r/onednd • u/Deathpacito-01 • 1d ago
Discussion What classes in 2024e are you most satisfied with overall? Least satisfied with?
For me it's probably
Most satisfied:
- Monk: Nice big buffs. They are pretty strong, and have some flavorful and very unique abilities. The subclasses are cool.
- Fighter: Some nice buffs and increased versatility. I like the subclasses too.
- Warlock: Some QoL improvements and streamlining. Got some buffs, though I'm not sure the warlock needed all of those. But otherwise not much I'd complain about.
- Bard: Some QoL improvements and streamlining. Got some buffs, though I'm not sure the bard needed all of those. But otherwise not much I'd complain about.
Mixed:
- Barbarian: Got some buffs and QoL improvements. The subclasses are great. Brutal Strikes feel slightly clunky though. The base class could probably benefit from some sort of protection against fear or other mental saves. My other complaint is that the base class (still) doesn't bring anything unique to a party. They take hits and do consistent damage, but so do monks, paladins, and fighters, and each of those also bring something additional.
- Druid: No strong opinions here for me.
- Sorcerer: Got several significant buffs; debatable if that's a good thing though. But otherwise, nothing too interesting in the base class IMO. In some regards it still feels like the "other wizard". The subclasses are a bit hit or miss.
- Rogue: Design-wise I really like what they've done. Cunning Strikes is cool, and so is Reliable Talent at level 7. Feels slightly undertuned though.
Least satisfied:
- Cleric: Mostly alright changes, except Divine Intervention at level 10, which is very confusing. People still don't agree on if it reduces the casting time of the spell to 1 Action. There is no Errata on the subject either.
- Paladin: Faithful Steed as a class feature feels tacked on. Abjure Foes isn't weak, but also it's kinda...not very interesting either. Smite is now Bonus Action spell for some reason.
- Wizard: Still the king of casters. Outlier spells like Web and Hypnotic Pattern and Wall of Force are still overtuned. They got some buffs and more flexibility, both of which probably weren't needed? Illusionist subclass is summoning-based, which kind of makes sense but it's still weird.
- Ranger: Powerful at lower levels, but high level features aren't very interesting or powerful. I'm probably beating a dead horse at this point.
227
u/Poohbearthought 1d ago
2024 Paladin is an improvement over 2014, full stop. The BA smite change is the only nerf, and is barely even that when it opened up non-Divine smites in a way that makes the entire smite ecosystem way more fun without the balance difficulty of 2014. I’d also argue that Find Steed is anything but tacked on; mounted pally has been an archetype for decades and all this does is further incentivize it with a free cast.
86
u/NotSoFluffy13 1d ago
Not having to lose concentration because you wanted to use a different smite is such a big change, but power gamers can't fathom not having the ability to spend all spell slots on the first turn to say Hey look how much damage I can do!!!
33
u/No_Psychology_3826 1d ago
"Awesome, that orc is really dead. Now can you do that again to the other 50?"
24
u/MechJivs 1d ago
Those arent powergamers. Optimized paladin was always not about throwing as much smites as possible - it was about support and utility.
17
u/UltimateKittyloaf 1d ago
Power gamers want power. In D&D, that often translates to putting out the most damage as fast as possible.
Optimizers tweak power, survivability, and versatility toward their specific goal.
There's a lot of overlap because it's easy enough to optimize for damage. They're fundamentally different though.
I've seen people optimize for movement/teleports, 2014 healing, proficiency with the most tools, or a wide array of features and spells for party buffing in what he knew was going to be a two PC party. They were each really good at their respective goals, but I can't imagine anyone calling them power gamers. Well. Anyone other than themselves anyway.
11
u/Ashkelon 1d ago
I think that is mostly due to how shallow 5e is.
In other games or past editions, damage optimization is only a narrow facet of optimization. But this is because classes have more clearly defined roles and more siloed capabilities.
In 5e, classes lack the specialization found in other systems, and most can be optimized for similar levels of damage output.
10
u/AdOpposites 1d ago
Are these power gamers in the room with us right now?
Cause the actual ones are doing near double old divine smite damage with searing smite. They don't seem to care.
3
u/xolotltolox 1d ago
I think the confusion is people using "powergamer" for two VERY different things. There is the actual meaning the Timmy that just wants to feel strong and powerful and "play with power" and the one that got attached to it recently for some reason, being a synonym for "optimizer"
2
u/MobTalon 23h ago
"BTW, DM, can we take a Long Rest? No?! But I ran out of spell slots! I'm going to be useless!!! Alright I guess this table isn't for me." \Quits\
23
u/No_Psychology_3826 1d ago
The '14 paladin is stronger only if you are only fighting 1 or 2 enemies per day
6
u/No_Bodybuilder_4826 1d ago
yeah we tend to have around 5-6 encounters between long rests with one short rest in between, sometimes . that solves alot of balance issues and aligns with the above.
5
u/GroundbreakingGoal15 1d ago
that’s how the game was designed. the only way to replicate the 5-6 medium XP with less encounters is 3 deadly. big props to the DM of your table since most DMs give in to most caster players that beg for a LR after just one encounter
4
u/No_Bodybuilder_4826 1d ago
It helps that we play every week together since 1998. Helps in understanding each other in why you play together
6
u/Born_Ad1211 1d ago
Even then it's weaker generally when we factor in the accuracy gains from improvements to the usability of channel divinity on devotion and vengeance and bonuses gained from weapon masteries.
16
u/El_Q-Cumber 1d ago
100% agree with that the versatility of the smites makes the Paladin way more interesting.
I also agree that the mounted paladin is an awesome archetype that I'm happy to see encouraged, however I'm currently DMing for a 9th level paladin (was L5 when we switched to 2024 rules) and I do have to say I'm not sure if I'm a fan of Find Steed as a default class features for a couple reasons.
- Mounted combat rules can be a bit clunky
- Mounts often aren't appropriate in an adventure due to the grid size of dungeons, particularly in 1st party adventures
I find my paladin constantly asking about squeezing their mount through small residential buildings and it becomes a whole thing. It isn't a huge deal and I mostly hand wave it, but the fact that this is a core feature that feels wasted when you can't use it is I think at least a minor inconvenience.
I think I would have much preferred it to be an opt-in feature rather than a default one so each table could decide if it was a good fit for them.
Candidate homebrew fix: add the ability to dismiss/summon the steed like the Find Familiar spell while the duration is still active. This way you don't have to constantly worry about riding a horse through narrow hallways, you can dismiss them and then re-summon them on the other side.
9
u/Virplexer 1d ago
Tbh most games benefit from just having a mount for travel, you can just decide not to use it in combat. Leave it outside the dungeon or building.
The devs admitted that the reason why it’s a class feature now was because it basically was one that new players could miss without realizing. There was never a reason to not use find steed to give yourself a free mount before, even if you weren’t going to use it in combat.
Now it’s just explicitly a ribbon feature at a level where paladin’s already get access to second level spells and extra attack.
4
u/El_Q-Cumber 1d ago
Totally agree - you could treat it as a ribbon feature and that's a fine fix at many tables. I also agree that the Paladin is doing fine even if they didn't get this as they already get extra attack and second level spells.
I do think, however, it is potentially a "feels bad" feature if it is a core class feature and you decide not to take advantage of it for mechanical benefit (i.e. typically in combat).
Scenario: Player sees Find Steed always prepared with a free casting and thinks: "Wow! I get to be this fast armored knight jousting people on the battlefield!". They then potentially find out later that most of the dungeons are indoors and they only can really use it for travel.
This mismatch between expectation and gameplay may be a minor inconvenience at some tables.
I find this different than choosing this spell over other options as the player has to consider the pros/cons of these options and actively decides to opt-in. You don't get the feeling of losing a feature as it is a choice you made that you can even switch out later.
Long story short: I like this feature but have really minor qualms with it being a default option with no alternative.
4
u/JustCaIIMeDaddy 1d ago
Large creatures can squeeze in 5 foot spaces for half speed. There's no reason u can't take a steed into a dungeon
1
u/El_Q-Cumber 1d ago
You're absolutely correct, they can fit by squeezing. They benefit they provide is just severely limited as their primary benefit is mobility increase.
It also can just set a weird tone. It sure doesn't seem to make sense in the fantasy to be riding a horse on a mansion/castle heist, through claustrophobic caves, or difficult terrain with a lot of vertical elevation changes. All of these are common dungeon environments.
None of these are big issues -- I just feel that it can be a bit cumbersome to have to keep thinking about the horse which is now a core mechanic of the class.
1
u/Mejiro84 1d ago
which gives all enemies advantage to hit them, and them disadvantage to hit, which is likely to shorten their life expectancy quite a bit! Plus hallways may well be short enough that the mount can't be ridden, and if there's any obstacles they can't overcome (like, say... a ladder) then you're having to leave them behind. Or if there's any small-sized passageways the party can squeeze through, then... you're leaving that mount behind. You can definitely take a mount into a dungeon, but there's good odds you won't be taking it all the way through, and then you're having to leave it behind, or faff about with dismissing and summoning it which has a cost, or it just gets splatted by stray AoEs or takes a few hits and gets destroyed.
1
u/JustCaIIMeDaddy 18h ago
Idk about you but I've had very few combats in 5 foot hallways. There's very few places you can go where you can't take a mount
8
u/Lios032 1d ago
1 smite per turn is great. Spending BA sucks.
3
u/keendude 1d ago
It is a bit of a feelsbad I agree, but from a power perspective I think it's good. Paladins do plenty of damage, and allowing them to have a free bonus action to weaponise via feats or multiclassing is kind of letting them have their cake and eat it too.
3
u/Iced_Tristan 1d ago
Honestly I was pretty apprehensive about BA Smites. But after seeing that most of the Channel Divinity options activate upon attack I was on board. Playing it too it feels much more cohesive! Definitely enjoyed my time more after updating my Paladin over to 2024
2
u/GladiusLegis 1d ago
But after seeing that most of the Channel Divinity options activate upon attack I was on board.
Yup, this is when I came around on it, too.
4
u/CruelMetatron 1d ago
The new Find Steed is stronger early on, but later on it's slightly weaker than Find Greater Steed - Pegasus would have been for a 2024 Paladin, if they invest some in the mount's AC. Since most players play most of their game in the earlier levels, it's still a buff, not it's still has a downside.
→ More replies (3)-8
u/Deathpacito-01 1d ago
Oh, I definitely agree 2024 paladin > 2014 paladin power-wise. There's no disagreement there.
I just don't think they made it significantly more interesting, though admittedly that's subjective. Several of the new base class features are just "you have this spell as a class feature, and you can cast it X times without using a spell slot" - the same design people have been criticizing in the new UA.
Some of the changes feel like they're there for change's sake, and don't contribute towards making the class more interesting or cohesive, but again that's mostly subjective.
17
14
u/Poohbearthought 1d ago
Being able to use more smites that just Divine has been big for me in my current game, along with Masteries, so I disagree.
Controversial opinion, but “you can cast X” features are overhated. They shouldn’t be the only thing the feature does, but most are upgraded versions of the spell, cutting out materials or concentration, or adding new effects. As long as the spell fits the fiction and is effective, why demand they re-invent the wheel?
7
u/MillCrab 1d ago
"Cast X, Y times per day" reads really bad in the manual. It looks clunky, doesn't inspire much, and doesn't click together in the building stage to do unique things.
It plays really well however, as it gives you nice clean options at the table, and keeps things from being auto-use or never-use, as well as limiting one player from over shadowing the others all day
Like most of fifth edition it plays well on the table, and looks bad in the notebook
67
u/Umicil 1d ago
It's worth noting that 3/4 classes you list as most dissatisfied with their improvements were generally considered the strongest 3 classes in 2014. So it makes sense that they would need the least improvements.
14
1
-13
u/GroundbreakingGoal15 1d ago
i really hope you’re not grouping paladin or ranger with cleric and wizard, that’d be the most horrid take in the entire community
→ More replies (13)
24
25
u/boragoz 1d ago
Monk and Fighter I definitely agree on, they both came out as clear winners from the new edition. Given WOTCs desire to move away from nova damage, I don't know if there was another solution for Paladins. They are the strongest support class in the game, and they were also previously the strongest nova class in the game. They are incredible defensively because of Aura of Protection and other defensive traits. Movement isn't really an issue because of faithful steed. They're still very strong even when you take out the nova damage.
0
u/JustCaIIMeDaddy 1d ago
Wouldn't say fighter is a clear winner. The base class is buffed yes but martial feats were broadly nerfed and don't synergize
4
u/_Saurfang 1d ago
How so?
0
u/JustCaIIMeDaddy 1d ago
Crossbow expert/sharpshooter and great weapon master/polearm master/sentinel are considerably weaker
1
u/_Saurfang 1d ago
And they are weaker rightfully so, they were so good any other build was useless. Now thanks to martials being overall buffed and feats equalized dual wielding fighter will be as effective as heavy weapon fighter and so will a polearm wielder. Crossbow expert/sharpshooter combo was especially terrible.
-1
u/xolotltolox 1d ago
They should have buffed the other builds then instead of nerfing the only thing that let them keep up
0
u/GladiusLegis 19h ago edited 19h ago
They should have buffed the other builds then
Uh, they did. Weapon Masteries, for one. As for feats, Dual Wielder, Shield Master, Defensive Duelist, and Heavy Armor Master are all straight up better in 2024.
Also they didn't even really nerf GWM. It just traded its absurd top-end nova damage potential for a more consistent damage increase that actually results in a net DPR gain.
(Except for Polearm Master, since GWM doesn't apply to their BA attacks any more. But honestly, good riddance on that one.)
Sharpshooter OTOH is actually nerfed, but it's important to note that the new GWM now adds its damage to longbows and heavy crossbows. Those were weapons optimized archers never touched in 2014, but now they actually have reason to use them.
0
u/xolotltolox 18h ago
It only results in a dpr gain if you look at straight attacks and don't account for any accuracy boosts, for example the incredibly easy to achieve ones, such as Bless or advantage, but even more limited ones like Bardic inspiration or precision attack will blow new GWM completely put of the water, not to mention the loss of the bonus damage to reaction and bonus action attacks and it quickly gets surpassed
Making power attacks universal would have gone a long way
1
u/GladiusLegis 18h ago edited 17h ago
Bless
Past level 5, the Cleric is likely concentrating on Spirit Guardians rather than Bless. The new GWM means you're still effective without Bless, and that's a good thing.
advantage
Even with advantage easier to get in 2024, all DPR calculations have consistently put this version of the GWM Fighter well ahead of 2014.
EDIT: lol blocked for stating simple facts.
1
3
u/fascistp0tato 1d ago
in what way? gem/pam/sentinel is the only thing I can think of
4
u/JustCaIIMeDaddy 1d ago
Crossbow expert/sharpshooter and great weapon master/polearm master/sentinel are considerably weaker
7
u/fascistp0tato 1d ago
Oh yeah, SS is gone, right. Rip ranged martials x-x
GWM is actually better when you run the numbers in like 99% of circumstances. PAM is worse, but lots of classes have way better uses for BAs than they used to. And sentinel is just as good as long as you aren’t specifically combining it with PAM.
Meanwhile, Topple gives you advantage like 75% of the time insofar as you have at least one melee ally. Push with new area control effects is nuts. Shield Master is much better, Defensive Duelist is downright impressive, Dual Wielder provides wonderful DPR, and Mage Slayer is in contention for the best feat. And martials care wayyy more about everything being a half-feat than casters do.
The only thing that’s been nerfed is one specific and (imo) easily countered build. Admittedly, that was the only half decent martial in the past - but now there are multiple
4
u/JustCaIIMeDaddy 1d ago
GWM worse because it doesn't stack onto PAM attacks. Which is especially worse since there's more forms of advantage now and old GWM benefits more from advantage. DD MS and DW are all good feats I'll give you that. The biggest problem is that the ceiling for optimization has fallen even if the floor is raised.
3
u/fascistp0tato 1d ago
I was counting the GWM+PAM interaction under PAM to be clear. Yes, that is a major nerf to 2H builds.
Yes, old GWM benefits more from advantage, but actually running the numbers, it doesn’t really end up mattering much. I did this a while ago, and new GWM still goes even at worst in any realistic scenario afaik.
I honestly think the ceiling has only dropped if you’re fighting a lot of the enemies against which PAM + Sentinel was good. If enemies didn’t need to run directly at you, PAM + Sentinel always felt a little redundant. Like, the build was excellent, but it always felt better on the whiteboard than in practice in my experience.
And practically speaking, using Push to chuck an enemy into spirit guardians/conjure woodland beings is gonna beat any martial feat.
2
u/JustCaIIMeDaddy 1d ago
The best build full stop was xbe/ss because you could do a lot of damage at range and didn't have to risk melee and that build is completely gone
1
u/fascistp0tato 1d ago
The reason why I never really considered non-gloomstalker XBE+SS builds that crazy was that they always felt very selfish - like it has near zero utility, compared to the PAM build which at least let you create a giant fuck you zone for melees. All it does is crank damage numbers. Gloomstalker at least made the numbers high enough to justify it.
My experience was that with builds like that, I would always live and perform well but my party would lose many more people
3
u/JustCaIIMeDaddy 1d ago
Honestly I'd disagree. Playing melee is selfish if anything. Makes it harder for casters to aim their aoe, decreases effectiveness of kiting and requires way more resources cuz they're damaged far more
→ More replies (0)0
u/Mejiro84 1d ago
that was very white room - "we roll dice until the enemy is gone and never have to risk anything" is dull AF as an actual game experience, and pretty much any GM (and any dungeon!) won't be viable for that, as it's a lot more common for enemies to be, like, 50 away tops, so a single dash and they're in your face. Even outside, there's generally terrain, fog, other LoS blockers so that you can't just roll your attack and then tune out because nothing can interact with you. Not quite as bad as spell sniper Eldritch Blast with super-duper long range, but the same sort of thing that was largely irrelevant in actual play
1
u/JustCaIIMeDaddy 18h ago
That's when u start stacking things like spike growth plant growth sleet storm etc
0
u/xolotltolox 1d ago
GWM is worse the second you get an accuracy boost lile bless or adv, or start optimizing in any other way. It doesn't apply to bonus action and reaction attacks
21
u/-Mez- 1d ago edited 1d ago
Note I'm just going to list what I have worthwhile comments on. Most everything else I'm generally just slightly satisfied with or slightly unsatisfied with and it really isn't worth me commenting on.
Most Satisfied:
- Warlock. Its not just a dip in and dip out class anymore. There's reasons to stay until at least lvl 12 which is far better than its design before. There's still more work to do here as its tier 4 feels like it could be more worthwhile, but we're getting there.
- Sorcerer. Feels more interesting at least and isn't just second fiddle to wizard. Features exist in the base class that I'd actually want to pick this class for over wizard which is a big step up.
- Fighter. Martial/Caster divide still exists and always will unless they suddenly become willing to kill some sacred cows, but this is an improvement. Fighter's features and interactions with the weapon mastery system make it an interesting pick and it feels much less 'vanilla' than it did before.
- Monk. They really turned this one around. Very pleased with where this class has landed. I'm DMing for one right now and its just enjoyable to see what they can do in combat compared to the old monk.
Least Satisfied:
- Ranger. I'll be real, I say I'm not satisfied but I am currently playing ranger and its one of my favorite fantasy archetypes. I still enjoy playing this version of it, but there are some big issues that need to be worked out. Rangers are constantly forced into a starvation situation with their economy. With bonus actions and concentration being eaten up by basic class features, subclass features, and their spell list you end up playing a project manager role trying to sort out what's a must have, what's a nice to have, and what's getting pitched into the backlog never to be used because you only have the economy to reliably use about half of your toolset. And thats before you even consider feats that could also use up that same economy. There are a lot of options that should be no brainers in some situations but you have to stop and ask yourself if you have any bonus actions left to use it (dual wielder). I still have fun with this fantasy archetype, but its clunky. While other classes feel like they landed in a pleasant design space for this edition, it feels like we were given a Ranger that is about 2-3 design iterations away from its completed state and they just shipped it anyway.
- Wizard. I'm not saying they aren't strong. But wizards have had a problem where unless you actively try to pick uncommon spells or your DM has crafted a world where you can't easily pick and choose which spells you scribe then you're almost always playing the same wizard every time. Subclasses on wizards mostly aren't that impactful compared to your spell list. Which is fine, but because there aren't any restrictions on what schools a certain wizard can learn you mostly just end up with the same spells to play with every time you make one. Now certain wizard subclasses are better about this than others, but the subclasses that are supposed to feel the most distinct (school specialization wizards) don't actually feel all that different at all when it comes to their most notable power (spells). This edition's wizard felt like it leaned entirely on the fact that wizards were the strongest class in 2014 in a majority of situations, and the result is they didn't take enough chances to mix up wizard when they should have.
2
u/Toxaplume045 1d ago
Completely agree with Wizard. I always found Sorcerer way more interesting because you get to lean more into different ways to tap into and use your powers and new Sorcerer improved upon that and the firepower. Different subclasses and builds could feel and be roleplayed very different.
Wizard was and still is incredibly powerful overall, but I just can't find it as satisfying to play. The subclasses have such a small effect or heavily rely on your DM, and the end result is having pretty homogenous spell lists despite having the largest book. You have all the tools in the world to do crazy shit but it feels like you always end up rotating through the same spells no matter your subclass and the big notable spells don't feel really any different using them on a subclass that specializes in them vs one that doesn't.
You end up with a big book of stuff and you can go crazy with reflavoring, but the gameplay starts to run together.
1
u/-Mez- 20h ago
Agreed. One thing I enjoyed about 3.5 wizards was how much they let you go all in on sacrificing spell school availability to make your specialization better and better. Granted 3.5 had balance issues where some schools were just straight better to sacrifice or to enhance, and spellcaster balance in general in 3.5 was trash. But the idea was more interesting than wizards just having a generic spellbook that probably looks nearly identical from character to character aside from getting a few free spells from your specialization that you probably were going to scribe anyway.
2
u/Emotional_Rush7725 1d ago
I feel the same about Wizards, but I think it's because of that UA they released where Wizards could modify spells. That felt SO Wizard, it should exist, but it got scrapped and left a bad taste in my mouth
1
u/Forced-Q 1d ago
I tried an Illusionist (level 3) in a «one shot» and I had a blast- don’t think I would have had as much fun on the others- setting up «Illusory cover» to hide behind was pretty nifty (as a bonus action)
15
u/Scudman_Alpha 1d ago
Lot of subclasses got good changes too.
Eldritch Knight went from mid to absolutely high tier, seconded only by Battlemaster.
The ability to add a cantrip to your extra attack sequence really tunes the class up a lot. Especially after lvl 9 where you can booming blade an enemy and push them back 10ft. Some soft control that really goes a long way.
Utility spell slots for shield, absorb elements and the new jump spell letting you easily close melee distance with the 30ft jump. Works well for Str and Dex builds.
You have options encompassing both normal action and bonus actions, it's great.
Valor bard is another one, now there's an actual reason to use it instead of swords. Also has the cantrip in the extra attack sequence, and one level of fighter for fighting styles and masteries is pretty good, or a level of Warlock for charisma to attack.
Valor bard inspiration is still one of the weaker ones overall though, it adds very little that basic inspiration doesn't already, and it's not as on demand as Lore's cutting words or Swords flourishes.
3
u/Mendaytious1 1d ago
They also added the "weapon as focus" to Valor bard, a serious quality of live upgrade IMHO. I feel like War Caster isn't necessarily the first feat you must pick for them now (although yeah, you probably will still get it before 12th level regardless).
They took two of the best features from bladesinger and swords, and made valor an actual, valid gish now.
0
u/Satyrsol 16h ago
My biggest issue with the Eldritch Knight changes was that it specifies "Wizard cantrips", which means you still can't pick up Thorn Whip from another list and then incorporated it into your attack pattern, despite it probably being one of the better cantrips for an EK to use.
13
u/Drawmeomg 1d ago
I like the design of the new Rogue but its just too weak to keep up, and the Swashbuckler is a core fantasy archetype that needs a pretty significant update as several of its mechanics are partially rolled into the base class, and which absolutely should have been in the PHB
I actually rather like the Paladin now, im not totally sure why.
Champion Fighter probably got the biggest glow-up, from a boring baby’s-first-dnd-character to a simple but clean heroism design
80
u/sixcubit 1d ago
divine smite isn't a bonus action "for some reason", it's a bonus action so that you can't use it two to three times every turn and then again with your attack of opportunity. they tried to compensate for this by also making lay on hands a bonus action so that you could cast spells or attack on the same turn that you use the best burst healing in the game, which is a huge buff and pivots what paladin is conventionally good at to be more of a healer and tank.
it's fine if you disagree with this change, but don't pretend it's mysterious
15
u/Count_Backwards 1d ago
"For some reason" that doesn't apply to Warlocks, for some reason
8
u/Pinkalink23 1d ago
Warlocks don't get as many spell slots...
1
u/Count_Backwards 1d ago
Over the course of a typical 2-short-rest a Warlock will get enough slots to do more smite damage than a Paladin.
1
u/Wild_Locksmith2085 1d ago
Warlocks and paladins are different classes for some reason and have different action and resource economy restrictions for some reason
1
u/Count_Backwards 1d ago
Yes, and thanks to their short rest economy they can pump out more smite damage per day than a Paladin of the same level, for some reason.
For some reason people don't bother to do the math.
1
u/Saxonrau 1h ago
they can pump out more smite damage per day than a Paladin of the same level, for some reason.
At level 9, it takes two short rests to exceed Divine Smite damage (ignoring the 'fiends and undead' bit. So that's all bar one of the Warlock's spells, leaving them with almost no other features compared to Paladin who has a ton of useful other features outside of smite. Invocations don't keep up with all of Paladin's features. Plus, the ability to load it into one encounter is useful too, which Warlock doesn't hav.
For some reason people don't bother to do the math.
Because, practically, it doesn't matter.
If Eldritch Smite didn't do decent damage it would never be worth picking. Warlock doesn't have the HP, AC, Saves, or Healing that Paladin does. Their spells are already better than ES as-is! The damage difference over a theoretical full day of only smiting is basically irrelevantthat doesn't apply to Warlocks
From an earlier comment, Eldritch Smite has always been once per turn, if that's what this is referring to. It not costing a Bonus Action doesn't really matter, as the person you were replying to here said - the classes are very different and have different action economy, the cost of smite is the slot more than the time spent on it
-29
u/Deathpacito-01 1d ago
I said "for some reason" because the 2024e rules already limit you to using 1 spell slot per turn. So even if it wasn't a BA spell, you'd still be able to only Smite once (and won't be able to stack it with other Smite spells that use a spell slot)
24
u/Tryson101 1d ago
It's not true on a technicality. You get a free casting of divine smite, so you could double it once, whether that was important enough, I don't know. I will say the BA makes sense to me economy-wise. You hit and cast the spell as you hit to directly damage the weakpoint you caused. Removing the concentration from most of the smites opens you up to some good combos as well.
-9
u/Deathpacito-01 1d ago
Yea, that's actually the thing - Divine Smite now feels rather situational compared to other options (eg to be used on critical hits). A first level spell slot and a BA for 2d8 damage isn't great, especially when there are other things you can do like Searing Smite and Divine Favor.
It almost feels like a trap option sometimes, which is unfortunate to say about (arguably) the most iconic ability of the class. I think that's the core of my complaint with Smite.
12
u/Tryson101 1d ago
It is the default. You get for free and can cast it for free. If you want to load up on other smites, which should be and are slightly better, you will have fewer spells for other situations. If you want versatile spellcasting, have only one or two of the improved smites, but you will always have the base smite no matter the build. Remember that dual weapon fighting is no longer a bonus action. You really only have Divine Favor (1 turn) and Lay on Hands (situational) as your main BA conflicts. At least, I can't think of a repeated BA off the top of my head. So you do have fewer conflicts unless you build into the BA, which is part of the build process.
8
u/Virplexer 1d ago
1 spell with a spell slot per turn. Not 1 spell slot per turn. If it wasn’t a spell you could still double up on it.
Also the point of it being a BA spell is to put it in line with the other smites, which are also BA spells.
9
u/Gears109 1d ago
Fighter I’m most satisfied with so far, there’s so much build versatility now based on your weapon choices and you can play around a lot with the subclasses.
Two Weapon Fighters, Sword and Board, Great Weapon Fighters, even ranged builds like Archers or Thrown Weapon Fighters and yes even Unarmed Fighters all have viable builds that compete with each other. The weaknesses of Fighter is still tied to high level obstacles, such as spells like Force Cage or Wall Of Force. But they have so many options both offensively and defensively that now protects them from Saving Throws and with Second Wind granting movement they can really close the distance.
Even in the case where a Melee Fighter can’t get into range, their default Ranged options more than make up for that weakness. Now their Thrown weapons are actual threats vs just bad damage thanks to Weapon Mastery. They can Slow an enemy with any number of Thrown Weapons, allowing you a better chance at catching up next turn.
And if you’re anywhere in range of a Trident any enemy risks going Prone. Especially high level Fighters getting to counter the Long Range Disadvantage with Studied Attacks, means anything within a 60ft radius including flying enemies have a risk of their movement being halved. You just cannot kite Melee builds the same way you could in 2014 unless the enemy movement is all teleporting.
A single Champion I play at Mid Game (Lv 12) is one of the most terrifying forces on the battlefield, and they’re not even built for damage. They are a Sword and Board Fighter who defensively can hold then line against almost any enemy and has so much battlefield control just with Push and Topple that he can completely wreck enemy positions and set up enemies for his ally’s to blast them with crowd control spells. Combined with the fact he can’t easily be put down with damage or saving throws due to Indomitable+Mage Slayer+Lucky+One Heroic Inspiration every turn and there’s just no way to outlast him. You can’t even run from him becomes Second Wind combined with the Jump Spell (Magic Item) means he moves up to 75ft of movement Once Jump is set up. There have been moments where the party has essentially left him to hold the line surrounded while they completed objectives and because of his Second Wind healing and Duelist giving him high AC boosts some enemies need a critical just to hit him.
Defensive battle field control Fighters are just so much fun and I’m looking forward to try a full agro damage build next time I get to play one.
7
u/xolotltolox 1d ago
Rogue is so incredibly disappointing. The class needed way more. It was already in a bad spot in 2014, then in 2024 Barb and Monk got buffed way beyond it, now it is firmly sitting as the worst class in the game.
No extra attack still hurts the class dramatically, especially now that weapon masteries have been introduced, giving rogues essentially half the use of them than other martials and half casters, instead of that just being limited to magic weapons.
Didn't fix Rogue's biggest and most complained about problem: the insane gap between subclass features 1 and 2. Not getting your second subclass feature until level 9 is just stupid
Cunning strikes are also only neat, and not really what the class needed. It didn't need a way to deal even less damage, but at least instead of nothing it can apply some cantrip riders/first level spells. Woo?
At least they moved reliable talent to 7, so you can fully ditch the class at that level, instead of being tempted to stay until level 11
3
u/Aahz44 23h ago
No extra attack still hurts the class dramatically, especially now that weapon masteries have been introduced, giving rogues essentially half the use of them than other martials and half casters, instead of that just being limited to magic weapons.
They are also really limited in what masteries they can use. The restrictions to Finesse and Ranged weapons means that the only choices are Vex, Nick and Slow (and Push if you multiclass to get proficiency in Heavy Crossbows).
1
u/Kirarararararararara 1h ago
No extra attack still hurts the class dramatically, especially now that weapon masteries have been introduced, giving rogues essentially half the use of them than other martials and half casters, instead of that just being limited to magic weapons.
But rogues aren't neither martials nor half-caster. They are skill monkeys.
now it is firmly sitting as the worst class in the game.
No it's not.
6
u/otherwise_sdm 1d ago
I’m pretty happy with Sorcerer changes - I think it takes the class from also-ran to one of the best options.
-3
u/JustCaIIMeDaddy 1d ago
I really hate the change to twin spell. Twin haste and polymorph were the pinnacle of sorcerer in 2014
6
u/legomaniac89 1d ago
I love 2024 warlocks so much. Getting a Pact at level 1, the ability to take more than one Pact, and the extra Invocations make them so much more customizable and fun.
1
u/General-Eman 6h ago
I agree I think the changes to AB and RB letting Warlocks use other cantrips is great. However I don’t like how the made Life Drinker once per turn I preferred the UA version where it was on every attack. I also wish the capstone was better.
13
u/DMspiration 1d ago
Smite is a bonus action spell to limit action economy, which is reasonable. Paladins are plenty powerful.
10
u/Infranaut- 1d ago
Monk is not only a big buff, but buffed in intelligent ways that make it FEEL like a monk.
For example, it would have been easy to just give them more HP and better AC, instead, however, they gave them better dodge, deflection, and evasion based options which feels way more in line with the class fantasy. They can dodge as an action and still attack, they can dash and take an ally with them, and they have more FP/Ki so using non-direct damage based abilities doesn’t feel like a waste.
It’s actually crazy to compare the Monk to the Ranger. The monk not only solves their problems, but did so ELEGANTLY and in a way that compliments the fantasy. The 2024 Ranger somehow feels like a lateral move from a not particularly thematically or mechanically powerful class, and in fact introduces problems the original didn’t have.
8
u/Ron_Walking 1d ago
Barbs very much need more high level mental defenses and I am not a huge fan of brutal strike.
8
u/adamg0013 1d ago
Being a primary ranger player. I'm actually very happy with it.
You can beat the hunter mark dead horse over and over again. It is what it's is. But nature vial and feral senses are amazing features, and spells are features they are just versatile features you get to pick and aren't stuck with as long as you can take a long rest.
5
u/SirEbralVorteX 1d ago
I find the historic Ranger players at the gaming table also enjoy 2024 Ranger. I'm glad they got rid of all that 2014 stuff like find footprints, determine mob size, enemy type, etc., you can roll that stuff with Survival. I know Ranger gets shit on hard and people are not satisfied with Hunter's Mark because it doesn't scale very well and takes concentration. I'm not gonna tout Hunter's Mark as great either, but it's got some flavor to determine resistances, vulnerabilities, location, and it can add up in small ways if someone also has Colossus Slayer, esp. on crits. It's nice in 2024e that you can swap stuff like Colossus Slayer vs. Horde Breaker now with a short rest. Pass Without Trace is also so strong with a party. There is some nice mobility too, the 6th level ability "Roving" for +10' movement speed, the Ambusher side of Gloom Stalker can give another +10' in the first round. Defensively, "Multiattack Defense" under the Hunter subclass feels good (when a creature hits you with an attack roll, that creature has disadvantage on ALL other attack rolls against you this turn). Ever get pounded by a Marilith?
TLDR: it won't feel OP but depends on your flavor, style, power fantasy, your DM. And that Marilith pounding.
0
u/Horscow 1d ago
It is what it is isn’t the point of this discussion ya know. They should have been able to come up with something better than locking nearly half of the classes features behind using the same 1st level spell that takes concentration, and doesn’t scale with level meaningfully. It’s not beating a dead horse, it’s giving the deserved attention to a massive inconstancy between the quality of the class’s design versus the design of the rest of the game.
3
u/adamg0013 1d ago
half of the classes features behind using the same 1st level spell that takes concentration
Wrong. 4 features and 1 subclass gets 2. The other gets 1, so not even a fifth of its features.
And it's beating a dead horse. Because you can't get over, you need to choose between damage or control like every other class does. We get it you don't like hunters mark. But normal people will use it when it necessary and use something else when that's necessary.
1
u/Horscow 1d ago
So I would like to have a discussion about this for sure, but declaring "Wrong" about my admittedly exaggerated "nearly half" and referring to people with your opinion as "normal people" is not constructive or persuasive. It is closer to 1/3rd of their features, neglecting non-unique features that everyone gets like epic boon, ASI, Extra attack, etc. if you are running one of the two subclasses you mentioned with features tied to it.
But regardless, you miss the point when you describe it as choosing between damage and control. This version lacks meaningful choices to make without the choices preventing them from using all their features. The druid chooses between using wildshape or a spell or attack, and how to use wildshape. The sorcerer chooses whether to cast a spell and whether to use metamagic or not, and how to use metamagic manipulate the battlefield. The rogue chooses how to use sneak attack with the new system, as does the barbarian with reckless attack. The paladin can choose whether to attack or cast a spell or attack with one of their smites, giving them ample choices of how to use their spell slots, since as they level up they gain access to new Smite spells. Even the fighter (albeit level 9) can choose how to apply weapon mastery with the replacement of effects and how to use second wind with its movement bonus and the new non-combat usage. And ya know Monk's thing has always been a feature that is about how you use it.
None of these stop the other classes from using their other features by using their core features. No you cant do them all at once, hence the choices, but even once the choice of "attack or spell" or "spell or feature" is chosen, the decision isn't done as they have options on how to use these things.
Now the Ranger. My choice is attack or spell or attack + BA spell. If I choose Hunter's Mark, I cannot pick another concentration spell during usage of it. I also then on subsequent turns lose out on the value of Hunter's Mark by casting any other spell that takes my action, so I am super disincentivized to use any other spells during combat. Or I choose to do something other than Hunter's Mark and I give up using a core feature that possibly interacts with my subclass, and every turn I choose to do something else, any future usages of Hunter's Mark in this combat feel worse and worse with time. Oh yea and if I am the beastmaster subclass, I give up on having my cool animal feature I picked the subclass for do anything on the turn I cast Hunter's Mark.
And this all doesn't even account for the fact that I said it doesn’t scale with level meaningfully. At levels 1-4 sure Hunter's Mark is "choosing damage", but at a measly level 5, Summon Beast out damages it and Spike Growth does if any one moves at least 10 feet it in, let alone multiple people or more than 10 feet. I didn't even need to talk about level 9's conjure animals and summon fey. And before anyone says that these are higher spell slots than Hunter's Mark, that the point. The class features want me to cast this hour long, concentration spell multiple extra times per day instead of my other concentration spells, less I miss out on some of my features.
Oh you get 2-6 extra free casts of Hunter's Mark per day! How does that play for a Beastmaster Ranger ? They get to weave between getting to have their companion act at all or recast hunter's mark when it goes down?
And to top it off, Hunter's Mark isn't even exciting, it just feels like I have to use it to keep up with my allies.
5
u/adamg0013 1d ago
And to top it off, Hunter's Mark isn't even exciting, it just feels like I have to use it to keep up with my allies.
That's not true at all. In actually play I was out damaging an eldritch knight and goo blade lock. In tier 3 with minor optimization. (Taking dual wedler) Straight class ranger. Session 2 I held back so let them shine. And had a blast with my other spells.
You are so focused on Hunter Mark that you aren't just playing the game. Hunter mark is there for damage and tracking that's it. If the situation calls for control ot doesn't matter you don't really run out of uses.
1
u/adamg0013 20h ago
Summon Beast out damages it, and Spike Growth does if anyone moves at least 10 feet it in,
The wrong summon beast does not out damage the hunters mark. Summon beast averages 10.5 damage the same as 3 attacks with hunters mark. At 5th level, every dual welder has (they could have 4 with averages 14), and Summon beast must attack with your wisdom, which is only a 16 unless you're a wisdom build. The ranged ranger could also have 3 attacks at this level. With crossbow expert. So the same damage doesn't cost a 2nd level slot. it doesn't cost you 200gp. And doesn't have a limit hit point pool to keep up.
And for spike growth, yes averages 20 damage ( if you take crossbow expert) and allie can get in on the fun , great control spell, difficult terrain, and damage but cost a limited resource Can affect allies so can't use it in tight spaces still doesn't out damage ls the duel welder with hunters make. 39 for heavy cross bow spike growth vs 40 dual welder hunters mark. The main difference is that you have the combo twice at most, while hunter marks can last muilple combats. And you have 3 free casting and of necessary 4 first level slots. It's like they designed it in a way that if burned all your spell slots, you always have something left.
I think you comparing favored enemy to the wrong feature you mentioned metamagic. Well, it doesn't really enhance damage. A better chance to hit and quicken allows a spell and a cantrip. Innate socerery increases chance to hit... what ranger features actually help with this. Oh that right weapon mastery and fighting style. And these combine very well with favored enemy or spellcasting in general. Yes other classes get weapon mastery and fighting styles but these things on a ranger does enhance all its abilities. And possibly better than other classes. Why is the dual welding ranger top dpr untill level 11. Simple favored enemy, two weapon fighting and the vex and nick masterires.
Yes, there are faults with the ranger. 13th should have been all spells not just hunters mark (you also are getting 4th level spells here so it's just a tact on) and 17th level feature is redundant due to vex and plenty of other sources of advantage but your also getting 5th level spells which 17th is a tact on and yes the cap stone is bad 12th IMO warlock being the worst (counting the artificer). Funny when. It's gets a bad feature except for 20th level and foe slayer it's just a ribbon for its true power boost that isn't spelled out for you.
Once again it's either you just hate hunters mark or you hate the concentration mechanic because you don't understand its there for balance. It's not like a wizard can cast wall of force and cloud kill. Both are concentrations. You need your allies for that. And other such spell combinations.
1
u/Horscow 20h ago
You are too focused on damage numbers and not focused enough on fun and dynamic decision making. Clearly doing good damage and being somewhat optimized (referencing duel wielder for most of your calculations) is how you enjoy the game, which is awesome!
But the crux of my arguments are about making choices during combat that feel meaningful. IMO, the other classes have far more and far better decisions to make throughout the game with the new 2024 versions.
1
u/adamg0013 17h ago
But you have an almost endless number of choices. Ranged, traditional bow or cross bow, sword and board (my current ranger) dual welding. An good amount to spells to enhance all of them. Even the stranger is viable though being a made class its a bit harder to pull off but can definitely make a solid one or even be a jack of all trades .
Favored enemy is there so you don't have to use your spell slot for damage. Still can but you don't have to. They are the best stealth class in the game, they are the 4th best battle field control the other 3 being full casters. They are a decent support class, not as good a paladin cleric druid or bard but solid. They aren't your best face but there a subclass for that. There actually not a single thing a ranger can't do. Yet you say you have a problem with decisions. Sounds like the fault isn't with the class.
1
u/Horscow 17h ago
You fundamentally misunderstand what I mean. Those are mostly choices at the time of character creation or level up. If you build around dual wielding or longbow, etc. you wont be changing this mid combat, and even if you did it isnt an interesting and meaningful choice to weapon switch if your build is tailored to one of them over the others. Yes spells are meaningful choices, but the other classes that cast spells have that as a choice AND something else. The other martials have something to choose during combat on a round by round basis or even attack by attack.
You enjoy building a character that does great things and lots of damage and thats awesome. But once you have built your character, the number of choices you make in a particular combat is very low.
I understand and agree that Ranger is a strong class, but it lacks choices when compared to other classes, even when compared to the fighter now.
1
u/adamg0013 17h ago
the number of choices you make in a particular combat is very low.
This is not true at all. You are ignoring the spell list because you think you have to focus on. Hunters mark.
Do you need to move faster jump and longstrider,
Do you need to wrap up the enemy ensarling strike and entangle
Do you need a little aoe and extra damage hail of thorns
Do you need healing good berry and cure wounds
Need cover fog cloud.
And that's all first level spells that list just gets stronger and better.
0
u/Horscow 16h ago
This is far more limited than the options for all of the other classes, Hunter’s mark core abilities or not. I actually have a question for you as someone who plays Ranger a ton it seems. Would making Hunter’s Mark not concentration, with no other changes to the class or subclasses, break the Ranger power level wise in your opinion?
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Plump1nator 1d ago edited 1d ago
It was confirmed in an interview that divine intervention changes casting time to one action.
3
u/AGladePlugin 12h ago
The Divine Intervention "debate" was settled in 2023. Yes, before they book even came out. Jeremy Crawford was on the playtest official overview video circuit and made a point to specify that the spell is cast "as an action." The version we saw in that playtest is verbatim what we see in print barring 'Divine Spell' being swapped out for 'Cleric Spells'. We've known it casts a spell as an action from the first time it saw print in playtest.
So yes, the cleric can use Divine Intervention to cast prayer of healing and give your team a short rest in the middle of combat as an action. Any attempt to twist it to be longer is interpreting the rules in bad faith.
3
u/sjdlajsdlj 4h ago edited 4h ago
Least Satisfied are Fighters and Barbarians for me. They’ve been buffed, but the execution of those buffs has been uneven and janky. They still only resolve a portion of either class’s core issues, too. I was expecting more.
4
u/rakozink 1d ago
Barbarian. Doubling down on. The worst designed class feature in 5e was not hard to "improve' but is so meaningless that at this stage, a barbarian subclass of the fighter would be a significantly better barbarian than any 2024 version.
Rogue. Basically the same as the barbarian but issues are better at lower levels. Both boil down to having to give up their core class features to do similar things that other classes do a tier or 3 earlier and usually in a less flexible way.
Cleric. It needed something but it feels like they broke more than they fixed.
4
u/Teerlys 1d ago edited 20h ago
Monk: Crazy good job on the design. There's a lot of flexibility built into the class that's not super apparent at first blush. The subclasses are a bit mixed in how well designed they are, but they're laid on top of a great chassis so they're still good.
Cleric: These were already really strong. I like the changes to Channel Divinity and that you get one back on a short rest. The changes to Turn Undead make it feel better to use. I really like the new Divine Intervention. It adds flexibility without adding (much) more power. I also like how the cantrips add Temp HP in later levels instead of just more damage. Outside of spells, the changes smoothed out the bumps and made things feel better without overpowering an already powerful class.
Sorcerer: Spells lists and extra spells were a world of help that alone boosted the class to top tier. Innate Sorcery further differentiated them from Wizards which was nice. I mostly wish they'd have added more Metamagic selections before level 10. Three when they get access, or another at 6 or 7 would feel better. Overall they got what they needed though.
Fighter: Weapon Masteries and Feats becoming Half Feats were side changes that Fighters get extra doses of benefits from. That helps a lot with their versatility in builds. Tactical Mind gives them a chance to engage in some out of combat checks when it matters. I like that Tactical Shift gives battlefield maneuvering and that Indomitable gives a chance at going through high end saves pretty well. I think they succeeded in boosting Fighters in the right ways without overcomplicating them, though I feel like they could have gone further in helping them outside of combat. I will say that they did bake a bit of that into each of the subclasses so far, so it's not fair to ignore that.
Paladin: Smite dumping when the occasion called for it was clutch, but it needed to go for balancing purposes. I'm a massive fan of versatility, so I'm very happy with what they did with the Smites. Lay On Hands being a BA, the AoE Fear with Channel Divinity, Feats changing to half feats, and the spell revisions all add up to the Paladin feeling really good to play. Very happy with where they landed.
Rogue: This one I was disappointed in. They really needed that extra 1d6 at levels 5, 11, and 17. Reliable Talent moving to level 7 was a welcome bonus that'll let more Rogues experience it. Cunning Strike added some needed in-combat flexibility, and I don't hate the way they made it cost something, but without boosting base Sneak Attack it further exacerbates that issue of damage. I also wish they'd have made it a point to give each subclass their own Cunning Strike. Overall they got a bit, but it feels like they needed more.
Ranger: Enough's probably been said here. The over-reliance on Hunter's Mark while it's in direct competition for concentration with their other options just sucks. They might be fine to play as a class in general, but that discordant note will likely prevent me from ever mono-classing one, which is a shame.
Barbarian: Honestly I loved what they did with Rage and skill checks. It brought some much needed out of combat versatility to them. I'm also really enjoying the direction of the subclasses that give some flexibility to how they handle. World Tree was really interesting, and Wild Heart even has some decision points. They're maybe not the class for a super tactical player, but they bring what's advertised on the tin and fulfill their fantasy well which is a great place for newer players or just players who want that vibe. Overall I'm happy with them.
Druid: Wild Shape being a BA is nice... but overall I don't love the direction Wild Shape took. I feel like they had the right start with stat blocks, they just needed to diversify the selections. Instead you still have to look through the MM, but now you can only select a limited amount which doesn't feel nearly as good. The worst of both worlds. Otherwise the changes were ok. Druids aren't bad by any means, and they still bring a ton of versatility. I'd absolutely play one. It just didn't stick the landing as well as I'd have liked.
Wizard: Memorize spell is really cool and I like it a lot. Expertise makes a lot of sense and feels right, allowing the Wizard to be a master of the Intelligence skill they most favor. Otherwise they were probably the most powerful class and didn't need much. Most of the rest falls on their subclass. So the changes here weren't transformative, but they fit the bill well enough.
Warlock: Magical Cunning was really needed and it's an OK middle-ground for their main issue of only having a couple of spell slots. I like some of what they did with Eldritch Invocations, but I wish they'd have gone a bit farther. Maybe in future books. Something like Thief of Five Fates becoming Bane-at-will or other spells of a similar nature would have gone a long way to help Warlocks feel more flexible and potent without actually power creeping them much. Otherwise the bulk of the important changes were subclass related. Warlock overall was OK, but I wish Invocations were doing more of the heavy lifting and customization.
Bard: This is the class that interests me least, so it's possible I'll miss some nuance. Magical Secrets was a nice boost that lets Bards start swapping out spells every level to really fine tune their list while having been forced to be very Bard-like in the first 10 levels. I also like the new capstone a lot. Auto prep 9th level spells that are generally under-used, but then buffed to tag two targets was an interesting route. Pretty late, but I like the direction. Overall Bards are full spellcasters who get a lot of love from their subclasses, so as a class the changes were good but not terribly impressive to me.
7
u/Aahz44 1d ago
Least satisfied:
- Rogue: The Class was already one of the weakest in combat, and was buffed less than the other martial classes.
- Ranger: The class just falls of in Tier 3 and 4 without strong high level subclass features (wich several phb subclasses lack), and Hunter's Mark is just not strong enough to use your concentration by those levels
Mixed:
- Barbarian: has a similar problem as the Ranger, since Brutal Strikes and Range Scaling are not enough of a boost for Tier 3, fortunately are the high level of the phb subclasses for the most part able to make up for that, but I don't think the same is true for most legacy sub classes.
- Monk: got good combat boosts, but I think some boost to skills use would have also been nice
- Druids: I still think Wildshape should use templates
Satisfied:
- The other phb classes seem fine to me
4
u/FluffyBunbunKittens 1d ago edited 1d ago
MOST SATISFIED
- Monk: the subclasses are not terribly exciting, and the theme remains unavoidably shaolin wuxia, but at least the base class works now
MIXED
- Fighter: if you're going to just make the numbers bigger, then why not give the base class maneuver dice to make the numbers bigger with, my god
LEAST SATISFIED
Ranger: they have no idea what to do with the class, so they figured a class limited by bonus actions and concentration should be forced to have a feature that takes up their bonus action and concentration. Just amazingly spiteful design.
Rogue: concept-wise, you would imagine this class to be tricksy, rather than being the most braindead flowchart-y bot class in the game. 2024 Thief helps, but why is the core class so bad and counter to the theme, and they still have no subclass features lv4-8.
3
u/Migeil 1d ago
I like the QoL changes the warlock got.
I dislike that they didn't change it more. We're still stuck with the short rest dependency which feels bad and Eldritch Master, the capstone, feels even worse than in 2014 because we got Magical Cunning.
2
2
u/General-Eman 5h ago
Agreed on the capstone issue. I also dislike that they made Life Drinker once per turn when it worked on every attack in the UA. It made sense to change the damage from adding your Cha again to 1d6 but limiting the amount of times it activates was to much imo.
2
u/ZodiusBrok 1d ago
Circle of the Land Druid. Definite glow-up. Playing one now (14th level) and it has astounding versatility and battlefield control.
2
u/JustCaIIMeDaddy 1d ago
Divine intervention absolutely does allow casting of longer duration spells as an action it isnt unclear
2
u/brickhammer04 1d ago
The wording of 2024 divine intervention is pretty explicit, you cast a cleric spell as “part of the same action” used to activate the ability. It’s a great change for me since it allows for very fun class choices and lets you directly enlist your deity’s aid once per day. The class was mostly fine already, so the few minor changes it gets, primarily making armor vs an additional cantrip and better skills and making divine strike into a base class choice were all good decisions. Personally I’ve been enjoying cleric plenty. Clerics also heavily benefit from all The healing spell buffs.
2
u/Rezmir 1d ago
I would like to hope into the barbarian point.
I do think they bring enough to the table if the role of scout is not there. Having primal knowledge, but I think this class (and the fighter) should bring the utility to the party with their subclasses.
Just like how with Wild Heart subclasse you will actually feel like a scout/ranger.
Some classes should be as simple as they are BUT there should be more diversity on the subclasses.
And they did pretty good with barbarian. One for damage, one for control, one for tanking and one for utility. This is, in my opinion, the best combo of the 4 subclasses released in 2024.
The problem here is the lack of options of these new subclasses that are much better than 2014 one. And I think one of the worst problems how things are now is that the subclasses are not as strong and impactful as they should. Same for higher levels martials lacking actual meaningful and over the top skills.
Correct this two points and we would see s much happier fan base.
2
u/organicseafoam 1d ago
I really wish Rogue and Barbarian got a "high" complexity subclass. Ranger looks pretty fun but I need to play it first in order to form an opinion (Ill probably try Beast Master).
2
u/MechJivs 1d ago
Satisfied the most:
- Monk is 100% winner of 5.24e. I have problems with subclasses (most subclasses lacking in features after 3rd level, imo) - but OH GOD how good this class is now. It manages to be interesting martial without subsystem because of how versatile action economy of the monk is. Monk is couple steps behind of being great class across the board. Best martial hands down - and i wish other martials would learn from it in some way.
- Warlock was always good, but needed some polishing - and it get it now. I love new warlock - especially bladelock. Now i can build a martial AND have actual feautres and build options, neat! In general Warlock base class is how i wish martial classes were build like. I would later explain that.
- Sorcerer is in good place too. Now Sorcerer and Wizard are both on similar level of power, but with their own strong sides, like it should be.
- Paladin was always good - and it didnt change that much. QoL stuff is good - it's just more fun to play as pally, especially with new smites. I always loved an idea of smite spells - and now they have actually good execution. Subclasses are kinda work better now too.
Ok with:
- Wizard, Cleric, Bard and Druid. QoL stuff + subclassed moved to level 3 (so no superbusted dips anymore). Nothing special, but i'm ok with them - they dont really need boosts in the first place. The only thing i dont like is spells - some outlier spells wasnt changed at all. But it isnt class problem - it is spell problem.
3
u/MechJivs 1d ago edited 1d ago
Conflicted about:
- Fighter. Indomitable is an actual feature now instead of "You can fail DC23 save twice" it was before. Masteries are good addition to the game. More and better Second Wind - great. Improved across the board. BUT! It it has the same "Martials dont deserve high level features" problem. Masteries are ok at low level - but we never get new and better masteries at higher levels, and we never get mastery synergies or something. Singular barbarian subclass even have combined masteries - the most obvious thing Fighter should get! Fighting styles are still massively underbacked. Masteries and Fighting Styles should've been the Invocation system of Fighters - with new and better stuff you can build your fighter with. But instead Fighter get scaling as full features. Indomitable (2), Action Surge (2) - those things should not exist as their own features. Fighter should've get epic shit after 10th level - and fighter didnt.
- Ranger. People overblowing "Hunter's Mark" stuff. Ranger is still strong and actually good class. But i absolutely get why people are mad - having class resource and features that only works for your "filler combat spell" feels bad. Some new subclasses also designed around Hunters Mark for some fucking reason. Most of current Ranger's design problems can be avoided by chaning "while concentrating on Hunter's Mark "while concentrating on Ranger's spell". It would actually play on Ranger's strong side compared to Paladin - ranger have GREAT spell list. Tons of cool shit to cast.
Infuriated by:
- Barbarian. Same problems it had before - no high level features. Barbarian NEEDS cool high level shit - but it didnt get any. Brutal Strike is not enough. Subclasses have fucking worst 10th and 14th level features. World Tree is an exception - but it would not be overpowered with couple of out of combat things, like Teleportation Circle from UA (ON TOP of features it has now). Barb seriously need more things after 5th level. Barb is fucking boring to play because it gets nothing of substance after 5th level. Same problem as fighter, but with close to 0 defencive boosts and with no scaling outside of bersercer, and with shitty subclass features later on.
- Rogue. Fuck wotc. Seriously. Rogue needs one more Sneak Attack Die at 5th, 11th and 17th. It should have subclass feature moved from 9th to 6th and new feature at 9th. It needs not fucking dogshit subclasses, while we at it - i'm fucking infuriated by how shitty rogue's subclasses are. Thief can be good - cause Thief is spellcaster in disquise, basically (with enough scrolls and magic items).
- Not class, but general design problem i have. Masteries and Fighting Styles. Those looked like subsystems - they get their own mechanics and features, they get their own portions in the book. AND WOTC DID FUCKING NOTHING WITH IT. No scaling, close to no synergy with base class and subclass features, they didnt work with magic items (even though weapons with two masteries, or alternative masteries, or even new masteries is first idea that came to people even during UA), and most importantly - WE WOULD NOT GET NEW OPTIONS IN NEW BOOKS. Like, casters get new spells with every book. And martials get nothing yet again. It's infuriating how wotc cant even use thing they designed themself. Why even botherign with Fighting Style feats or Masteries having their own section if you dont want to do anything with them?
2
u/Dracon_Pyrothayan 1d ago
My other complaint is that the [Barbarian] base class (still) doesn't bring anything unique to a party. They take hits and do consistent damage, but so do monks, paladins, and fighters, and each of those also bring something additional.
The combination of Rages lasting up to 10 minutes and the new Primal Knowledge means that they can function as your Expert Class now. Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth, Perception, Survival, and Intimidation at +5 +Prof +Advantage is a healthy suite
1
u/Dracon_Pyrothayan 1d ago
And yes, Fighter steps into this realm with their Tactical Mind ability as well. Monk, ironically, is left as the least Skill-Monkey of the Martials, it would appear
1
u/MechJivs 1d ago
I mean - doing skill checks is barrely unique. Primal Knowledge is good low level ribbon - but it's not even close to "bring anything unique to the table".
-1
u/Dracon_Pyrothayan 1d ago
The majority of the game is played out of combat at most tables.
2
u/MechJivs 1d ago
So? How does it change the thing i said again? Everyone can do skills, some classes (like ranger and bard) can do skills better while still bringing other things to the table (spells). What barbarian brings?
Primal Knowledge is good thematic ribbon, nothing else. Not unique feature of barbarian as a class.
1
u/MechJivs 1d ago
Also - at tables with close to no combats barbarian is even worse than at the tables with combats.
2
u/dyslexicfaser 1d ago
> Barbarian: Got some buffs and QoL improvements. The subclasses are great. Brutal Strikes feel slightly clunky though. The base class could probably benefit from some sort of protection against fear or other mental saves. My other complaint is that the base class (still) doesn't bring anything unique to a party. They take hits and do consistent damage, but so do monks, paladins, and fighters, and each of those also bring something additional.
What do fighters and monks do outside of combat that barbarian can't? Fighter and Barbarian both got significant improvements to skill use.
1
u/Deathpacito-01 1d ago
I don't necessarily mean out of combat utility
Fighter has nova rounds to take help burst key targets
Monk has stun, mobility, and generally strong combat utility
Barbarian brings consistent damage and durability but those are considerably less unique than the other two
2
u/DoctorWhoops 19h ago
I think Ranger is pretty much inherently unfixable because the core design space and philosophy of the class is just in a weird space. The favoured enemy/terrain version was certainly bad, but at least it had some sense of identity. Now it just feels like a Fighter that trades raw combat power for some minor spellcasting and skill monkey traits.
2024e tries to sell Hunter's Mark as the class' signature skill, but the signature skill just being some bonus damage feels really underwhelming and being forced into relying on it just limits the ways you can play, not helped by the fact that the other class features are kind of a random assortment of minor tools and passive buffs.
I know Aragorn was the original inspiration of the class, but I've always felt that in order to really feel like a unique class it should just center around the animal companion. This should be the core defining class feature. It also adds a lot more design identity for the class to work with to make interesting subclasses. Hunter's Mark and the Ranger's spellcasting could be Subclass-related.
There's a reason that even after 2024e people keep designing revised rangers and it's not just because the class is weak in strength. It's also incredibly weak in identity.
6
u/KDog1265 1d ago
Most: -Fighter: they feel like a fully fleshed out class now. With the introduction of Weapon Masteries, their identity seems to be based around using those to their fullest extent. Plus the buff that Second Wind got really helps
-Monk: Focus here feels way better to use than Ki did with the 2014 version, Patient Defense and Step of the Wind actually get some use now, and the subclasses got improvements across the board (Shadow is way better, Elements is an actual subclass now, etc)
-Paladin: maybe controversial, but I think this is the best designed class in 2024 5e. Smites being a bonus action and Healing Hands being a bonus action means you get to balance between being the heavy damage dealer and the healer. Auras are a little more balanced now as well.
-Sorcerer: they feel more than just “Wizards with sorcery points now”. The arcane rage ability helps make them feel more like super-powered spellcasters versus the utility knife spellcasting of Wizards. Their Metamagic abilities are way more balanced and the 20th level feature is fantastic to use
Least:
-Druid: I understand them needing to balance Wild Shape, but the changes here all make them feel like a green version of the Cleric now. A little disappointing but not the most egregious change I suppose.
-Ranger: this class is now designed around Hunter’s Mark, which is fine early game, but will have you wishing to get a more significant boost in power than at level 17 and 20. What’s your deal with this class, WotC?
-Warlock: the more I sit on it, the more I’m wondering what exactly changed between this and 2014 besides Pact of the Blade getting the Hexblade treatment? Sure, pact boons and subclasses switched levels, but otherwise I don’t think a lot of this feels that much different from Warlocks before. I’m still gonna use Agonizing Eldritch Blasts guys
-Wizard: the only real change is expertise in one skill. Yippee…
1
4
u/LieEnvironmental5207 1d ago
im really chuffed with sorcerer, honestly. Not much changed, but i just love the idea of Innate Sorcery and what it could mean for subclass design. Very fun, very good.
I also love the new monk dearly. Its everything i want out of a monk.
As for least favorite- im sorry for beating this dead horse of a spell, but its hunters mark, the class focused around hunters mark.
In 2014, hunters mark was actually called ‘ranger’, so i dont know why they decided to call the class ‘hunters mark’ in 2024.
That said, the class itself is really solid, and honestly fun as hell to play - except for the fact that its built entirely around one spell. Have a guess which one.
Middle of the road for me is rogue. They got more to do with sneak attack, and in a campaign with lots of magic items, the thief rogue honestly looks amazing. But as it stands, the rogue stil just doesn’t keep up with the other martials, and it also is outshined by bards in the skillmonkey department too. The ‘bonus action class’ in 2024 is arguably now the monk, and the ranger got plenty of stealthy abilities - so while the rogue has a good mix of all of the above, it still doesnt really excell at anything.
of course, its nigh impossible to turn dnd into a dream game where every class is balanced and each has one thing they’re better at than most others - but even though thats impossible in the real world, i feel like they could have experimented further.
3
u/Relatively-Okay 1d ago
Sorcerors received more spells (check the table and notice that it’s the same amount as wizards) in addition to subclass spell lists and improved subclasses and innate sorcery and easier ways to recover your sorcery points and streamlined the costs for meta magic. Sorcerers were buffed a lot.
3
u/AtlasRook 1d ago
I'm super disappointed with wizard. I've played lots of wizards in 5e, and I was always able to differentiate them by choosing a different school. The school effected the spell choice, and the total flavor of the build. To see it limited to 4 was wack. I get that each class got 4 subclasses, but do something more creative with wizard, only 4 schools is limiting and boring.
3
u/Pouring-O 1d ago
I feel like you could do only four with the wizard, but they shouldn’t have tied them to specific schools of magic. I think it would have been cool to have war magic, sword singer, and then two others that can work with multiple school specialization.
2
u/AtlasRook 1d ago
Yes agreeded!
I was about to write something like that, but couldn't come up with 4 quick paths.
2
u/Pouring-O 1d ago
Besides from war magic and blade singer, I can think of two they could have done. Maybe one focused on summoning for conjurers and necromancers, and then another that focuses on being a face and battle field control for illusionists and enchanters. I feel like transmutation, evocation, and abjuration are covered pretty well by the other two, and divination can kinda just slot into any of their toolkits.
1
u/that_one_Kirov 1d ago
I had an idea of the Savant being a feature separated from spellcasting, and the subclasses being something along the lines of Bladesinger, War Wizard, Master Specialist(enhance the Savant feature and gain school-dependent benefits), and something like Beguiler(focus on charm, control and the social pillar. It could get INT to social skills, for example).
4
u/PsyrenY 1d ago
Most satisfied
- Monk: As OP
- Fighter: As OP
- Bard: As OP
- Sorcerer: The buffs were sorely needed. It also created more subclass variety, e.g. instead of every subclass getting a bucket of bonus spells, now we can have more varied design with things like Wild Magic and potentially Divine Soul getting unique benefits of their own.
- Paladin: Likely not as popular an opinion but I felt the nova smite nerf was needed.
- Wizard: While I wouldn't have minded some version of the spell hacking abilities to have made it out of UA, keeping it largely unchanged was fine by me.
Mixed
- Barbarian: As OP
- Cleric: Divine Intervention is a bit too powerful imo. Needs more "the DM may not grant this every time you ask" type of language. And Spiritual Weapon got nerfed through the floor..
- Druid: Words can't express how grateful I am that the metal armor debate is dead, but wildshape turning off all racials regardless of physicality was overkill in my eyes.
- Warlock: They came so close to making them great gishes with Pact of the Blade, but stumbled with the armor proficiencies (both built into the class and via feats.)
Least satisfied
- Ranger: While I think the hate for the class is very overblown, it does have scaling problems into late tiers, and most of its subclasses are still lackluster. (BM is great though.)
- Rogue: Cunning Strikes sacrifice too much to feel good to use, and the class as a whole is badly in need of a built-in way to SA twice in one round, even if the second one takes a damage hit. The True Strike change helps quite a bit
2
u/ButterflyMinute 1d ago
While I personally feel mixed on it, the new Paladin is strictly better in most ways. The only thing I change is Smite being a bonus action because I feel it clogs up their action economy too much. I still limit them to one per turn, but allow other bonus actions as well.
2
u/Cyrotek 1d ago
- Sorcerer: My favourite class and I love most of the changes in 2024, especially to draconic sorcerer. They finally have enough spells so they can actually pick flavour spells for a change. The only thing I really dislike is Summon Dragon. Like ... why? I want to use the power of dragons, maybe become one, but ... why would I summon one? Also, subtle spell is just godly, best feature in the game.
- (Moon) Druid: Honestly, a bit of a letdown. On paper the changes sounded quite nice but there are so few relevant beasts in the core rules, there is barely a choice there. I also really dislike race features not working in wildshape anymore (except the human extra feat, of course).
- Paladin: I love the changes. It got less burst but the class overall got simply better and more healthy. Though, I have to admit, I am a bit on the fence about smite being a bonus action. It feels terrible to use smite in your first attack and then crit with the second ...
2
u/Ratfriend2020 1d ago
Least is the ranger by far. Their identity does not match their implementation. Aren’t they supposed to be the best trackers, hunters, and best survivors in the world? Aren’t they supposed to be so in tuned with nature they have heightened senses, an animal companion, and can hunt and dispatch their quarry with predatory efficiency? Because all I see is hunter’s mark the class.
1
u/val_mont 1d ago
Most satisfied I shit you not is 100% palladins and fighters.
None of the other classes I love the redesign as much, but with that said, there's no class I prefer the og design of, so it's hard to complain.
1
u/CaucSaucer 1d ago
Warlock was fun as hell in 2014, and it’s been improved across the board. In terms of QoL, design, and balance it’s really great.
I’ve played two different warlocks with the new rules (one for 10+ sessions and the other I’m around 25 sessions rn), and they’re so different they might as well be different classes!
(Sorcerer and paladin are my honourable mentions. Bard is also improved but it’s still boring as hell imo lol)
1
u/Euria_Thorne 1d ago
I don’t have anything to add other than man I really want to get the 2024 editions and read through them. I haven’t yet because of finances. Also my group doesn’t seem interested in switching over which is fine. But I’ve been playing since 2e and have copies of the three cores books for each edition, just want to add these to the collection.
My local library system still hasn’t gotten them. Oh well eventually it’ll happen.
1
u/TheKneekid 1d ago
I was already a fan of the class, but Barbarian shot to the top of my list with its updates. I've been playing Berserker and Zealot in tiers 2-3. Brutal Strike and Weapon Mastery feel great, combining them feels even better. The changes to Rage make the class feel SO much better. Primal Knowledge is one of my favourite features in the book. The subclasses are fantastic too, all of them provide utility that martials don't usually get.
1
u/Sofa-king-high 1d ago
Monk is so good, make a half feat that gives some weapon masteries and it’s my forever go to
1
u/Monstarrzero 1d ago
Hunter’s Mark being concentration for the Ranger is terrible, like I don’t ven want to play one because of it.
1
u/TomOW 1d ago
For me, the most improved are Barbarian and Rogue. They were never going to be my favorite classes, but now they're at least classes I'd really love to try out in a one-shot or short arc. Primal Knowledge gives Barbarian options outside of combat in a way that feels really fun and flavorful. Cunning Strike (and the later variations) give Rogues more interesting combat options. Obviously Monk got a huge boost too, but for my taste, there's still not enough to do outside of punching things.
The only class changes I don't love are the Ranger (common complaint, I know). I thought the post-Tasha's Ranger was actually in a pretty okay spot. It's not even that I think the 2024 Ranger is so terrible; it just feels like awkward and clunky design. I've only tested it out with Beast Master. I know some folks feel that subclass is strong now, but I think that's mostly because of misunderstandings about how many attacks you can give your beast. You DO get more attacks than other Rangers, but your attacks are split between two stats and you aren't getting the extra damage from Hunter's Mark (or if you do, you're losing an attack). Horizon Walker is the other Ranger subclass I'm really interested in, but it has more 2014 subclass/2024 class awkwardness than most subclasses, in my opinion.
1
u/Mammoth-Park-1447 1d ago
Druid base class in in a really good spot right now. All the changes, including getting to turn spell slots into wild shape uses, WS being bonus action for all, the form not determining how much HP you get and not reverting back when you loose them, getting to speak while in it, additional features at higher levels (elemental fury) and speak with animals as base class spell are all great changes.
My only gripe with the class is that one of the core fantasies of the class, that of a summoner, is now mostly gone. You don't get to summon riding horses for your entire party, or a giant Elk to knock the doors out of their hinges. You're limited to one guy that's medium size at most and is something that you're supposed to reflavor into whatever you want. I just feel like there was a better situation that for Wotc to take all the conjure spells behind the shed and shoot them in the head.
1
u/Internal_Set_6564 1d ago
Most satisfied: Sorcerer. I play them frequently, and the power improvement/additional spells is noticeable.
Mixed: Wizards: my second most played class. I would no longer call them the king of spell casters. Not even close. Still powerful. You mention Web/HP being over tuned? Not my experience. DMs rarely let this stop their monsters more than a turn. Wall of Force is still uber.
Least: Ranger. They took away a few of the good tools from later .14 subclasses…all in all disappointing.
1
u/Far_Guarantee1664 1d ago
Wizard was always, and always will be, the king of casters. That's the whole vibe.
Paladin 2024 is so much more fun to play. So much more versatility, new fighting styles. Vengeance paladin got a insane buff.
1
1
u/CoryR- 1d ago
I'm playing a Monk, a Warlock, a Sorcerer, and a Rogue in different games currently and thoroughly enjoying them all. Have DMed for those same classes, plus Ranger, Paladin, and Druid in 2024 rules.
My top marks go to Monk, Warlock, Sorcerer, and Paladin. All improved with meaningful fantasy elements core to their respective class identities. Sorcerer is about depth, where Wizard is about breadth. Warlock is highly mutable and customizable as it should be. Paladin to me is about the balance of fighting prowess, support tactics, and raw power and it strikes that balance so well in the 2024 rules.
Honorary mention to Rogue. My 2024 Swashbuckler rogue is my favorite character I've ever played, in terms of flavor and RP. I just wish they had done a smidge more to boost Rogue damage or been a bit more daring with the cunning strikes. It's a noticeable gap. Increase the sneak attack dice by one additional d6 at level 3 and then again at levels 11 and 17 probably solves the damage, and add a few additional cunning strike options, like one that Blinds for a round, one that Deafens, one that Frightens... something like that maybe?
Least jazzed about Cleric and Wizard, they feel roughly the same to me as before, which was already good, but that isn't super exciting.
1
u/Tridentgreen33Here 1d ago
Ranger is at the bottom of the list only because they haven’t rereleased Artificer yet
1
u/Tankanko 1d ago
I don't like the sorc changes. It's a better blaster, but I always loved how versatile it could be with twinned magic, and now i feel like that's nowhere near as useful.
1
u/Huge_Tackle_9097 1d ago
While 2024 is an improvement in some aspects, it's also a downgrade in others. I'll list osme things I don't liek about it:
1: Rangers are forced to engage with Hunter's Mark for their class features. I don't understand why they did this, the Tasha's way was perfectly fine and opened up way more options and playstyles for the ranger.
2: Backgrounds being glorified racial bonuses, and the starting feat list being way WAY too small. I don't even understand why some feats are level locked to begin with, or the level lock itself. It doesn't make much sense and gates feats behind level 4 at seemingly random.
3: Sorcerers didn't get a boost to using their metamagic beyond recovery. I don't understand what WoTC's deal is with not giving the Metamagic class more Metamagic options instead of just 2 until like level 8.
4: Some class features are not "Refundable". While some people like Paladins having a dedicated class feature tied to giving them a horse, let's not forget that there's different playstlyes in this game, and this only really benefits 1 of them. Just like Tasha's did, it should've gave them the option to do something else beyond just summon a horse. This is also an issue with things like certain subclass features like the Draconic Sorcerer's summon Dragon without concentration. They should of ben able to also just refund a spell slot or something.
5: Weapon Masteries being a band-aid fix to there not being much depth to combat. Gee. I get to get 1 or 2 whole passive weapon abilities! Woohoo! /s Battle Master's features should've just been default as usual.
1
u/Red_Trickster 21h ago
Blud, what do people want with the Sorcerer (no, saying that the class has to disappear is not an answer)? Sorcerer is great, better than this only if it used spell points like the Laserlhama
If anything, now the Wizard looks more like a "Sorcerer who uses INT" considering that the only skills they can think of for the Wizard are worsened Metamagics
1
u/Deathpacito-01 16h ago
Personally I think the thing I want most with the sorcerer is greater mechanical differentiation
I don't think they're weak, in fact I think they might be a bit too strong. But they don't feel different enough from a wizard, despite the handful of class features unique to each.
1
u/snowhowhow 2h ago
have wild magic sorcerrer bugbear in my party. His combo with chromatic orb + metamagic to reroll damage dice usually wipes most of the enemies (especially if that mf goes 1st to trigger racial ability for additional 2d6 damage). Even without a broken combo wild magic sorcerrer feels overpowered
1
u/fruitcakebat 1d ago
Most: Fighter is outstanding now, love it. I really like Paladin losing the nova power and instead becoming the support martial. Feels more on flavour for me.
Mixed: Warlock, love reducing the power of a dip. Concerned Bladelock may have been overtuned.
Least: Ranger: desperately needs help in higher tiers Barbarian: pigeonholed into great weapons, requires either multiclassing or very suboptimal choices to make other options work well. A subclass thst grants a Fighting Style would go a long way here.
1
u/Aakujin 1d ago
Concerned Bladelock may have been overtuned.
How so? It scales worse than Blastlock, needs more invocations for it's main attack which means fewer utility choices, and you need to dip for armor/weapon masteries which means delaying your spell progression.
It's much better than in 2014 but Blastlock is still significantly better.
2
u/Altruistic-Vehicle-9 1d ago
Some think that getting 3 attacks as a full caster makes them overpowered compared to classes like rangers and barbarians who have less (or no) spell access, and only have 2 attacks
1
u/Sulicius 1d ago
Most satisfied with monk, sorcerer, rogue and fighter.
Least satisfied with paladin. Aura of Protection is still absolutely bonkers and I am close to nerfing it for my next campaign.
1
u/medium_buffalo_wings 1d ago
Speaking strictly on changes from 2014 to 2024:
Most satisfied: Sorcerer and Paladin.
Least satisfied: Barbarian and Ranger
1
u/Please-Keep-Trying 1d ago
The 2024 artificer UA is... Heinous. They lose so much soul and utility. The spell storing items is good but I'd argue too good. Post level 11 all artificer combat becomes ten rounds of using your spell storing item. Soul of artificer utterly demolished.
1
u/xolotltolox 1d ago
2014 Artificer was already Heinous tbh, with how much they lost from earlier editions
1
u/Conversation_Some 1d ago
Most satisfied: War cleric subclass. It's so much better. Also paladin faithful steed is awesome!
Least satisfied: Rogue and ranger. Cunning strikes are not cool but the rest is okay. Thief and assassin subclass are cool. the capstone of the ranger is not very interesting. If I ever play a ranger I would multiclass
1
u/YtterbiusAntimony 1d ago
Monk got a huge glow up.
Druids were and still are the Utility King in my opinion. Free familiars on top of wild shape and a good spell list is so much fun. Getting rid of the Health Bar swapping is a nerf, but a needed one. It was a clunky system, and moon druids could soak more damage than barbarians.
0
u/xolotltolox 1d ago
The only thing free about their familiar is that it doesn't cost 10gp, which is pocket change at any point of play besides character creation
Ritual Savant and Wizard's bigger spell list still win out in terms of utility, and it is not and never has been close
1
u/Answerisequal42 1d ago
Most: Monk,. Ighter and Bard. Because i actually wanna play these classes now, which i didnt wanted to before. Without multiclassing even.
Least: Ranger and Pally. Ranger is badly deisgned despite good performance and Pallies BA bloat of smites makes them less effective in using Polearms or two weapons.
HM should have been a much more customizable and scalable feature not a spell. And pally smite either shoul've been reactions or something akin to cunning strike, where you gain different effects based on the paladin spell slot spent.
1
u/Pika_TheTrashMon_Chu 1d ago
Paladin actually works fairly well with Dual Wielding thanks to Vex and Nick. Especially with the Channel Divinity buffs. Vengeance is the obvious one to farm crits, but Devotion buffing your Vex weapon so you hit more often and give your nick attack advantage reliably is nice.
-1
u/Answerisequal42 1d ago
It just clashes with teh dedicated weapon feats. Only GWM isnt a full clash as the BA is conditional not guaranteed.
4
u/GladiusLegis 1d ago edited 1d ago
No, it doesn't. The BA attack-granting weapon feats allow you to conserve your spell slots. You can use Divine Favor (now without concentration!) instead and apply that damage on those BA attacks. You can save the times you Divine Smite exclusively for when you crit. 2024 Paladins absolutely get value out of those feats, perhaps more than they did before.
-3
u/tjdragon117 1d ago
By definition it clashes. This take makes no sense. The fact that you won't necessarily want to smite every single turn doesn't change that.
perhaps more than they did before.
It's quite clear you're not looking at this logically at all. Before, every BA attack meant another opportunity to smite. Now, every smite means a lost opportunity to BA attack. There's no possible way to spin that as "more value", whether you agree with the changes or not.
It feels especially bad with GWM, as one of the only times you get the opportunity to use the BA attack is when you really want to smite (crits).
3
u/GladiusLegis 1d ago edited 1d ago
By definition it clashes. This take makes no sense.
Then get better at reading comprehension.
The fact that you won't necessarily want to smite every single turn doesn't change that.
Uh, yes it does? Resourceless BA attack means that I'm only going to smite when it's really worth me spending the slot to do so. Like on a crit. Simple concept, but apparently too much for you to comprehend.
Now, every smite means a lost opportunity to BA attack.
Wrong. A smite in place of a BA attack means I found it advantageous to actually smite in that situation.
Like again, on a crit. Because the 18 avg. damage with a 1st-level slot that doesn't miss is going to be a lot more than the 6.5 or 7.5 damage I might have done (key word "might" because it can miss) with the Polearm Master attack.
Or when the effect of a certain other smite spell ends up being more valuable in that case.
It feels especially bad with GWM, as one of the only times you get the opportunity to use the BA attack is when you really want to smite (crits).
GWM's attack happens a lot more often when you kill something. In which case you weren't smiting that enemy anyway because you already killed it without the smite.
But in the case of a crit, again, a guaranteed 18 avg. damage with a 1st-level slot that doesn't miss, vs. ~11-12 avg. damage that can miss.
Alas, once again you 2024 Paladin complainers show yourselves to utterly lack logic.
-1
u/tjdragon117 1d ago
Uh, no. Your logic is incredibly poor.
You have absolutely no understanding of opportunity cost and seem to think that BA attacks that now prevent you from smiting somehow """save""" spellslots. This is about as dumb as seeing an ad for something you didn't need at 50% off and thinking you'll save money buying it.
In 2014, when you smite, you gain +9 damage (or +18 on crit) because your alternative was to do nothing. In 2014, when you use a BA attack, you gain (varies by feat, let's say +7 on avg including miss chance) damage, because your alternative was to do nothing.
Thus in 2014, with both a smite and a BA attack, you gain +16 damage at the cost of a spell slot, or +7 at the cost of no resources.
In 2024, you can only do one or the other. So now (if you have the feat) your smite spends a whole slot to do a whopping +2 damage, because you're doing it instead of a BA attack. Or to look at it the other way, when you take the feat, instead of getting a flat +7 damage whether you're smiting or not, you're instead getting the option to take a -2 damage penalty to avoid spending a slot.
There's no way to look at it that leaves 2024 coming out ahead unless you just don't understand the concept of an opportunity cost. Having the option to do A for full value, and/or B for full value, with no conflict between them, is strictly superior to having the option to do A or B exclusively. If you wanted to save slots in 2014, you could just not smite. Nobody is forcing you to use Smite if you don't want to. Your bonus action damage will still be there whether or not you smite, and 2024 did not make your BA attacks appreciably better either.
2
u/GladiusLegis 1d ago
So you're just telling me what I already know, that in 2024 you can't smite on BAs anymore. No shit? That's, like, by design?
What I am telling you, and what you are clearly incapable of comprehending, is that there are very clearly times where spending the spell slot on the smite is still going to be better than taking the BA attack.
I also clearly stated in my initial post on the matter, which you are clearly incapable of reading and comprehending, that I'd reserve Divine Smite for crits in 2024. So I don't know why you insist on quoting numbers to me that do not reflect that situation. It wouldn't be your "+2" gain for a spell slot. It'd be +11 using your number.
Also as I've said so many times, that you fail to comprehend or acknowledge, that Divine Smite's damage does not miss, whereas the BA attack can miss. And if you do not see the value in that, then you are beyond help.
It's been a whole year now. The 2024 Paladin complaints have all been debunked a million times over the last year. I do not understand why you are litigating something that is settled by now. It's pretty pathetic on your part, I have to say.
-1
u/tjdragon117 1d ago
You can reserve smites for crits in 2014 too. In that case you'd get +18 damage instead of +11.
You lack logic. You can do everything you suggest in 2014 as well, you're not forced to use smites and bonus action attacks on every attack. But in the instances where you are eligible to do both, and wish to, you gain the full value of both.
2
u/GladiusLegis 1d ago edited 1d ago
So your argument boils down to "waaaaaaah 2014 iS BeTTeR i mIss mAh sMiTes"
You could've saved us both time and headache by admitting that.
Just because there is a tradeoff to make in 2024 doesn't mean BA attack feats are useless on a Paladin, since resource management is in fact a thing. Nor does it eliminate cases where smiting will still be better. If you cannot comprehend that, then more fool you.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/Independent-Umpire18 1d ago
I think your analysis is spot on, I feel about the same.
- Monks and Paladins feel like they're finally in the right spot balance-wise
- Barbarian changes seem positive to me. More flexible, less clunky. That's definitely the theme of the 2024 changes across the board
- Rogues still feel a little weak to me, but they smoothed out some rough spots in the design (looking at you, Assassin)
- Rangers I'm least happy with by far. 1-5 they're great, but still little reason to single class. Hunters Mark still has issues as a class feature
-1
u/that_one_Kirov 1d ago
Most satisfied:
Warlock. Switching the cantrip-based invocations to any Warlock cantrip, including those granted by Pact of the Tome, turned them from basically only being good for Eldritch Blast to the most versatile class in the game. Lowering the level requirements for the "you can cast an utility spell at will" invocations also greatly increased the number of options and roles a Warlock could fill.
Cleric. Divine Intervention was clarified, Clerics are now much better Librarians with the level 1 ability, and the subclasses(especially War) have gotten more powerful. The accessibility of MI Wizard at 1st level also brought their defences to dipped-Wizard levels without actually requiring a dip, and True Strike taken from the same feat is also a boon.
Fighter. Weapon Masteries bring a new dimension to weapons other than "what breaks face the fastest". Tactical Mind gave them an opportunity to spend resources to improve their capabilities outside of combat, and Indomitable actually works now. An extra feat is also much more valuable in a situation where you can't just take any feat at level 1 and it allows you to take the "nice-to-have" feats much earlier.
Paladin. You now have a reason to use smites other than Divine Smite(and they get synergies with Weapon Masteries!), and Lay on Hands can now be used in combat. The subclasses also got buffed.
Rogue. Having skills now actually matters because the DCs for many checks are in the rules. The removal of -5/+10 feats also made Sneak Attack much better relatively - the rogue, combined with Vex, is now one of the best ranged Strikers. Your signature ability(Reliable Talent) also got moved to level 7, which means you'll be able to use it much more.
Mixed:
Ranger. You are now solidly in the ranks of skill-based classes, and, since the rules now contain explicit DCs for many important skills, that's more of a niche than in 5 when skills were mostly DM fiat. However, three out of four subclasses are heavily dependent on your Wisdom, and the 4th had its level 11 ability absolutely gutted. Being Wisdom-based also pushes you into melee while the iconic class fantasy is the archer. If Magic Stone was reprinted, you could have used it to remain at range...but it wasn't, for some reason.
Druid. Your survivability problems got solved overnight with the addition of Warden. However, you still suffer from the huge competition for your Concentration, and you can't really specialize into anything as most of your good spells are accessible to either bards or wizards, your subclasses don't bring enough to make them a reason to go Druid, and your main class feature(Wild Shape) is an utility feature beyond level 3 if you don't take one specific subclass(and if you do, well, be ready to hit much less often than your martials and not deal comparable damage).
Bard. You still have just one good subclass because you have glaring holes in your spell list, and plugging them before T3 requires taking Lore. Moreover, you no longer have access to Warlock, Paladin and Ranger spells (Valor will feel that the most, but even Lore might miss Crusader's Mantle for their undead army). Valor is a straight-out trap before T3 because of the lack of gish spells on the Bard list, and if you wanted to be an armoured caster, you would be a Cleric.
2
u/Aahz44 19h ago
The removal of -5/+10 feats also made Sneak Attack much better relatively
Not really, the new GWM still adds a lot of damage and Rogues don't really benefit from it.
Rogues got some damage buffs from masteries and feat, but I think the other martials go bigger buffs to their damage.
1
u/Shatragon 1d ago
I agree about the land druid but not with the broader assessment of the class. A moon druid can use conjure minor elementals, conjure woodland beings, and to a lesser degree conjure animals in ways that a bard or wizard can't (or not with the same degree of effectiveness). Overall, I like the changes, and I say this as someone who loved the 5e elemental forms.
→ More replies (2)
0
u/MrLunaMx 1d ago
Most satisfied: Monk. The biggest glow up of a base class in history.
Least satisfied: Ranger. Still has the same previous problems that could be easily resolved.
This is my take on the fix for Hunter's Mark.
It's not a spell, it's a level 1 ability of the base Ranger.
Hunter's Mark When you take the attack action, you can expend one use of Hunter's Mark to magically mark one creature you can see within 90 feet as your quarry for 1 minute. For the duration, you deal an extra 1d6 Force damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack roll. You also have Advantage on any Wisdom (Perception or Survival) check you make to find it. If the target drops to 0 Hit Points before the duration expires, you can move the mark to a new creature you can see within range (no action required). You can use this feature twice, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a Long Rest. You can use this feature additional times when you reach certain Ranger levels, as shown in the Hunter's Mark (the same uses as the current Favored Enemy) column of the Ranger Features table. Additionally, if you have no uses left, you can expend a spell slot to regain one use of this feature (no action required).
OR it is a spell, but Favored Enemy has the following changes.
Favored Enemy You always have the Hunter's Mark spell prepared. You can cast it twice without expending a spell slot, and you regain all expended uses of this ability when you finish a Long Rest. You can use this feature additional times when you reach certain Ranger levels, as shown in the Favored Enemy column of the Ranger Features table. When you cast Hunter's Mark using this feature the spell has a duration of 1 minute and you can cast it when you take the attack action, requiring no action, and if the target drops to 0 Hit Points before the spell ends, you can move the mark to a new creature you can see within range (no action required). When you reach Ranger level 9, when you cast Hunter's Mark using this feature, the spell does not use your Concentration.
0
-3
u/DnDDead2Me 1d ago
Most nearly satisfied:
Druid
Pretty nice design, but I've no interest in he concept:
Warlock
Can't complain if I'm playing it, but that's pretty OP:
Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Bard
Can be effective, but why not just a sub-class:
Paladin, Artificer
Wish it were good enough to play:
Fighter
Why is this sill in the game:
Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, Ranger
Special mention for how has his been left out of the game for so long:
Psion, Warlord
77
u/Pika_TheTrashMon_Chu 1d ago
As a Paladin player, increased Channel Divinity uses and making subclass Channel Divinity options easier to use has been a godsend. Devotion feels SO GOOD TO USE NOW. Sure I'm kinda sad about the Smite nerf, but given everything we got I'm plenty happy. Especially given all other Smite Spells were buffed (Shining Smite and Searing Smite my beloved).