D&D (2024) D&D 5.11 - the time of big change is over

[mamba]

I recognize that this latest version is disappointing for especially those that wanted a more "template" form rather than back to the MM. However, I would argue a lot of fixes are in place.

yes, a step in the right direction, which is disappointing when you felt you were already further along in it. Now we have to wait another 10 years to get a second shot at what could / should have been addressed this time around

 

[Vael]

I recognize that this latest version is disappointing for especially those that wanted a more "template" form rather than back to the MM. However, I would argue a lot of fixes are in place.

• you can now summon a companion with a single spell slot rather than an expensive wild shape use.
• The moon druids seems much better balanced. Less HP but a significant improvement in AC. I don't think this moon druid will terrorize 2nd level like they do now (a moon druid is currently THE most OP character at 2nd level by a mile, like its embarrassingly good).
• Wildshape and spell slots can now be used more interchangeably. This is a wonderful flexibility option, allowing people that want to play the druid from the dnd movie by using all their spells for wildshape, or allow druids taht don't really want to be a shapeshift more magic options.
• The moon druid actually has lunar abilities now.
• Druid of the land got some needed buffs.
• The 20th level moon druid is no longer absolutely invincible.

So its not a total overhaul but there are some good changes here.

Oh, agreed. I'm team template, but if this Druid gets printed, it'll be fine. It'll play much better at tables with the shortened list of "prepared forms" and I think the overhaul to Moon and Land Druids is really solid. The inherent problems of MM hunting, lack of scaling, and lack of higher CR beasts for the Moon Druid won't be solved, but this will work.

 

[Valetudo]

So far what I have seen in the play tests have been just as much miss as hit. Weapon mastery and some feat fixes. Martial sorta kinda got buffs from those fixes. Monks still bad, maybe worse. Do full casters need new stuff? I was on team 5.5, but I dont see them touching alot of 5e complaints or taking more away than they get(monks). I was really eager to see if they fixed the monk and I came away fairly disappointed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

yes, a step in the right direction, which is disappointing when you felt you were already further along in it. Now we have to wait another 10 years to get a second shot at what could / should have been addressed this time around

Or you could use a different companies' version, or make up your own. No one is doomed to follow WotC's lackluster "upgrades" for the next ten years.

 

[mamba]

Or you could use a different companies' version, or make up your own. No one is doomed to follow WotC's lackluster "upgrades" for the next ten years.

agreed, I am looking at other versions, much of that will have to be further down the line though, obviously

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So far what I have seen in the play tests have been just as much miss as hit. Weapon mastery and some feat fixes. Martial sorta kinda got buffs from those fixes. Monks still bad, maybe worse. Do full casters need new stuff? I was on team 5.5, but I dont see them touching alot of 5e complaints or taking more away than they get(monks). I was really eager to see if they fixed the monk and I came away fairly disappointed.

It bears repeating:it is the first shot at the monk. So when masteries get remastered, the monk might also see an upgrade.
I agree that some obvious fixes were left out. I guess that their focus this time lay on the subclass. And maybe a test, if people are ok, if the monk stays at recharges during short rests.

Be sure to mention, that you feel the monk needs more. And maybe rate unarmed combatant as unsatisfying.

I am quite positive, that the next monk will be better.

The second pass of all other classes looks quite solid. Although I am still questioning, why song of rest was taken from the bard class...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Or you could use a different companies' version, or make up your own. No one is doomed to follow WotC's lackluster "upgrades" for the next ten years.

Agree with looking at other companies.

Not agreeing that it is a lackluster upgrade.
You might feel it does not do what you want. That does not make it lackluster and not an upgrade per se.

I think the audience is so diverse, that it is impossible to do a version that satisfies everyone.
I mea, take the wildshape option: half of the people love templates, half of the people hate them with the same passion. WotC has to chose a side. That leaves the other side for other companies to explore.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Makes you wonder why they bothered to design and present what they did. What benefit does it provide for WotC?

How many people are going to downvote the most recent wildshape? I know I will.

If template wildshape had 70% approval, and MM-scraping wildshape has 65% approval, maybe they'll consider another pass at something new.

 

[Remathilis]

How many people are going to downvote the most recent wildshape? I know I will.

If template wildshape had 70% approval, and MM-scraping wildshape has 65% approval, maybe they'll consider another pass at something new.

It doesn't. It was close to an even split with stat blocks eking out ahead. Crawford said as much in the post mortem on that UA.

 

[Parmandur]

How many people are going to downvote the most recent wildshape? I know I will.

If template wildshape had 70% approval, and MM-scraping wildshape has 65% approval, maybe they'll consider another pass at something new.

Nah, I'm giving it good marks, it gets the job done.