He does find ways to hint around what he can't directly say. He would, in a few cases, go so far as to say, "They left out something big here" even though he can't say what it is. In many cases, he is able to say what it is a little bit later by referencing it in a Dndbeyond article.
August 1st is the first day of GenCon, where there’s going to be a huge group play event where players are given pregens from the 2024 rules. So there’s going to be a LOT of people able to share a ton of more concrete info that day.
Brace yourselves.
In a previous Treantmonk video (the Warlock one, particularly during the Archfey section), he made comments that seemed to encourage the idea that WOTC is removing the restriction on casting multiple spells in the same turn. This was already theorized by many in the community and is somewhat backed up by the new language for “Quickened Spell” in the Metamagic section for Sorcerers. Additionally, Treantmonk seemed excited for the new spell rules in the PHB. I imagine that, along with some new spell descriptions, rules regarding all spells in general will be covered.
Wait, so you guys are saying that there is a probability we can cast a leveled bonus action and a leveled standard action in the same turn? Is that correct? That would be huge in how people play their casters.
Apparently a lot of people think casters are desperately in need of buffs. I got heavily downvoted for saying that reaction cantrips give casters an unneeded buff.
I keep saying it: whenever people talk about casters online, it seems that half of the time it's to complain about them being OP, the other half it's to talk about homebrews to buff them just because.
I think a big part of that is because certain aspects of spellcasting don't feel good, regardless of how powerful they are.
The bit about casting a leveled bonus action spell is confusing, and trips up even veteran players. Changing things like guidance to reaction makes sense logistically, even if it's a buff.
The real answer is to make these changes and *also* do a sweeping nerf of many spells in 5E. Unfortunately, that will never happen because large scale nerfs are about as popular as raising taxes, no matter how badly we need to do it.
Guidance and Resistance are castable as Reactions, in response to either a failed ability check or a failed saving throw. Those are the two big ones that people get hung up on.
It's actually awesome in play, and doesn't really increase the power of the caster so much as their general usefulness to the entire party, while streamlining a couple of clunky cantrips.
In my opinion at least guidance should be reaction anyway.
As a cantrip you would otherwise just shout every minute, that you cast guidance, just to be sure or won't use it often (if at all). It's very clunky as non-reaction.
Martials are there to dish the damage, casters do literally everything else.
That's the versatility of spells in DnD, but the one thing (outside of AoE scenarios) that spells don't keep up with is martial damage output.
I don't really see an issue with this dichotomy honestly, I get it in 5e to an extent but with the addition of fighting styles and such I see a lot of potential for martials.
It's kind of like people buying a really nice axe and then get pissy that said axe is pretty bad at painting a house.
> That's the versatility of spells in DnD, but the one thing (outside of AoE scenarios) that spells don't keep up with is martial damage output.
Some people have never DMed for a Shepherd Druid and it shows.
I don't think damage vs. everything else is a very fair balance as "everything else" covers a lot of other things.
This problem is exacerbated by the tendency of 5e campaigns to have fewer fights per long rest than the game is designed for. I'm worried that 5.5e will make this problem worse with the added bells and whistles tending to make combat take longer and longer combat tending to result in fewer fights per long rest.
In the playtest quickened spell restricted casting a quickened spell that’s leveled and another leveled spell but if you weren’t quickening something (say casting Misty Step and fireball) you could do that in one of the playtests. We’ll see if that is the final way its at.
I honestly don't get why so many people want that change. It would obliterate class balance and make some classes like Warlock feel terrible where Warlock would be gassed out in a single round of combat while the other casters kept right on going
Not to mention making Wizard / Sorc / Bard etc drastically more powerful which would start Caster vs Martial debates round 200
Mainly for simplifying rules. That rule was already weirdly buried and many people missed it, so doing away with it and addressing the two situations that could be abusable (Action Surge, meta magic) keeps the intent around without that buried rule.
There are too many spell slots in higher levels. You will never ever run out in a normal adventuring day at most tables, even if you cast every round of combat. This will help to lose resources faster and BA spells are rarely an issue.
1. Which means that the wizard / sorc will be casting even MORE spells, which means they will be doing even more damage and controlling the battlefield more etc, which means their DPR goes up drastically and makes martials feel even worse
2. Warlocks most certainly run out of spells constantly, which means the gap between Warlock and the other casters will also grow even larger
3. They SHOULD be running out of spells. The fact that they are not is because DMs run One Big Fight A Day™ instead of having multiple fights leading into the large fight. The entire game is balanced around running players out of resources
All of that is to say, it's exactly what I said. This change will unbalance basically the entire game and would be a wild change to throw in without entire playtests to test it first. It would impact literally every class by making casters shoot up 12 tiers while making martials and warlocks feel much much worse
Dont know why u getting downvoted these are notorious issues.
Casters have too many resources, alloeing them to more efficiently expend them is not the answer. Looks like this edition will make the caster v martial disparity far, far worse. Heres hoping spells across the board recieve nerfs, but im not optimisitic
That would reduce one of my biggest complaints about the changes so far. Paladin smite being a spell. If you can cast more than one leveled spell, it isn't a horrible change.
Perhaps not two Smite spells because they use Bonus Actions, but with Haste, you could:
- Main Action Spell
- Hasted Action Melee Attack
- Bonus Action Smite (Any Smite, really).
Which is still an overall buff if this means that casting 2 levelled spells a turn with a bonus action one becomes possible with spells that are bonus actions and only putting the restriction on Quickened Spell and Action Surge.
You're not understanding my comment, you still cannot cast a spell using only Haste.
With Haste, you're getting an extra action separate from your main one that is restricted, so, to cast two levelled spells (if this rule change is real), you cast a spell with your MAIN, unrestricted action (Main, not the one that Haste gives you), then you use the weapon attack granted by the Hasted action, and then you use your Bonus Action for the On-Hit Smite Spells.
No, i understood you.
My comment was in response to the second part of your comment about only putting the restriction on Quickened Spell and Action Surge. I think that if they have it its likely Haste will as well. I never said the smite + spell in one turn would be impossible(edit: in your example, we dont know if it will actually be like that)
The difference between the spells is that with haste you're still restricted to casting one spell with casting time of an action, and one with a casting time of a bonus action. With action surge and quickened spell you could cast two spells that normally require an action. So haste really is a very different scenario from the other two.
If they actually did that then its even more stupid what they did to divine smite(making it cost a bonus action i mean not the spell part, im 80% sold on that).
I'm usually less prone to complaining about WotC than most, but every time JC says they added something new and it's just some fucking reprinted old feature man do I get mad.
Truly nothing they’ve done has made me more annoyed than when they introduced “new Battlemaster features” that were just Ambush and a couple others, aka the ones I’ve been using since I started 5e
I think this is mostly right, but I would expect at least one effective nerf to show up in there: whatever they ended up doing with the conjure spells.
You can choose to look at those as nerfs (because they are), but I'll choose to look at them as buffs. Previously casting conjure spells was annoying as fuck to handle as the table, so we just didn't. Basically the spells didn't exist. Now though, they'll have some new form and hopefully work better at the table.
Weaker but usable at the table >>>> busted but a pain to use
God I remember the only ever time someone used an OG conjure spell at my DMed table. It was a veteran player, so it went better than most other stories.
Basically, they were fighting a underground tremorsense monster (Diablos straight out of Monster Hunter) and he used Conjure Animals ***expressly to add tremors to the ground for him hunt while everyone else stood still.***
Didn't need nor bother roiling initiative for them. They were all just free "turns" for the party. Loved it.
To me, this is the big one. The spellcasting system is my least favorite thing about 5E, and so this is basically make-or-break for me.
I don't expect any structural changes (as much as I'd to see it), but I am expecting nerfs and balancing to make DM'ing for late-game spellcasters easier.
Yeah. Like, if people think that Paladin fans are reacting badly to the Divine Smite nerf, imagine what it would be like if they nerfed Wizards and Sorcerers.
Although, I suspect that when the unfamiliar see the new *conjure* spells, they'll freak out.
I’m really excited to see what they do with the conjure spells. I hope if they rework stuff like Summon Greater Demon that they add more options to the Tashas summons and remove their component.
I get that a lot of the Conjure X spells are unhealthy and I love the Tashas spells but they leave so much gameplay fantasy unfulfilled imo.
I honestly don't see how people end up having problems with summoning 4 basic monsters that just run in and attack. At higher levels or with some specific monsters e.g ones with spellcasting they can cause problems sure but I really disagree with the idea that less than at least 6 basic sack of hit points monsters slows the game down significantly.
Some people are slow and indecisive in combat, and if they suddenly have 5 creatures they need to make decisions for....well grab a pillow and clock a nap until it's your turn.
I've DM'd a one shot or two and agree that handling a mob isn't bad. But I try to always be paying attention and on top of my turn when it comes up.
Some people can handle being prepared and will do fine with multiple creatures, but the ones who can't drag out combat.
It really just depends on the player.
It's because you either roll them as a group (the intended way I think) or the table ran way, which is each get individual rolls. And individual rolls take up the most time, not to mention commanding each monster to move a certain way. You're not going to make wolves move like an RTS squad, you're going to have them flank the thing you're sending them after and milk advantage on them, which requires even more rolling.
And that's not getting into if you want to command a mixed monster group, each with their own speeds, AC, and attack rolls.
Individual rolls do not in fact take that long, in my experience. It's complicated decisions like deciding to use class features. Flanking is both optional and not that complicated to figure out. The mixed monster group point is valid though, but as far as I remember these spells are concentration.
You have a point of the spells being concentration, it's mainly that old argument of "more bodies between the enemy and you the better." So in the case of summons their purpose is to slow down anything from getting close to the caster in the first place, and even if said enemies take down said meat bodies, there is a melee player right in your face to finish you off after being softened up by said summons.
I only used wolves as an example because of pack tactics (because I actually forgot about that trait during my initial writeup), meaning even if flanking is optional, pack tactics *isn't*. So that's mainly an issue on its own.
I don’t have problems w conjure animals tbh outside of it being really strong but I also play almost exclusively on VTT which helps a ton. I think the issue is mostly how it upcast and the fact that subclasses encourage bulk summoning so once you start casting with 5th level slots you’re dropping 16 creatures on the board which can get real crazy real fast.
Action economy is stronger than anything else in this game. You can put them in the way, use them as cover, get OA's, grapple stuff - there are a lot of uses for just sacks of hit points.
And yes, 6 entirely separate creatures with entirely separate turns slows the game down. But the slowdown isn't the problem, it's the outsized impact that gives to a single character.
Hoping they gut a bunch of spells tbh LOL
Primarily hoping that happens for any spell that makes encounters -less- interesting or skips them entirely.
Stuff like pass without trace (WAY too big a stat boost and way too long), wall of force (encounter skipper extraordinaire), hypnotic pattern (no repeated save? if they fail you win), counterspell (counterspell chains and slowing down gameplay and generally not fun though sometimes very fun), any conjuration spells (did i say COUNTERSPELL slowed the game down? yuck to these) and even stuff like shield (lasts too long or adds to much AC likely both).
Spells are way too powerful before this book - I'm mostly very happy with the changes I have seen so far and the philosophy behind them even if the landing isn't perfect. The concepts they've shown for counterspell for example seem great, and the conjuration spells seemed like a clever enough solution but more importantly that they were thinking about the issues created by these spells...
I'm optimistic that things will move in a good direction, but I'm not holding my breath that they'll go far enough.
I agree with you about Pass Without Trace, but it wasn’t changed in the playtest, nor was any spell like it changed. I doubt they’ll risk the backlash of changing this with no playtesting, especially with how contentious the balance of the Ranger is.
Ultimately I think there wasn't any chance they were going to dump a thousand spell changes on us during the UA that seemed mostly focused on the classes anyway - I was surprised to see counterspell addressed at all even.
They've changed plenty without playtesting it or changing it significantly from the playtest, I don't see them just ignoring spell changes based on all the information they have released so far regarding spells.
I think pass without trace got indirectly nerfed by the suprise changes anyway. It's still a good spell for sneaking. But I'm not sure if it's really OP if it's not giving everyone surprise rounds.
Personally, I think old Counterspell was a check on caster power. Being able to power through Counterspell with a Con save and not lose any resources if your spell gets countered is just a straight up buff to PC casters.
It's also a buff to any Legendary Creature that casts spells, since now if you try to counterspell Vecna and he fails his save, he can just succeed instead.
It's also worth pointing out that Paladins are now the best at resisting Counterspell, and their aura also means that nearby casters will be less likely to be countered.
We are absolutely getting on overview on the Summon changes. JC has been highlighting them so much in the videos, it's clearly something they consider very significant.
Here's hoping the following spells get nerfed:
Shield - +3 at base with +1 for each upcast.
Goodberry - Explicitly no longer works with Disciple of Life
Conjure Animals/Woodland Beings - Keep the playtest treatment
Hypnotic Pattern - Shorter duration, or give them a save at end of turn
Tiny Hut - Should be either impenetrable or semipermeable, not both at the same time selectively
Animate Objects - Conjure Animals treatment or heavily limit the sheer number of objects
Wall of Force - 6th level or make it breakable
Simulacrum - Can't cast 9th level spells
The one change they can't make here is changing *wall of force*'s level, for backwards compatibility. If a creature stat block includes *wall of force* and only up to 5th-level spell slots, for example, increasing the spell level would mean they can no longer cast it.
Any nerf to shield would be welcome, but personally it just blocking one attack and then breaking is my favorite change to it. It’s kinda insane how you can get a wizard/EK to have so much AC for an entire turn
That's a good one too. Lots of good ways to balance Shield that I have seen.
I fully expect them to try and spin any spell nerfs as buffs or sidegrades. So in my suggestion they would probably say something like: "Shield had an issue where you couldn't upcast it. Now you can upcast Shield and get an AC boost as high as +11!!! Totally a buff and not a nerf!"
I like 1 Attack + you can choose to concentrate for it to last until the start of your next turn.
That's a solid restriction imo, and allows for fun choices in combat.
I'm hoping they make shield work after you are hit, because when I'm DMing its easier to just say the goblin attacked with a 17 does that hit. Then constantly ask this goblin is going to attack you... are you doing anything.
That being said the spell definately needs a nerf. It shouldn't be a better option for a 20th level wizard (who has very little use for their many low level slots) than a 1st level wizard (who won't want to use 1/2 their daily resources to block a hit or 2).
I would prefer the idea I've seen on here where it sets your AC to 16 (maybe 18?) + the spell slot used or similar. That really gets rid of the biggest issue with the spell, which is stacking it with armor.
That is how it works now actually, so you can at least save some headaches!
The wording on Shield is "*1 Reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack*". The player gets to know whether they will be hit or not before casting shield. If they didn't the wording would be "*1 Reaction, which you take when you are the target of an attack*" or perhaps "*targeted by an attack*".
Wouldn't the player have to make a choice either way? If the goblin hits, it hits. The player then decides if expending a user of Shield is worth it.
Unless, for some reason you're hiding the to-hit roll and the player doesn't have that information.
I roll in the open, and I believe many DMs do also. So the players already know what the monster rolled. But by how the shield spell works in 2014, I should be hidding my rolls so they don't know if the shield spell would actually help them.
The 2014 spell simply states, "\[Reaction\] ...which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell."
I'm not sure how exactly that implies you should hide the roll. Am I misunderstanding you?
I always liked the idea that the Wall of Force could negate any damage to it up to a certain threshold, if you could hit it with Physical Force (or force damage, but not elemental), of a X damage in a single hit, you can break it.
And allow Sneak Attack against is, because frankly, the idea that a rogue looks at a Wall of Force and then stabs in a certain spot to break it because they hit a weak spot feels totally like a Rogue thing.
Shield is fine when cast by an unarmored wizard or sorcerer with a base AC of 15 or 16 plus magic items at higher level. It only becomes a problem when you get characters with medium armor and shield pushing their AC up to 24 and beyond. The nerf I'd like to see is some sort of mutual exclusivity with physical armor and shields.
it's especially problematic for high AC builds because they both have less resource strain casting it every time they get hit since they get hit less, and having it means that they will essentially never be hit unless they are crit
A defensive Eldritch Knight will have a baseline AC of 18 (full plate) + 2 (shield) + 1 (fighting style) and can bump that to 26 for the round on demand, not counting magical items. As a DM it's annoying to challenge that character while not annihilating the rest of the party, in a way that doesn't make it feel like the EK is being targeted. But at the same time they're still just a Fighter so it's not really that big of an issue.
When full spellcasters combo armor and shield and the Shield spell and magic items to become untouchable, that's the real problem.
Wouldn't that make it useless for eldritch knight builds, for example? Could you not just lower the bonus it gives you to +2 or +3 and give it a +1 bonus per level upcast?
That gives casters AC that sits around 16 - 17 for a round with a higher resource potential boost to 19 - 20. This still keeps them relatively squishy while giving some gish builds a chance to stay in melee.
Shield is also fine when cast by fully armored and shielded gishes.
The problem is that wizards should never been allowed armor with nk casting penalties in the firs tplace.
It feels like multiclassing should have a rule that your spell DC and attack are a bit lower if you gain the armor prof from the first level, which goes away if you invest in the multi class more.
I think your hopes for the Shield and Tiny Hut changes are baseless, but the other spells probably will change. I wouldn’t be shocked if Wall of Force was nerfed in the manner of Banishment, now requiring a save that you can repeat on your turns. Animate Objects and Simulacrum would also fit more with the new spells if they summoned a stat block rather than creating more customizable creatures.
Shield- +5 is not that strong and WotC is at least careful not to give this magic to the wrong classes, like the Paladin. Also +1 at higher levels is OP.
Goodberry- Only nourish a person for 4 hours. At least it will be punishing for the player who uses this for the survival of a group. D&D ONE (5.5) has already removed the abuse between this spell and the Cleric Disciple of Life's initial feature.
Hypnotic Pattern- This spell is not OP. It's a save or suck and its saves are relatively common to pass (WIS). Additionally, creatures immune to being charmed are immune to this spell as well. Its only difference is that it hits many enemies, but anyone who passes the spell spends their action to wake up someone else. It is necessary to understand that save or suck spells need to have more powerful effects than "normal" to be worth using.
Tiny Hut- I don't think this spell is OP because it can't be used in battle and, despite its many good benefits, it doesn't guarantee that you won't be located (you can still be seen and are affected by non-magical forms of detection) and the the magic disappears the moment you leave the dome. So in a "lucky" scenario where, for example, enemies appear for a battle and the bard is under the effect of this spell, he is immune to damage but cannot do anything else unless an ally appears on the bard's side and inside the dome to be able to be healed or receive inspiration. But I admit that it's worth a nerf like "spells of a level higher than that cast by this spell affect or destroy the dome in case of damage".
Animate Object- I honestly don't know what the complaint is about this spell. It is very difficult to use at its fullest. Also, her level is relatively high and is not anyone's priority choice.
Wall of Force- On this I completely agree. I would establish that each wall area has 50 HP and goes up by 10 with each higher level.
Simulacrum- I don't even know how anyone can think of this spell as OP when it is very difficult to even cast and even more maintain. If, on a beautiful campaign day, I was given the opportunity to cast this spell, I would to make a Simulacrum to be a personal assistant who stays at a base where I live (Bastion D&D ONE system?) while I adventure. Besides, the simulacrum is relatively easy to kill for such a high cost.
Conjure Based Spells- It's an unpopular opinion but I hate current conjuration spells. In addition to moving away from the purpose and fun of the original spell, it is very abusive, causing a lot of additional damage for little cost. If they wanted a way to nerf conjure animals and other spells, WotC did it completely wrong in my opinion. It would be much simpler and more logical to eliminate the possibility of doing 8 conjurations, reduce the time to 10 minutes and at higher levels (every two levels), increase the challenge rating by 1. Doing so, at the ninth level of conjuring animals for example , the most you could make is four CR3 creatures. This way, it would maintain the charm of the original proposal without the druid creating an army of beasts or feys or elementals... In short, this logic can be applied to any minor conjuration spell. Greater conjuration spells were never OP.
Simulacrum has 2 problems: for one, all of its limitations are lifted if you’re accessing it through the wish spell, so anyone with access to wish (an obvious pick for any wizard or sorcerer) has access to the cheesy infinite loop that will break your game in half. Second, even when used on its own it has a destabilizing effect on the game. If you have a simulacrum back at base (something I’d also like to do with my wizard since the king is hounding him to spend less time ignoring his duties at home lol), then the players can now, on a whim, cakewalk any encounter by having a fully stocked high level caster airdrop into the situation. It makes it very difficult to manage tension or have a dramatic encounter in that environment, unless you assume it will be involved and compensate for the added firepower, but that’s essentially forcing the player to burn through the simulacrum quickly and waste the resources they spent to get it. The spell all but requires a gentleman’s agreement between the dm and player to simply expend the simulacrum’s resources immediately or not really use it at all until the final boss or another suitable climax.
What you said is super valid and made me think carefully about the Simulacrum spell. But even so, I don't think it's worthy of her to demand to be fixed. In the first scenario, it seems more like a "Wish" scenario being a problem than a "Simulacrum", but wish is the most OP spell in the game so how do you nerf it without ruining the fun? Could it be "You mustn't choose to cast the same spell more than once per use of the wish spell"? I confess I don't know. You said it very well about the second scenario: It has to be discussed between player and master so as not to ruin anyone's fun. The zero rule is there to ensure that everyone can have equal fun and many do not see it as a resource to solve problems when they arise.
My prediction is that every single one of the ranger's concentration spells will remain concentration, and it will continue to interfere with hunter's mark.
Please prove me wrong, JC.
I just hope that the "Conjure X" spells from UA survived intact, if a bit tweaked. I freaking loved the aura design of it, and it made playing a druid feel like a real bad ass damage dealer.
I feel like this is going to be the most controversial video, somehow. Just a lot more moving parts to have opinions about.
I predict that I personally will enjoy and roll with whatever they do, but that's just how I've been approaching the whole process. Game looks overall much more fun, so even if a few spells aren't what I want, I don't think I'll miss it.
It's really hard to know what to expect.
On one hand, they have successfully identified and nerfed some of the top-line power options in the game.
On the other hand, spell balancing is something where you really need to have an eye on the numbers, and this design team has shown over and over again that they are perfectly happy with numbers being vaguely "close enough" / ballpark.
I think it's interesting that I agree with everything you said, but I don't think your "on the other hand" is very negative at all. Close Enough is the alternative to crunching every possibility against every other. They can't really patch it like a video game, so some level of "close enough" has to be acceptable.
Right? Lightning bolt should be 8d6. There's literally no reason fireball shouldn't be 6d6 when it has that giant AoE, and you have a spell like lightning bolt that does the same damage but is just a line.
I can plausibly see this happening. The major thing balancing it before was how everything and its mum had fire immunity, and they broadly seem to be moving away from that design philosophy.
They said Wizard is getting new, Wizard-exclusive spells. So I'm guessing that's the part of the video where you'll see Crawford actually excited. And it's very possible they'll reintroduce Create/Modify Spell here.
I don't think counter spell will be like the play test version because Abjuration Wizard gets a special ability that recovers their spell slot on a failed casting, which would be redundant if play test counter spell remains unchanged.
I'm going to make a bold prediction that bonus action spell casting rule will be done away with completely.
I think you misunderstand
The counterspell returns the spellslot of the enemy that you countered if it succeeds
Abjurstion counterspell refunds YOUR spellslot if you fail
I really hope True Strike joined Guidance and Resistance as a Reaction Cantrip that adds 1d4 (to an attack roll). Flesh out the family and actually make it useful
I would Like to see Constitution get a bit of a buff in that you can hold as many concentration spells as your con modifier.
It would give more decisions on spell usage and make spell casters think more of how to spend their level ups
Most casters wouldnt have that great of a con stat anyway as most invest in dex to try and have a passable ac with mage armor or don't have the points to over invest with the amount of setup. 16 con would need 3 rounds to set everything up and I doubt any caster is getting 18 con ever, especially if the new feats are as good as they look like they are going to be
Constitution is quite literally the first or second most important stat for most optimized casters. Especially with armor dips becoming more available with the new Medium Armor Master feature.
This would be insane at any table where people are even slightly building strong casters and would break core gameplay design. Layering low level control/buff spells would become insane. Damage would also likely become really high but the big issues would be control/buffs imo.
A- if you made this change, Casters would immediately start prioritizing CON.
B- Casters can cast a lot of spells before going into a combat.
A cleric casting Bless and Spirit Guardians would be both empowering their party and doing incredible damage themselves while simultaneously self buffing their own concentration checks.
One of the most one sided stomps I have ever seen against a BBEG was when a 3.5 cleric and party had 10 rounds to prepare before the BBEG got there. The Player of the Cleric spent a few minutes writing down the list of buffs they wanted to put on in a Specific order to optimize their power. It was... crazy. And that wasn't counting the buffs the rest of the casters in the party threw on people.
So, what's funny is that you can still kinda do this in 5e with enough prep time and money. You can load up multiple Glyph of Warding spells with buffs then pop them all at once since they don't require concentration.
With a very normal +2 Con mod, a wizard could do the Microwave(TM) all by themselves. Pick up Metamagic Adept and they could do it in one turn if the implied bonus action casting rule does get removed.
Con is just about every full caster's secondary stat, sometimes even primary stat, and with your suggested change becomes the primary stat for even more of them. After War Caster, the only key feat for most casters is Resilient: Con.
Some concentration spells require setup turns in combat, but others don't. You could have four summoning spells active at once to eviscerate everything for the next hour.
This is not “a bit of a buff.” This would fundamentally change everything about how combat functions, and make casters even MORE ridiculously powerful compared to martials than they already are.
He does find ways to hint around what he can't directly say. He would, in a few cases, go so far as to say, "They left out something big here" even though he can't say what it is. In many cases, he is able to say what it is a little bit later by referencing it in a Dndbeyond article.
NDAs lift before release, so we will already know by then.
Yes, but that is still a month away (August 1st, as I recall). He will be very talkative then.
August 1st is the first day of GenCon, where there’s going to be a huge group play event where players are given pregens from the 2024 rules. So there’s going to be a LOT of people able to share a ton of more concrete info that day. Brace yourselves.
“Treantmonk Reaction Video” Reaction Video by Treantmonk
In a previous Treantmonk video (the Warlock one, particularly during the Archfey section), he made comments that seemed to encourage the idea that WOTC is removing the restriction on casting multiple spells in the same turn. This was already theorized by many in the community and is somewhat backed up by the new language for “Quickened Spell” in the Metamagic section for Sorcerers. Additionally, Treantmonk seemed excited for the new spell rules in the PHB. I imagine that, along with some new spell descriptions, rules regarding all spells in general will be covered.
Wait, so you guys are saying that there is a probability we can cast a leveled bonus action and a leveled standard action in the same turn? Is that correct? That would be huge in how people play their casters.
This would be amazing, casters are famously underpowered and this will help them keep up with rangers.
Good luck keeping up with that brand new never before seen Roving feature that Rangers get. Nnyyooooom
10 feet faster. Practically a Barbarian already.
Apparently a lot of people think casters are desperately in need of buffs. I got heavily downvoted for saying that reaction cantrips give casters an unneeded buff.
I keep saying it: whenever people talk about casters online, it seems that half of the time it's to complain about them being OP, the other half it's to talk about homebrews to buff them just because.
I think a big part of that is because certain aspects of spellcasting don't feel good, regardless of how powerful they are. The bit about casting a leveled bonus action spell is confusing, and trips up even veteran players. Changing things like guidance to reaction makes sense logistically, even if it's a buff. The real answer is to make these changes and *also* do a sweeping nerf of many spells in 5E. Unfortunately, that will never happen because large scale nerfs are about as popular as raising taxes, no matter how badly we need to do it.
Reaction cantrip? I must have missed that
Yeah one of the last UAs made several of the weaker cantrips castable as a reaction. I am not a fan.
Guidance and Resistance are castable as Reactions, in response to either a failed ability check or a failed saving throw. Those are the two big ones that people get hung up on. It's actually awesome in play, and doesn't really increase the power of the caster so much as their general usefulness to the entire party, while streamlining a couple of clunky cantrips.
In my opinion at least guidance should be reaction anyway. As a cantrip you would otherwise just shout every minute, that you cast guidance, just to be sure or won't use it often (if at all). It's very clunky as non-reaction.
Martials are there to dish the damage, casters do literally everything else. That's the versatility of spells in DnD, but the one thing (outside of AoE scenarios) that spells don't keep up with is martial damage output. I don't really see an issue with this dichotomy honestly, I get it in 5e to an extent but with the addition of fighting styles and such I see a lot of potential for martials. It's kind of like people buying a really nice axe and then get pissy that said axe is pretty bad at painting a house.
> That's the versatility of spells in DnD, but the one thing (outside of AoE scenarios) that spells don't keep up with is martial damage output. Some people have never DMed for a Shepherd Druid and it shows.
I don't think damage vs. everything else is a very fair balance as "everything else" covers a lot of other things. This problem is exacerbated by the tendency of 5e campaigns to have fewer fights per long rest than the game is designed for. I'm worried that 5.5e will make this problem worse with the added bells and whistles tending to make combat take longer and longer combat tending to result in fewer fights per long rest.
In the playtest quickened spell restricted casting a quickened spell that’s leveled and another leveled spell but if you weren’t quickening something (say casting Misty Step and fireball) you could do that in one of the playtests. We’ll see if that is the final way its at.
It basically only affects Shillelagh and Misty Step.
I honestly don't get why so many people want that change. It would obliterate class balance and make some classes like Warlock feel terrible where Warlock would be gassed out in a single round of combat while the other casters kept right on going Not to mention making Wizard / Sorc / Bard etc drastically more powerful which would start Caster vs Martial debates round 200
Yeah I really don't see the logic. Seems like a big spanner into class balance and action economy.
Mainly for simplifying rules. That rule was already weirdly buried and many people missed it, so doing away with it and addressing the two situations that could be abusable (Action Surge, meta magic) keeps the intent around without that buried rule.
There are too many spell slots in higher levels. You will never ever run out in a normal adventuring day at most tables, even if you cast every round of combat. This will help to lose resources faster and BA spells are rarely an issue.
1. Which means that the wizard / sorc will be casting even MORE spells, which means they will be doing even more damage and controlling the battlefield more etc, which means their DPR goes up drastically and makes martials feel even worse 2. Warlocks most certainly run out of spells constantly, which means the gap between Warlock and the other casters will also grow even larger 3. They SHOULD be running out of spells. The fact that they are not is because DMs run One Big Fight A Day™ instead of having multiple fights leading into the large fight. The entire game is balanced around running players out of resources All of that is to say, it's exactly what I said. This change will unbalance basically the entire game and would be a wild change to throw in without entire playtests to test it first. It would impact literally every class by making casters shoot up 12 tiers while making martials and warlocks feel much much worse
Dont know why u getting downvoted these are notorious issues. Casters have too many resources, alloeing them to more efficiently expend them is not the answer. Looks like this edition will make the caster v martial disparity far, far worse. Heres hoping spells across the board recieve nerfs, but im not optimisitic
That would reduce one of my biggest complaints about the changes so far. Paladin smite being a spell. If you can cast more than one leveled spell, it isn't a horrible change.
But paladin smite now requires a bonus action? So you still won’t be able to use it and another spell right?
With haste you could
Do you mean a smite and then another spell, cause even with Haste you cant do 2 smites cause you dont have 2 bonus action
Perhaps not two Smite spells because they use Bonus Actions, but with Haste, you could: - Main Action Spell - Hasted Action Melee Attack - Bonus Action Smite (Any Smite, really). Which is still an overall buff if this means that casting 2 levelled spells a turn with a bonus action one becomes possible with spells that are bonus actions and only putting the restriction on Quickened Spell and Action Surge.
I find it highly unlikely that, if quickened spell and action surge have the limitation, Haste wont either.
You're not understanding my comment, you still cannot cast a spell using only Haste. With Haste, you're getting an extra action separate from your main one that is restricted, so, to cast two levelled spells (if this rule change is real), you cast a spell with your MAIN, unrestricted action (Main, not the one that Haste gives you), then you use the weapon attack granted by the Hasted action, and then you use your Bonus Action for the On-Hit Smite Spells.
No, i understood you. My comment was in response to the second part of your comment about only putting the restriction on Quickened Spell and Action Surge. I think that if they have it its likely Haste will as well. I never said the smite + spell in one turn would be impossible(edit: in your example, we dont know if it will actually be like that)
The difference between the spells is that with haste you're still restricted to casting one spell with casting time of an action, and one with a casting time of a bonus action. With action surge and quickened spell you could cast two spells that normally require an action. So haste really is a very different scenario from the other two.
Did not catch that. I'm back to grumpy then....
If they actually did that then its even more stupid what they did to divine smite(making it cost a bonus action i mean not the spell part, im 80% sold on that).
I bet they’re gonna say “brand new reaction spells” and then introduce… *drumroll* Absorb Elements
I'm usually less prone to complaining about WotC than most, but every time JC says they added something new and it's just some fucking reprinted old feature man do I get mad.
Truly nothing they’ve done has made me more annoyed than when they introduced “new Battlemaster features” that were just Ambush and a couple others, aka the ones I’ve been using since I started 5e
I think this is mostly right, but I would expect at least one effective nerf to show up in there: whatever they ended up doing with the conjure spells.
You can choose to look at those as nerfs (because they are), but I'll choose to look at them as buffs. Previously casting conjure spells was annoying as fuck to handle as the table, so we just didn't. Basically the spells didn't exist. Now though, they'll have some new form and hopefully work better at the table. Weaker but usable at the table >>>> busted but a pain to use
God I remember the only ever time someone used an OG conjure spell at my DMed table. It was a veteran player, so it went better than most other stories. Basically, they were fighting a underground tremorsense monster (Diablos straight out of Monster Hunter) and he used Conjure Animals ***expressly to add tremors to the ground for him hunt while everyone else stood still.*** Didn't need nor bother roiling initiative for them. They were all just free "turns" for the party. Loved it.
I agree, I think they'll mention nerfs they've shown in playtests, but not new nerfs beyond those
To me, this is the big one. The spellcasting system is my least favorite thing about 5E, and so this is basically make-or-break for me. I don't expect any structural changes (as much as I'd to see it), but I am expecting nerfs and balancing to make DM'ing for late-game spellcasters easier.
They arent going to do big nerfs to casters cause it's about as popular as raising taxes
Yeah. Like, if people think that Paladin fans are reacting badly to the Divine Smite nerf, imagine what it would be like if they nerfed Wizards and Sorcerers. Although, I suspect that when the unfamiliar see the new *conjure* spells, they'll freak out.
I’m really excited to see what they do with the conjure spells. I hope if they rework stuff like Summon Greater Demon that they add more options to the Tashas summons and remove their component. I get that a lot of the Conjure X spells are unhealthy and I love the Tashas spells but they leave so much gameplay fantasy unfulfilled imo.
I honestly don't see how people end up having problems with summoning 4 basic monsters that just run in and attack. At higher levels or with some specific monsters e.g ones with spellcasting they can cause problems sure but I really disagree with the idea that less than at least 6 basic sack of hit points monsters slows the game down significantly.
Some people are slow and indecisive in combat, and if they suddenly have 5 creatures they need to make decisions for....well grab a pillow and clock a nap until it's your turn.
I get it and am bad myself at casting spells, but I mostly DM and moving mobs is really not that difficult.
I've DM'd a one shot or two and agree that handling a mob isn't bad. But I try to always be paying attention and on top of my turn when it comes up. Some people can handle being prepared and will do fine with multiple creatures, but the ones who can't drag out combat. It really just depends on the player.
It's because you either roll them as a group (the intended way I think) or the table ran way, which is each get individual rolls. And individual rolls take up the most time, not to mention commanding each monster to move a certain way. You're not going to make wolves move like an RTS squad, you're going to have them flank the thing you're sending them after and milk advantage on them, which requires even more rolling. And that's not getting into if you want to command a mixed monster group, each with their own speeds, AC, and attack rolls.
Individual rolls do not in fact take that long, in my experience. It's complicated decisions like deciding to use class features. Flanking is both optional and not that complicated to figure out. The mixed monster group point is valid though, but as far as I remember these spells are concentration.
You have a point of the spells being concentration, it's mainly that old argument of "more bodies between the enemy and you the better." So in the case of summons their purpose is to slow down anything from getting close to the caster in the first place, and even if said enemies take down said meat bodies, there is a melee player right in your face to finish you off after being softened up by said summons. I only used wolves as an example because of pack tactics (because I actually forgot about that trait during my initial writeup), meaning even if flanking is optional, pack tactics *isn't*. So that's mainly an issue on its own.
I don’t have problems w conjure animals tbh outside of it being really strong but I also play almost exclusively on VTT which helps a ton. I think the issue is mostly how it upcast and the fact that subclasses encourage bulk summoning so once you start casting with 5th level slots you’re dropping 16 creatures on the board which can get real crazy real fast.
Action economy is stronger than anything else in this game. You can put them in the way, use them as cover, get OA's, grapple stuff - there are a lot of uses for just sacks of hit points. And yes, 6 entirely separate creatures with entirely separate turns slows the game down. But the slowdown isn't the problem, it's the outsized impact that gives to a single character.
This is probably accurate. It's basically teasers to build interest, but they don't want to give THAT much away. Gotta buy the books for that.
But will Hunter's Mark be in the video?
You forgot one. They will also present something imported from Tasha's and call it "brand new"
Hoping they gut a bunch of spells tbh LOL Primarily hoping that happens for any spell that makes encounters -less- interesting or skips them entirely. Stuff like pass without trace (WAY too big a stat boost and way too long), wall of force (encounter skipper extraordinaire), hypnotic pattern (no repeated save? if they fail you win), counterspell (counterspell chains and slowing down gameplay and generally not fun though sometimes very fun), any conjuration spells (did i say COUNTERSPELL slowed the game down? yuck to these) and even stuff like shield (lasts too long or adds to much AC likely both). Spells are way too powerful before this book - I'm mostly very happy with the changes I have seen so far and the philosophy behind them even if the landing isn't perfect. The concepts they've shown for counterspell for example seem great, and the conjuration spells seemed like a clever enough solution but more importantly that they were thinking about the issues created by these spells... I'm optimistic that things will move in a good direction, but I'm not holding my breath that they'll go far enough.
Counterspell and the Conjurations were nerfed in playtest and the changes seemed generally well received, so hopefully they carry through
I agree with you about Pass Without Trace, but it wasn’t changed in the playtest, nor was any spell like it changed. I doubt they’ll risk the backlash of changing this with no playtesting, especially with how contentious the balance of the Ranger is.
Ultimately I think there wasn't any chance they were going to dump a thousand spell changes on us during the UA that seemed mostly focused on the classes anyway - I was surprised to see counterspell addressed at all even. They've changed plenty without playtesting it or changing it significantly from the playtest, I don't see them just ignoring spell changes based on all the information they have released so far regarding spells.
I think pass without trace got indirectly nerfed by the suprise changes anyway. It's still a good spell for sneaking. But I'm not sure if it's really OP if it's not giving everyone surprise rounds.
Personally, I think old Counterspell was a check on caster power. Being able to power through Counterspell with a Con save and not lose any resources if your spell gets countered is just a straight up buff to PC casters.
It's also a buff to any Legendary Creature that casts spells, since now if you try to counterspell Vecna and he fails his save, he can just succeed instead. It's also worth pointing out that Paladins are now the best at resisting Counterspell, and their aura also means that nearby casters will be less likely to be countered.
a small potential buff for spellcasters (a thing i definitely do not want) is a COMPLETELY fair trade for a genuinely much more fun gameplay loop IMO
We are absolutely getting on overview on the Summon changes. JC has been highlighting them so much in the videos, it's clearly something they consider very significant.
Here's hoping the following spells get nerfed: Shield - +3 at base with +1 for each upcast. Goodberry - Explicitly no longer works with Disciple of Life Conjure Animals/Woodland Beings - Keep the playtest treatment Hypnotic Pattern - Shorter duration, or give them a save at end of turn Tiny Hut - Should be either impenetrable or semipermeable, not both at the same time selectively Animate Objects - Conjure Animals treatment or heavily limit the sheer number of objects Wall of Force - 6th level or make it breakable Simulacrum - Can't cast 9th level spells
The one change they can't make here is changing *wall of force*'s level, for backwards compatibility. If a creature stat block includes *wall of force* and only up to 5th-level spell slots, for example, increasing the spell level would mean they can no longer cast it.
Good point.
Comparability is already dead
It's not even close to dead.
Yeah it is. They have changed to much to not make trying to do both versions at the same time migraines inducing
What issues do you expect to run into running a 2014 adventure with the new rules, or using a 2014 subclass with the new rules?
I thing the wording change in life cleric fixed lifeberry iirc
If the goodberry combo even broken? I thought it was just a decent combination.
It was OP compared to how ass the other healing spells were
Any nerf to shield would be welcome, but personally it just blocking one attack and then breaking is my favorite change to it. It’s kinda insane how you can get a wizard/EK to have so much AC for an entire turn
That's a good one too. Lots of good ways to balance Shield that I have seen. I fully expect them to try and spin any spell nerfs as buffs or sidegrades. So in my suggestion they would probably say something like: "Shield had an issue where you couldn't upcast it. Now you can upcast Shield and get an AC boost as high as +11!!! Totally a buff and not a nerf!"
This is my ideal Shield change. No adding to AC, no effect hanging around, just reaction to entirely block one attack that would hit.
I like 1 Attack + you can choose to concentrate for it to last until the start of your next turn. That's a solid restriction imo, and allows for fun choices in combat.
I'm hoping they make shield work after you are hit, because when I'm DMing its easier to just say the goblin attacked with a 17 does that hit. Then constantly ask this goblin is going to attack you... are you doing anything. That being said the spell definately needs a nerf. It shouldn't be a better option for a 20th level wizard (who has very little use for their many low level slots) than a 1st level wizard (who won't want to use 1/2 their daily resources to block a hit or 2). I would prefer the idea I've seen on here where it sets your AC to 16 (maybe 18?) + the spell slot used or similar. That really gets rid of the biggest issue with the spell, which is stacking it with armor.
That is how it works now actually, so you can at least save some headaches! The wording on Shield is "*1 Reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack*". The player gets to know whether they will be hit or not before casting shield. If they didn't the wording would be "*1 Reaction, which you take when you are the target of an attack*" or perhaps "*targeted by an attack*".
I wrote that incorrectly. What I mean is, i just say the goblin hit with a 17. Not he hit you ... are you going to do anything.
Wouldn't the player have to make a choice either way? If the goblin hits, it hits. The player then decides if expending a user of Shield is worth it. Unless, for some reason you're hiding the to-hit roll and the player doesn't have that information.
I roll in the open, and I believe many DMs do also. So the players already know what the monster rolled. But by how the shield spell works in 2014, I should be hidding my rolls so they don't know if the shield spell would actually help them.
The 2014 spell simply states, "\[Reaction\] ...which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell." I'm not sure how exactly that implies you should hide the roll. Am I misunderstanding you?
they can activate shield after they see the hit number, just not after the damage is rolled
I always liked the idea that the Wall of Force could negate any damage to it up to a certain threshold, if you could hit it with Physical Force (or force damage, but not elemental), of a X damage in a single hit, you can break it. And allow Sneak Attack against is, because frankly, the idea that a rogue looks at a Wall of Force and then stabs in a certain spot to break it because they hit a weak spot feels totally like a Rogue thing.
Shield is fine when cast by an unarmored wizard or sorcerer with a base AC of 15 or 16 plus magic items at higher level. It only becomes a problem when you get characters with medium armor and shield pushing their AC up to 24 and beyond. The nerf I'd like to see is some sort of mutual exclusivity with physical armor and shields.
Yeah, I mean they do it with Mage Armor already. That would make a good deal of sense.
it's especially problematic for high AC builds because they both have less resource strain casting it every time they get hit since they get hit less, and having it means that they will essentially never be hit unless they are crit
A defensive Eldritch Knight will have a baseline AC of 18 (full plate) + 2 (shield) + 1 (fighting style) and can bump that to 26 for the round on demand, not counting magical items. As a DM it's annoying to challenge that character while not annihilating the rest of the party, in a way that doesn't make it feel like the EK is being targeted. But at the same time they're still just a Fighter so it's not really that big of an issue. When full spellcasters combo armor and shield and the Shield spell and magic items to become untouchable, that's the real problem.
Wouldn't that make it useless for eldritch knight builds, for example? Could you not just lower the bonus it gives you to +2 or +3 and give it a +1 bonus per level upcast? That gives casters AC that sits around 16 - 17 for a round with a higher resource potential boost to 19 - 20. This still keeps them relatively squishy while giving some gish builds a chance to stay in melee.
Even just having it last til end of the current turn instead of the start of your next turn would fix it enough.
Shield is also fine when cast by fully armored and shielded gishes. The problem is that wizards should never been allowed armor with nk casting penalties in the firs tplace.
It feels like multiclassing should have a rule that your spell DC and attack are a bit lower if you gain the armor prof from the first level, which goes away if you invest in the multi class more.
I think your hopes for the Shield and Tiny Hut changes are baseless, but the other spells probably will change. I wouldn’t be shocked if Wall of Force was nerfed in the manner of Banishment, now requiring a save that you can repeat on your turns. Animate Objects and Simulacrum would also fit more with the new spells if they summoned a stat block rather than creating more customizable creatures.
Shield- +5 is not that strong and WotC is at least careful not to give this magic to the wrong classes, like the Paladin. Also +1 at higher levels is OP. Goodberry- Only nourish a person for 4 hours. At least it will be punishing for the player who uses this for the survival of a group. D&D ONE (5.5) has already removed the abuse between this spell and the Cleric Disciple of Life's initial feature. Hypnotic Pattern- This spell is not OP. It's a save or suck and its saves are relatively common to pass (WIS). Additionally, creatures immune to being charmed are immune to this spell as well. Its only difference is that it hits many enemies, but anyone who passes the spell spends their action to wake up someone else. It is necessary to understand that save or suck spells need to have more powerful effects than "normal" to be worth using. Tiny Hut- I don't think this spell is OP because it can't be used in battle and, despite its many good benefits, it doesn't guarantee that you won't be located (you can still be seen and are affected by non-magical forms of detection) and the the magic disappears the moment you leave the dome. So in a "lucky" scenario where, for example, enemies appear for a battle and the bard is under the effect of this spell, he is immune to damage but cannot do anything else unless an ally appears on the bard's side and inside the dome to be able to be healed or receive inspiration. But I admit that it's worth a nerf like "spells of a level higher than that cast by this spell affect or destroy the dome in case of damage". Animate Object- I honestly don't know what the complaint is about this spell. It is very difficult to use at its fullest. Also, her level is relatively high and is not anyone's priority choice. Wall of Force- On this I completely agree. I would establish that each wall area has 50 HP and goes up by 10 with each higher level. Simulacrum- I don't even know how anyone can think of this spell as OP when it is very difficult to even cast and even more maintain. If, on a beautiful campaign day, I was given the opportunity to cast this spell, I would to make a Simulacrum to be a personal assistant who stays at a base where I live (Bastion D&D ONE system?) while I adventure. Besides, the simulacrum is relatively easy to kill for such a high cost. Conjure Based Spells- It's an unpopular opinion but I hate current conjuration spells. In addition to moving away from the purpose and fun of the original spell, it is very abusive, causing a lot of additional damage for little cost. If they wanted a way to nerf conjure animals and other spells, WotC did it completely wrong in my opinion. It would be much simpler and more logical to eliminate the possibility of doing 8 conjurations, reduce the time to 10 minutes and at higher levels (every two levels), increase the challenge rating by 1. Doing so, at the ninth level of conjuring animals for example , the most you could make is four CR3 creatures. This way, it would maintain the charm of the original proposal without the druid creating an army of beasts or feys or elementals... In short, this logic can be applied to any minor conjuration spell. Greater conjuration spells were never OP.
Simulacrum has 2 problems: for one, all of its limitations are lifted if you’re accessing it through the wish spell, so anyone with access to wish (an obvious pick for any wizard or sorcerer) has access to the cheesy infinite loop that will break your game in half. Second, even when used on its own it has a destabilizing effect on the game. If you have a simulacrum back at base (something I’d also like to do with my wizard since the king is hounding him to spend less time ignoring his duties at home lol), then the players can now, on a whim, cakewalk any encounter by having a fully stocked high level caster airdrop into the situation. It makes it very difficult to manage tension or have a dramatic encounter in that environment, unless you assume it will be involved and compensate for the added firepower, but that’s essentially forcing the player to burn through the simulacrum quickly and waste the resources they spent to get it. The spell all but requires a gentleman’s agreement between the dm and player to simply expend the simulacrum’s resources immediately or not really use it at all until the final boss or another suitable climax.
What you said is super valid and made me think carefully about the Simulacrum spell. But even so, I don't think it's worthy of her to demand to be fixed. In the first scenario, it seems more like a "Wish" scenario being a problem than a "Simulacrum", but wish is the most OP spell in the game so how do you nerf it without ruining the fun? Could it be "You mustn't choose to cast the same spell more than once per use of the wish spell"? I confess I don't know. You said it very well about the second scenario: It has to be discussed between player and master so as not to ruin anyone's fun. The zero rule is there to ensure that everyone can have equal fun and many do not see it as a resource to solve problems when they arise.
My prediction is that every single one of the ranger's concentration spells will remain concentration, and it will continue to interfere with hunter's mark. Please prove me wrong, JC.
I just hope that the "Conjure X" spells from UA survived intact, if a bit tweaked. I freaking loved the aura design of it, and it made playing a druid feel like a real bad ass damage dealer.
I feel like this is going to be the most controversial video, somehow. Just a lot more moving parts to have opinions about. I predict that I personally will enjoy and roll with whatever they do, but that's just how I've been approaching the whole process. Game looks overall much more fun, so even if a few spells aren't what I want, I don't think I'll miss it.
It's really hard to know what to expect. On one hand, they have successfully identified and nerfed some of the top-line power options in the game. On the other hand, spell balancing is something where you really need to have an eye on the numbers, and this design team has shown over and over again that they are perfectly happy with numbers being vaguely "close enough" / ballpark.
I think it's interesting that I agree with everything you said, but I don't think your "on the other hand" is very negative at all. Close Enough is the alternative to crunching every possibility against every other. They can't really patch it like a video game, so some level of "close enough" has to be acceptable.
Let’s see if those cowards nerf fireball
Instructions unclear, buffing Lightning Bolt
Right? Lightning bolt should be 8d6. There's literally no reason fireball shouldn't be 6d6 when it has that giant AoE, and you have a spell like lightning bolt that does the same damage but is just a line.
Exactly. Fireball itself isn’t too bad, it just outdoes every other damage spell for a long time after you get it. It’s a must-pick, and that sucks.
Yeah I immediately homebrewed that shit in my games to 6d6
I can plausibly see this happening. The major thing balancing it before was how everything and its mum had fire immunity, and they broadly seem to be moving away from that design philosophy.
They said Wizard is getting new, Wizard-exclusive spells. So I'm guessing that's the part of the video where you'll see Crawford actually excited. And it's very possible they'll reintroduce Create/Modify Spell here.
Nerfing Fireball and then introducing mechanics to craft your own busted spells would be hilarious and on-brand.
I’m guessing this will be at least partly about changes to spellcasting RULES, rather than just spells themselves.
I don't think counter spell will be like the play test version because Abjuration Wizard gets a special ability that recovers their spell slot on a failed casting, which would be redundant if play test counter spell remains unchanged. I'm going to make a bold prediction that bonus action spell casting rule will be done away with completely.
I think you misunderstand The counterspell returns the spellslot of the enemy that you countered if it succeeds Abjurstion counterspell refunds YOUR spellslot if you fail
I really hope True Strike joined Guidance and Resistance as a Reaction Cantrip that adds 1d4 (to an attack roll). Flesh out the family and actually make it useful
OK so I think my predictions did well enough
Honestly I've been so underwhelmed by all of this. Seriously think about going all in on DC20
K
Treantmonk riding WoTC is crazy
I would Like to see Constitution get a bit of a buff in that you can hold as many concentration spells as your con modifier. It would give more decisions on spell usage and make spell casters think more of how to spend their level ups
That’s a terrible decision. Holding multiple concentration spells is the single fastest way to break the game
Most casters wouldnt have that great of a con stat anyway as most invest in dex to try and have a passable ac with mage armor or don't have the points to over invest with the amount of setup. 16 con would need 3 rounds to set everything up and I doubt any caster is getting 18 con ever, especially if the new feats are as good as they look like they are going to be
Constitution is quite literally the first or second most important stat for most optimized casters. Especially with armor dips becoming more available with the new Medium Armor Master feature. This would be insane at any table where people are even slightly building strong casters and would break core gameplay design. Layering low level control/buff spells would become insane. Damage would also likely become really high but the big issues would be control/buffs imo.
A- if you made this change, Casters would immediately start prioritizing CON. B- Casters can cast a lot of spells before going into a combat. A cleric casting Bless and Spirit Guardians would be both empowering their party and doing incredible damage themselves while simultaneously self buffing their own concentration checks.
One of the most one sided stomps I have ever seen against a BBEG was when a 3.5 cleric and party had 10 rounds to prepare before the BBEG got there. The Player of the Cleric spent a few minutes writing down the list of buffs they wanted to put on in a Specific order to optimize their power. It was... crazy. And that wasn't counting the buffs the rest of the casters in the party threw on people.
So, what's funny is that you can still kinda do this in 5e with enough prep time and money. You can load up multiple Glyph of Warding spells with buffs then pop them all at once since they don't require concentration.
With hours of time vs. rounds though.
With a very normal +2 Con mod, a wizard could do the Microwave(TM) all by themselves. Pick up Metamagic Adept and they could do it in one turn if the implied bonus action casting rule does get removed.
Con is just about every full caster's secondary stat, sometimes even primary stat, and with your suggested change becomes the primary stat for even more of them. After War Caster, the only key feat for most casters is Resilient: Con. Some concentration spells require setup turns in combat, but others don't. You could have four summoning spells active at once to eviscerate everything for the next hour.
ah yes, let's make the most powerful classes even stronger for some reason??
This is not “a bit of a buff.” This would fundamentally change everything about how combat functions, and make casters even MORE ridiculously powerful compared to martials than they already are.
Casters should be nerfed, not incredibly buffed. They already do too much.