that you can draw one weapon and stow the other. in which case you get the following:
Load and fire Hand crossbow 1. then stow HC 1 and draw HC 2 at same time
Load and fire Hand crossbow 2, then stow HC2 and draw HC1 at same time.
There's no way they want duel wielding hand crossbow characters getting around rules by loading, wielding and stowing weapons like this.
@@andrewshandle maybe? But if you are taking up your feat just to get an interaction like this, I think that's fair.
But the melee weapon plus hand crossbow works without being clunky at least, Idk if TM forgot the drawing/stowing rules when he talked about the new CBE feat
@@fullmetalpotato1258 Clearly a lot of the changes in OD&D is getting rid of all the cheesy interactions that optimizers have found due to really poorly written rules in 5e.
WotC knows that eventually "degenerative" gameplay flows downhill and sooner or later a vast portion of the player base starts abusing XBE and Hand Crossbows became the most popular ranged weapon in the game, hell even Sam Reigel's rogue in Critical Role (a largely narrative game) did this.
Removing all the Sneak Attack, SS/GWM, PAM +Sentinel Cheese only to leave in a way for duel wielding Hand Crossbows would be just silly, so other ideas that players should expect to stow, wield, reload multiple times a turn to get off extra shots just isn't realistic.
@@andrewshandle fair enough, honestly I'm still just glad that the melee + HC combo actually works now.
Totally ok with the changes to GWM/SS, etc. Evening the playing field helps provide more options for optimization instead of a bunch of martials with SS/XBE and GWM/PAM.
The problem is that GWM/SS weren't overpowered, martials without it were underpowered compared to casters. I think people would be much less irate if -5/+10 was changed to a universal "called shot" option for weapons, but instead we got buffs to casters like Lightly Armored, so people are taking this as a red flag.
We won't know for sure until we see more of their plans for the "Mage" classes. But if the goal is to bring things into more balance so that there are more meaningful choices, I'm on board.
If they get it wrong, we can all help them continue to give them ever increasing survey responses.
@@HouseLyrander yup sadly it's called wizards of the coast and not martials of the coast, and I take that personally.
@@darthwikkie I'm on board with a goal of more balance and more meaningful choices, but again, this change to GWM/SS doesn't feel like it's doing that. It feels like it's taking away options without actually fixing the problem.
I'm reminded of the hullabaloo over "Amphibious" in the early days of Elder Scrolls Online. At first, every potion focused character was an argonian who only made use of their Amphibious racial (which gave a buff for using potions), and every argonian focused on Amphibious and using potions. Bethesda took this to mean that Amphibious was overpowered and nerfed it. Instead of potion users and argonions diversifying their builds, people just stopped playing potioneers and argonians.
With Inspiring Leader I like Charisma and Wisdom. This represents a leader drawing on the Wisdom of his past battles or the past battles of other great generals for example.
been liking the in depth videos
Just finished the last video, great timing, speaking of timing, commercial break announcement was on point
i like the sharpshooter change, never liked that ranged was just superior to melee and much safer
Superior how?
@@mhail7673 archery fighting style + sharpshooter + crossbow expert = you outperform melee without the risk of being close to enemies
@@TheZubazit will most likely still be better to be ranged rather than melee. Plus technically you could take great weapon master and use it on longbow/heavy crossbow.
7:08 If you look up Climb Speed in the rules glossary, it says "A Climb Speed can also be used in any situation in which your Speed is usable." This means you can walk and swim with your climb speed, and if your Climb Speed is equal to your Speed, this is functionally equivalent to the old wording, not a downgrade as you suggest, since the only difference between your speed and your climb speed if they are the same value is that climbing doesn't cost double movement.
Oh good call
I never liked sharpshooter having the same damage increase as HWM because it basically removes the reasons to use a melee weapon for damage. I like how they didn't copy it over.
Spell Sniper would now give Thorn Whip a range of 90 feet. That’s pretty cool, especially for Tome Locks.
Thank you for your insightful rundown!
For the most part I agree with you, but I disagree on your thoughts on the Sharpshooters feats function, to not impose disadvantage in melee. While I always thought, crossbow expert is one of the best feats in the game mechanicly, I also always thought it is terribly deisgned, because most of its properties are things, that every ranged combatant would love. This is especially the case with it not impsoing disadvantage in melee.
I always thought that it is a bad design choice, that other ranged weapon users and even spellcasters had to take crossbow expert just to get this part of the feat. So the new version makes a lot of sense to me, because I see it to rather likely beeing part of the sharpshooter feat, than a feat, that is uniquely centered around crossbows. So I think if they would want to remove it from one or the other, I think it would be better to remove it from Crossbow Expert, but I think it is a good decision to leave it in both, so dual wielding light weapons with crossbows will still work.
It is just a double edged sword. One way you would force bow users to take a feat completely designed around crossbows, which is bad, but only having the property on the other feat, would mean even characters centered around dual wielding with crossbows and light weapons would have to take Sharpshooter, even if they do not plan on fighting ranged at all.
The only thing I'll say about Dual Wielder is that current 5e makes it pointless to dual wield a rapier with a dagger (like in historical dueling), or a whip, and a shortsword, etc. At least with this, you can at least feel like your not penalized for wanting that aesthetic. but definitely should make it a 1st level feat/not require Martial proficiency.
The Durable feat is nice, if you pair it with the current version of the Bloodwell Vial for sorcerers.
"In addition, when you roll any Hit Dice to recover hit points while you are carrying the vial, you can regain 5 sorcery points. This property of the vial can't be used again until the next dawn."
I've been pulling this trick with a Dwarf Enemy for my players that has the Dwarven Fortitude ability. That combination has surprised them twice when they tried to catch him. The Pumpkin gets away again!
Fun fact. You can also do this with prayer of healing for divine souls and wither and bloom from strixhaven.
Just noting that both the Heavy Crossbow and Longbow qualify under the Great Weapon Master feat for the extra damage once per round. I actually like this, as it makes them better choices for dedicated ranged fighters.
about crossbows, you can now take the weapon as part of the attack action, so you can draw a light weapon as part of the attack, then seathe it with an object interaction, and shoot with crossbow expert. I think that's how it works
*Re: Dual Wielder:* I suspect (but have no basis for this suspicion) that the changers to Dual Wielder was an attempt to address a niche--but unexpectedly powerful--build with TWF and Dual Wielder.
For example, there is a way to (mis?)use the fact that the Lance can be wielded in one hand while you are mounted. With the Dual Wielder feat, a mounted paladin can dual wield *two* lances, for 2d12 melee damage with a 10-ft. reach and a +1AC--at 1st level, if he was a Variant Human--even if he was just "mounted" on a donkey.
(Remember: Lances do NOT have the Two-Handed property, OR the Heavy property)
What's more, each "lance strike" could be used to trigger a Divine Smite, and these attacks stacked with the Extra Attack that Paladins gain at 5th level. So a paladin at 5th level could take the Attack action (+Divine Smite), Extra Attack (+Divine Smite), and a Bonus Action Attack (+Divine Smite) with a base 1d12 for each attack that hits, every round, *from 10 feet away.*
With just a slight change to the rules of Dual Wielder, Sir Lance-a-lot is back to being forced to use just one lance at a time.
Observant is probably better than keen mind given how stealth seems to work, you no longer use your passive perception to find them but would need an action, with a bonus action you can find them, move to them and attack them. I suspect that comes up a lot more often than hey the red dragon don't use fire.
Mr. Treantmonk releases a new super long video.
Me: *Gets popcorn* Oh boy! This is gonna be good!
Observant would be really handy vs stealth enemies (since anyone finding a hidden enemy ends the hidden condition for all) and presumably vs illusion spells as well. Ending the effects of hidden and illusions on a bonus action is really nice.
illusions require an 'investigation check' which is a study action in the new playtests
Great Weapon Master simply allowing you to add your proficiency mod to the damage of attacks you make with heavy melee weapons wouldn't be that insane I think. New shield master and less of a damage disparity between one handed and two handed melee weapons is now making it look like sword and board is the way to go in one dnd. Giving what is essentially 16th level power attack from Pathfinder to a 5th edition character at level was always going to cause problems, but they've just gutted this feat.
Edit: You said resilient is entirely unchanged, however this isn't true. Resilient is NOT REPEATABLE, so you can only take it once and gain proficiency in one save. This is a bit of an unlikely case, but having a character with resilient (wis) and resilient (con) is no longer possible.
Agreed. The tiny bit of damage from GWM isn't worth losing all that AC
I'm pretty sure Dual Weilders Quick draw benifit actually is useful, as the drawing or stowing a weapon the way its worded to me basically means only 1 Weapon per attack action not every attack
I like the way they broke up the actor feat from the deception into performance. D&D has the problem of consolidating way too much power into very few skills. This at least now gives you a bit more reason to take performance instead of deception.
I agree that the changes to GWM and Sharpshooter although a nerf is better in DnD1 then in 5e as taking away the -5/+10 mechanic puts it line with other feats. I just hope that martial classes all get additional extra attack at around level 11 similar to the fighters in 5e so that they don't fall so far behind casters at those levels.
Also I can see the -5/+10 mechanic itself being a separate feat at higher levels perhaps called all or nothing and affects all weapon attacks so one hander weapon users, unarmed fighters can all scale the same as ranged and two handed weapons.
They need to separate feats from stat bonuses already. I really doubt they would be considering this good design if they were making a brand new system rather than patching the holes of the old one. Better than the original for sure though, but it is very limiting from a design space I think.
Kill the ASI feat in this UA and make all the class feat gains be: +1 to any ability score AND a feat.
Great video, thought your tales were very reasonable. This will be helpful when filling out the survey!
I am very glad GWM and SS have been brought back in line with other feats. It was always a DMing nightmare to balance lower level fun encounters around the ridiculous damage boost provided by those feats. I hope they have higher level feats then that expend on earlier feats, like a shield master +1 or something. I'd like every weapon type to get a feat for it like the UA had years ago.
They stood out for sure…. But they were the only thing allowing an optimized martial build to come close with pure spellcasters. Now the gap is even bigger.
Other feats needed to be brought up in power and those feats needed to be able to be applied more generally instead of specific weapons.
After playing the entirety of Descent into Avernus up to level 15, with 6 to 10 encounters per long rest, it was always my spellcasters struggling the most for damage, longevity and survivability. Spellcaster dominance is from the RP and campaign influence they can provide at high levels, not through them having fireball or whatever. If your martial players can't out-fight your spellcasters, you need to run more than a single or two encounters per adventuring day.
@@sneedfest3399 This. Way too much of the talk around casters vs martials relies on the casters having all of their spell slots to just spam out all of their strongest abilities at all times, when that isn't how that works in reality.
One of my favorite examples of this was when AHero was comparing the defensive capabilities of fighters vs wizards in one of his recent videos, just said "Shield is practically a cantrip," and then treated the wizard as always having a +5 AC bonus. Ridiculous.
@@BaronSterling Yeah in a whiteroom casters dominate martials in combat (literally if you use the spell) but in practicality things like positioning, line of sight, friendly fire, saving throw successes, magic resistance, surprised at initiative and so many other factors can drastically influence how good spell combinations, tactics or usage are. I agree that spellcasters have way more toys than martials, and have way more means to influence a campaign which is what I chew on the bit at. But in pure gritty combat and dungeon crawling, martials have the consistency on which an adventuring party actually bases any plans on. All they need is more mechanics, more feats and more differences in weapons and better usage of useless weapon properties like versatile.
@@sneedfest3399 my group for Avernus campaign dissolved shortly after making it to Avernus, but I think the general consensus is that most published adventures don't throw around magic resistance as much as that adventure did. My warlock felt so pathetic, lol.
ב"ה
Athlete is not worse, you can use your climb speed to do everything you can do with your speed. It is under "climb speed" in the glosary, it explicitly say "A Climb Speed can also be used in any situation in which your Speed is usable".
The changes to the great weaponmaster and sharpshooter could perhaps ne offset by your previous siggestion of everyone, atleast everyone with martial weapon proficiency (and monks) could take the -5/+10 on their weapon attacks. So that we dont need them to be part of any feat, but a general abillity
This is the way
Got to the end of the video:
I would REALLY love to see martial weapons to be a LOT better than simple. That would help with balancing fighty types and spellcasters.
Like, adding Proficiency to damage with martial weapons would be cool.
Or a straight up extra damage, like simple weapons do at most 1 die, while all martial weapons do 2 dice of dmg.
Maybe something like being able to perform battle master like combat maneuvers with martial weapons.
@@Synetik i believe that would step on the BM toes, and ut may overcomplicate things a bit.
Honestly giving a boost to all martial weapons would make it so that all become more viable, and make martial pcs more relevant.
@@Synetik I think they may be heading in this direction. Baldur's Gate 3 has given weapons one or two features that gives an ability to use in combat. Some are actions, some are bonus actions, and I think some are static. So I can see the designers learning from this and incorperating it in.
I think it would be nice for martial characters to see some exclusive benefits, but I would be hesitant to tie those benefits directly to the damage of the weapons without any compensating factors. That strategy excludes certain fantasy flavors of combatants from being good options. Spears are already quite weak mechanically despite being one of the most powerful weapons throughout history. The fantasy of a Greek-style fighter using spear and shield has to take some limitations to realize within the game setting and it looks like this build will be even worse now in One D&D with the changes to the Polearm Master feat.
I would lean toward all weapons doing 1d6 (one-handed) / 1d8 (versatile) / 1d10 (two-handed) damage with martial weapon proficiency unlocking the additional weapon classes and changing the damage die to 1d8 / 1d10 / 1d12 for all weapons. Then add special effects to weapons to differentiate them in some way, such as damage type specific effects (similar to the Crusher/Piercer/Slasher feats) and/or weapon-specific effects (i.e. daggers could have a bonus to hit or critical range when used in melee range), but it would be limited to one bonus for each class of weapon to try and avoid overcomplicating things.
@@MrABK108 I gotta disagree. I want my martials having manuevers. The BM manuevers list is minuscule compared to even the list of 1st level spells.
lol, paused the video to commend you on throwing to the "commercial break" when taking about GWM. Nicely done. ;)
😁
The crossbow shuffle doesnt require _dropping_ the hand crossbows. You can simply unequip and stow each crossbow as needed because of the new equip rules of the Attack action - which I believe were changed specifically just to make double hand crossbows 'legal' with this feat without weapon dropping silliness. (As I can't think of many other times the rule would actually come up during this playtest)
Farewell greatweapon master and sharpshooter, you will be missed 😔
I like the idea of charger being able to apply to Javelin throws
The weapon master feat giving you martial weapons is only good for trying to get feats outside of your intended class. But the 4th level restriction hampers that ability.
It would be better at level 1, but then it doesn't quite give enough which is probably why they made it a half feat. But then it needs to be level 4 because of their system....
I think Inspiring Leader allowing Wisdom lets you be a sage, giving philosophical advice rather than direct encouragement. In other words, you can be Uncle Iroh.
The revised Attack action makes the double crossbow easy because we can now stow or draw a weapon with each individual attack made as part of the action. Begin with Right Crossbow (RC) in Right Hand. Make attack(s) with RC. On final attack stow the RC. Then as your dual wield attack, draw the Left Crossbow (LC) and fire once.
On the next turn, you make all your primary attacks with LC before stowing it and drawing the RC for another off-hand attack. Repeat this juggling maneuver until combat ends.
At 22:50 Inspiring Leader. Honestly, the answer to why is Wisdom available as a bonus is simple, it's so when you take a feat that provides an ability increase you are not punished for having already hit the maximum in that ability. If you are a Bard who takes Inspiring Leader after having already hit 20 in Charisma. Then you are screwed, half the benefit of the feat is wasted, and that feels bad, but being able to put that point into Wisdom instead feels good. Also, how many leaders in history have been inspiring due to their Wisdom? Many, right? So I think this makes sense.
I could also see INT working for Inspiring Leader; you demonstrate that you know what to prepare for (and with the monster lore component of INT skills, you likely do) and the target audience is inspired because you’ve relieved some uncertainty. Fear of the unknown is the hardest fear to handle, and a ‘maybe’ is worse than a known negative. WIS covers Insight, so if you can demonstrate that you understand how an enemy thinks, you could inspire confidence by passing that Insight on to the audience.
Really, splitting Intelligence (mental Dexterity), Wisdom (mental Constitution), and Charisma (mental Strength) is a very abstract game mechanic. People use all of them together synergistically, so defining what they do separately is fuzzy at best. You may as well try to define a consistent translation from GP to a real-world currency.
After these messages, TMonk'll be right back!
RE: Sharpshoot, I agree that both CBE and SS giving the ability to used ranged weapons in melee smells but why remove it from Sharpshooter rather than CBE? When I think of a fantasy ranged character the first thing that comes to mind is Legolas shooting Uruk Hai through the eye at point blank range with a longbow. I don't have an equivalent for crossbows specifically. I'd much rather we took it off crossbow expert.
Having so many level 4 feats sort of suggest Wizards intend for players to choose at least two to three 4th level feats as they advance in levels.
Looking at the doc I can see that at level 11, there is not only a significant increase in power but also gaining different powers for most of the expert classes and subclasses. Thus my guess is it is the same with feats. The next set of feats to be released will be smaller in number but are significantly stronger than 4th level feats, and would come with level 12 requirements.
I think charger should work with thrown weapon attack as well. Getting a run up for a stronger javelin throw sounds realistic to me.
So maybe make it apply to attacks with melee weapons, rather than to melee attacks?
@@gregbowen2477 I would word it to include the Thrown weapon property specifically to avoid any confusion at the table.
At any rate it should at least require you to move towards the target.
Was thinking the same! although they would need to include some kind of clarification that you need to run towards the target. Now you can run 10 ft away and hit harder, which is a bit strange.
Duel wielding may be less optimized but is actually closer to how it was historically done. A long sword in each hand would get in each other's way where a rapier and dagger in Europe or two short swords in Asia was more plausible. I know that people want fantasy physics, but I think that there's some that this would appeal to.
At 15:23 you say that the new rules glossary change to drawing a weapon as part of an attack makes the Quick Draw ability in Dual Wielder redundant, but it doesn't. Reread the attack action in the glossary it says: "You can equip or unequip one Weapon before or
after any attack you make as part of this Action". ONE weapon, not TWO weapons, or ANY weapons, one. So no, it's not redundant because without that feat you can only get one weapon out in the first round, which means if you have to draw weapons at all then you'll need two rounds to get out both for a dual weilding attack.
"We don't know how weapons will compare to spells."
Well, based on about 30 years of wotc designing this game, I can guess.
Lulz.
I really like having spears count for PAM. I love to play hoplite characters. 😢
I think dual wielder would be fine if it allowed the two-swing attacks TWICE rather than once. Make you feel like you're actually attacking with a flurry of attacks, like the theme of dual-wielding would feel like.
Dungeon coach actually did this as his homebrew and it's still mathematically less damage than gwm/Ss or PAM. But slightly more than sword and board (which it should be as you trade for more AC)
Dual Wielder: Persistent Striking - If you have hit and damaged with you main hand weapon and with your offhand weapon, you can use your bonus action to make an attack with one of those weapons; you can do this a number of times equal to your prof. mod. and you regain the uses with a long rest. That's all it needs, and maybe let feats have more freedom to pick which stat to boost.
I love the change to GWM! The fact that it was the ONLY feat you could take to be an effective damage dealer as martial. It also was near useless against anything with high AC. Now its effective at all times and is more balanced. LOVE IT!
In my game, the process of casting a spell can be disrupted. If an opponent readies a melee or ranged attack to strike a caster within short range, any damage caused during the process of casting requires the caster to make a concentration check or lose the spell without effect, wasting the spell slot. The benefit of Mage Slayer lets those with the feat attack as a reaction instead of a readied action. Many community guards and personal bodyguards are trained to recognize and disrupt spellcasting, so murderhobo mages beware.
I looked up the crossbows, etc after reading the crossbow expert and it does say that the loading is part of the action and they start loaded so duel wielding two hand crossbows is in theory possible in 5e. This is the magic gunslinger. Your right it needs clarification but I suspect that will come in the section on ammunition. Dual wielding two crossbows and reloading them in the process should probably require prestidigitation or telekinesis spell or a tinker gnome gadget. I will be suggesting that. Note these rules should work for the blow gun too.
The UA Ritual Caster feat doesn't limit your choice to just one of the 3 lists: "Choose . . . from the Arcane, Divine, and Primal Spell Lists"
Worth pointing out that great weapon master pb attack can now be used with any ranged heavy weapons too, although the asi and bonus action features are completely useless if you're using it on a ranged character
"And I, for one, welcome our new War Caster overlords..." -Kent Brockman, probably
As I reviewed the feats, a human Ranger at 2nd level could have 3 fighting styles. Human Traits, Versatile grants one feat; Background Features, choose 1 feat; Ranger Class Feature 2nd Level, Fighting Style. All the fighting styles presented are listed as 1st level feats. I don't see an advantage to having 3 fighting styles, but two at first level might have some appeal.
I watched the commercial. Thanks for the video!
-My issue so far with the feats is that martial feats are getting nerfed and those feats and their combination stacking was the only thing that let them compete with casters.
-I like that there is an effort to level the feats so there isn't an imbalance but to down grade a martial's power is awful.
-Many of the caster feats are better or rules changes make caster more powerful than 5e.
-Lastly, martials need more options. Casters are fun because you get tons of spell choices that with specific choices in spells can be augmented with feats, class abilities, and sub class abilities. Martials get one thing that works a few times and they are back to stab stab hack hack.
I agree with you, but I'm hopeful that the buff to martials will come built into the martial classes themselves. For example, what if...
- Barbarians and fighters now get power attack as class feature and you can apply it to any attacks?
- Barbarian brutal critical no longer applies to just critical hits, but to all attacks?
- rage adds proficiency bonus to damage instead of just +2?
I think rebalancing the fighting styles was necessary and good. We haven't yet seen the whole picture. Yeah, if this was everything, it would be really bad, but let's give feedback and hope it's not.
@@PiiskaJesusFreak I view the rogue as a martial and in many ways they lost abilities, again I commend them for making language clearer but the bard gained the rogue lost and the ranger shifted slash gained a little bit. That doesn't bode well for the other martial classes.
I don't think we can yet say, "Casters are buffed and Martials nerfed." Thus far, we've seen two "Experts". I need to see the rest of the class groupings as well as the spells to make a judgment.
Given D&D's history, it's natural for us to believe we are again seeing the rich casters getting even richer, and the poor martials poorer. It might even prove true, but I'm witholding judgment until I see more.
I can't give feedback regarding alleged buffs and nerfs before those rules and spells are even presented.
@@elementzero3379 we can say it about this play test. Rogues are martials, call them experts sure call bards experts fine, but bards are casters and rogues are martials. Bards got better except with Prof bonus vs charisma for bardic inspiration. Rogues are worse and less versatile, even the thief sub class. No we don't know what warriors and mages look like but this gives us an idea.
@@nathanieldutile8383 Maybe, maybe not. I won't assume. I'll wait for the other playtests. I do share your concerns and doubts.
I think their intention will be to give martials a boost. Significant damage boosts might be part of 8th-level and higher feats, for example. At the very least, and perhaps more importantly, I think they will try to add some tactical options via the Warrior feats. We'll see. I could be setting myself up for disappointment on the latter point.
I don't think martials will ever match casters in versatility and general capability. I'm not sure it would even feel like DnD to me if the martials we know started rivaling the shenanigans of full-casters. If they want to add some "Book of Nine Swords" type of "blademagic", I'm interested; but it wouldn't be the standard for all Warriors. I think that kind of stuff could make for some awesome subclasses.
In short, I think the only way you rival magic is with magic. I'm not interested in Paul Bunyan as a 20th-level Warrior, performing epic feats without magic. I would be interested in a 20th-level Swordmage (warrior subclass?) or whatnot.
Bad take on SS. The feat is great as is (in the playtest). The fact you no longer need two separate feats to get long and close range sorted is nice. You’re right that it feels bad that there is overlap with CBE, but that doesn’t mean that this feat should be butchered to avoid the overlap.
Regarding the UA Great Weapon Master Feat.
Based on my calcs, doing +PB damage once per round almost always does MORE DPR than doing -5/+10 with every single attack per round. For instance:
*Level 5 vanilla GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +3 against an AC of 16:*
- Disadvantage DPR. *4.95*
- Straight Roll DPR. *17.27*
- Advantage DPR. *29.73*
*Level 5 UA GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +3 against an AC of 16:*
- Disadvantage DPR. *9.46* (4.51 more DPR)
- Straight Roll DPR. *17.22* (0.05 less DPR)
- Advantage DPR. *24.66* (5.07 less DPR)
*Level 11 vanilla GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +4 against an AC of 18:*
- Disadvantage DPR. *7.06*
- Straight Roll DPR. *24.62*
- Advantage DPR. *42.39*
*Level 11 UA GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +4 against an AC of 18:*
- Disadvantage DPR. *14.58* (7.52 more DPR)
- Straight Roll DPR. *26.05* (1.43 more DPR)
- Advantage DPR. *37.13* (5.26 less DPR)
*Level 20 vanilla GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +5 against an AC of 21:*
- Disadvantage DPR. *9.36*
- Straight Roll DPR. *32.58*
- Advantage DPR. *56.05*
*Level 20 UA GWM+PAM Fighter with a STR mod of +5 against an AC of 21:*
- Disadvantage DPR. *21.18* (11.82 more DPR)
- Straight Roll DPR. *36.92* (4.34 more DPR)
- Advantage DPR. *52.16* (3.89 less DPR)
The reason why vanilla GWM's numbers are generally lower is because you have to account for the 25% accuracy drop (the -5 to attack) found in the original feat, which for sure affects DPR. The +PB damage per round being generally higher than -5/+10 pretty much applies across the board for every class, too. Viewed in this light, the flat damage boost change to GWM seems like a damage nerf on paper, but is more a damage buff when you math it out. Its also less complcated, which I personally prefer!
Thank you for coming to my TEDtalk
Feats like GWM and the like being taken so much was in response to what I think is a deeper problem: weapons in 5e are overvalued and more restrictive compared to cantrips. Without factoring in feats, Cantrips offer comparable damage and most feature upside to using them, all while keeping your hands free. Meanwhile, weapons come with restrictions and downsides and, without feats or class features, offer no utility to the user.
The kicker is, of course, that spellcasters almost never needed to use their cantrips because it doesn’t take long for casters to have access to enough spell slots on most adventuring days (Warlock and its reliance on Eldritch Blast is an exception for exactly this reason). In other words, the opportunity cost is too great. Meanwhile, the standout martial classes are the ones that have access to resources to expend and keep pace (Paladin Smites, Battle Master Maneuvers, and Stunning Strike being the key examples). Most other classes have no other opportunities in the first place without feats.
Charger also doesn't specify in which direction the creature is pushed.
You could push them 10 feet in the direction you came from, or 10 feet up in the air
You missed a change in the Sentinel feat, it now gives you the opportunity attack when an enemy takes the disengage action while within 5 feet of you. That wording means, if the enemy took the disengage action while being outside of that range, it can then just walk straight past you without provoking any attacks from you.
I think the Ability Score Increase feat is more than just semantics. I think making ASI a feat is smart game design to help show that the intent is for feats to be the standard going forward.
With regards to the Dual Wielder feat, I agree it's a step down from the old one but I honestly prefer it in terms of flavor because, historically, people would often have one normal-sized weapon and one shorter weapon (e.g. a rapier and parrying dagger) when dual wielding. This was mostly because weapons of equal length would interfere with each other when used together (unless using some kind of very specific fighting style). I also still hope that they further expand on higher level feats when they release the Warrior archetypes because it'd be interesting to see something like an 8th level feat called "Dual Wielding Expert" that would give a +1 to AC when dual wielding, be able to wield two non-light weapons as if they were light weapons, and get a bonus action attack when dual wielding.
22:47 i feel thematically you can be a "wise" leader like an archdruid or a temple priest.. and mechanically insight into another person's psyche can enable you to cater their needs better in the sense of inspiration as well like building them up through understanding how they feel and where they come from... to be completely honest... i feel they just wanted to make it accessible to more PCs... maybe share a few drops of the twilight cleric's juice with the other clerics? if that's "wise" i don't know.. but then again it is WotC...
Crossbow Expert's design space was always in the vein of Drow Raiders, scimitar in main hand with a poisoned crossbow in the offhand. Pretty sure they only allowed 3 attacks per round because it was how *everyone* was using it. One D&D seems like it's trying to reign "exploits" and power builds back in which is honestly whatever to me.
In my opinion what made 5e crossbow expert feat so deadly was its combination with sharpshooter. With 3 attacks at level 5 all with the bonus 10, but without that plus 10 ur now looking at an extra 6 damage per turn.
@@JoshuaSmith-hl1xj I mean that's not inconsequential at level 5, especially for Ranger adding an extra d6 with Hunter's Mark to that 3rd attack. I think we need to see creature and spell design and if 8th level feats are a thing before fully judging, but just based on the first 2 playtests it looks like they're trying to constrain damage output and the action economy in the first couple of tiers. It's a huge if, but if WotC can deliver a more tightly-tuned experience in the levels that the majority of games are played in I can't say that's necessarily *bad.*
@@Xynth25 I get what ur saying about not seeing how they will redo spells or the stackable fests light in the giants ua, but looking how they felt the need to nerf rogue makes me hesitant.
When it comes to hunter's mark with ranger it is no different from 2 weapon fighting shortswords, but it would have a cost of ur bonus action like polearm master. Now the way u may be right is if the change or remove the ammunition property in later ua.
Great Weapon Master damage portion also works for Longbows, the only ranged bow that got screwed was shortbows. What is weird is I think Sharpshooter works for any ranged weapon (to shoot and not have disadvantage in melee) while crossbows expert spells out it only works for crossbows. So if you don't want a free attack, you can take sharpshooter even with a crossbow and still shoot in melee.
Crossbow Expert can shoot while dual wielding, just requires you to stow weapons right after attacking with them, so you will have the 1 hand free. Constantly need to draw/stow to gain those features though based on old ammunition rules.
I think both feats should have the no disadvantage within 5 ft, but should call out the other feat in that if you have both, maybe you get the PB bonus once per turn in damage with attacks with a ranged weapon that is made not at long range? Like a point blank shot bonus if you have both?
One thing to consider on crossbow expert is that they may change weapons around a bit further and that hand crossbows will become martial weapons.
A neat thought for improving Martial classes could be to allow Martial's to have 1 or 2(or more?) weapon properties/modifiers/effects with Weapons they wield. The number of modifiers available are affected by the weapon quality. Spit balling some ideas here but some examples could be:
*Master Work- Increase damage die by one
*Deadly-Increase critical threat range by 1
*Assassin's(Dagger only)- This modifier can be accessed by a Rogue class. On a critical hit this weapons get to roll x3(or x4) weapon dice. Does not effect sneak attack damage or any other additional damage dice.
Honestly you could get as creative and generous/stingy as you want.
Speedster should be PB×5ft extra movement. It gives you +10ft bonus move at 4 and would scale up a you go.
It will be more than a monk, which isn't a good design.
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф Give Monk PB*10 ft bonus movement, make their bonus Dash/Disengage free and add the mechanic that spending a Ki point on those removes the bonus action (making them On Turn actions). Make monk the true blitzers. Maybe even give them an ability to make a free unarmed strike against any enemy they pass by to incentivize them to use their movement.
:Edit: Also looking at it the monk gets movement for the feat similar to what I suggest but pushed back by 1 level.