D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[Minigiant]

But, with that being said, I will share that my experience of shields in 5th edition is not that they stink if one does not have the protection fighting style, and that shields in 5th edition are more useful than shields in the 1st edition and 2nd edition of AD&D. Not only do shields provide a two-point AC adjustment across the board, but some classes can use the shield for interesting effects (the cavalier does, the cleric or paladin can incorporate a holy symbol into a shield and thereby avoid material components to spells, plus some other exceptions in the game where shields come up and that are slipping my mind in the moment, and this is not even introducing a discussion about shield mastery, which, given the digression about feats from the last two or three pages of this thread, I will certainly avoid). That two-point adjustment to AC is great. Anyway, in my experience shields have a place and, vis-à-vis 1st and 2nd edition -- and for that matter, Basic -- do not stink. Probably vis-à-vis 3rd or 4th edition they stink...I really don't have enough experience to hold such an aromatic opinion.

My opinion on shields are mostly in the matter of having the opinion of equipping a shield vs doing something else with your hand. The 2 points of AC often does not match up well with the myriad of other options that focus PCs into one style of combat. 5e gives classes with fighting styles a good nudge in one direction. If they take a direction away from shields, equipping one often feels like a downgrade. This is especially true once higher tier armor and magic armor come into play to give PCs enough AC to eschew shield use.

My second humble contribution here would be to respond to this notion that "you can't even throw multiple weapons in a turn without a fighting style." I do not understand this. Anyone with multiple attacks, gained at 5th level or 6th level by the battle smith artificer, college of valor or college of swords bards, monk, barbarian, ranger, paladin, and, of course, the fighter, can throw a # of weapons/turn equal to the character's # of attacks, which would be two for these characters and, of course, even more for a higher-level fighter. But, in addition, any character at even 1st level can employ the "Two-weapon Fighting" rule on page 195 of the PHB to throw an additional light weapon by using a bonus action. This option means that such a character does not get the usual ability modifier to damage with that additional thrown attack. For convenience sake, here is the rule:

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

The issue is less the attacks and more that you can only draw one weapon a turn. In 5e, you can only interact with one object as part of your movement.

You need the Dual Wielder Feat or Thrown Weapon Fighting style to draw multiple throwable weapons in a single turn. Therefore without them, you can only throw multiple weapons in one turn if you drew one the turn before.

This often leaves Str based weapon users with a weak ranged attack and pushed them away from it as HP bloats

 

[Hatmatter]

Character has 2 attacks; starts round with one spear in hand.

Round 1:
Character throws spear,
Character draws second spear
Character throws second spear
Character ends round with two empty hands.

Round 2:
Character draws spear
Character throws spear
Character cannot draw a new spear, character ends round with empty hands.

This is wonderful, ph0rk, thank you for taking the time to type this out and contribute. What a wonderful example. It seems like this is how it should work. Unless a character is under a Haste spell or something like that, anything else would approach computer game-type action. Also, it provides motivation for a character to plant his or her multiple spears in the earth before him or her or have them in an easy to access vessel atop a castle wall or what have you, so that the DM could make a decision that picking up a new spear that has been prepared in such way would not invoke the "interact with one object for free" rule. I like this.

 

[billd91]

I don't get the Feat talk.

Almost everyone increases their Primary Ability Score to 20 before thinking about doing anything else.

You sure about that? Or are you guessing? Because what you're asserting here isn't what I'm seeing in practice.

 

[Ancalagon]

This is an aside, but I have a HUGE ISSUE with throwing weapons needing a feat/style to be used effectively, but not a bow.

Think about two warriors (exact class doesn't matter, but they both have 2 attacks), Jill the knife-thrower and Bob the archer. Across a 15 foot chasm, half a dozen goblins are shooting at them with their short bows, and our two warriors decide to return fire.

Bob pulls out a 2-3 foot long stick of wood. On one end there are feathers that must not be damaged. On the other end is a point that may have hooks on them. Once he has grabbed one, he must hook the tip via a very small notch onto the string of his bow, just at the right position. Despite this long stick of wood being in a long tube full of other similar awkward implements (arrows), he is able to pull two out of the quiver and fire them twice.

Jill, on the other hand, had short weapons on her chest, made of metal. Each one is short, has no hooks, and instead of a tiny bit to grab, have a nice handle. Each weapon is individually sheathed so there is no chance of drawing one messing up the other....

BUT Jill needs a special feat/fighting style to be able to throw 2 daggers in a round?!?!? Come on now! It's way easier to grab and throw a knife than pull out an arrow out of a quiver...

I should make a thread about it.

 

[Oofta]

You sure about that? Or are you guessing? Because what you're asserting here isn't what I'm seeing in practice.

In my experience more than half of players have at least one feat. I have no idea how representative that is but I play with both newbies and experienced players.

 

[Oofta]

This is an aside, but I have a HUGE ISSUE with throwing weapons needing a feat/style to be used effectively, but not a bow.

Think about two warriors (exact class doesn't matter, but they both have 2 attacks), Jill the knife-thrower and Bob the archer. Across a 15 foot chasm, half a dozen goblins are shooting at them with their short bows, and our two warriors decide to return fire.

Bob pulls out a 2-3 foot long stick of wood. On one end there are feathers that must not be damaged. On the other end is a point that may have hooks on them. Once he has grabbed one, he must hook the tip via a very small notch onto the string of his bow, just at the right position. Despite this long stick of wood being in a long tube full of other similar awkward implements (arrows), he is able to pull two out of the quiver and fire them twice.

Jill, on the other hand, had short weapons on her chest, made of metal. Each one is short, has no hooks, and instead of a tiny bit to grab, have a nice handle. Each weapon is individually sheathed so there is no chance of drawing one messing up the other....

BUT Jill needs a special feat/fighting style to be able to throw 2 daggers in a round?!?!? Come on now! It's way easier to grab and throw a knife than pull out an arrow out of a quiver...

I should make a thread about it.

Javelin quiver or thrown weapon bandolier that allows multiple thrown weapons is a house rule I've added because I agree. Bows and crossbows still have ludicrous ranges (and longbows should require strength) but I want to put them on at least a somewhat even foot.

 

[Marandahir]

Welp, here's a big wide open rift that's happened post-Tasha's in 5e:

Subclasses are no longer sub-class but side-class; they're like 4e Paragon Paths in that they can selected by anyone who meets the prerequisite (though most require a single class as their prereq) and form a secondary archetypal story for your character's class. Wow does this Unearthed Arcana shake the very foundations of 5e character design.

 

[Parmandur]

Welp, here's a big wide open rift that's happened post-Tasha's in 5e:

Subclasses are no longer sub-class but side-class; they're like 4e Paragon Paths in that they can selected by anyone who meets the prerequisite (though most require a single class as their prereq) and form a secondary archetypal story for your character's class. Wow does this Unearthed Arcana shake the very foundations of 5e character design.

Yeah, it's an interesting call back to the Themes in D&D Nex that became Subclasses. This is way more radical than the minor ASI chamge in Tasha's.

 

[J-H]

Looks like 3/5ths of them are flavored for Bards.
I lost interest partway through the 2nd one. Bleh.

 

[Ancalagon]

Welp, here's a big wide open rift that's happened post-Tasha's in 5e:

Subclasses are no longer sub-class but side-class; they're like 4e Paragon Paths in that they can selected by anyone who meets the prerequisite (though most require a single class as their prereq) and form a secondary archetypal story for your character's class. Wow does this Unearthed Arcana shake the very foundations of 5e character design.

which UA is this? :O