D&D 5E What do you think of Fizban's races, subclasses feats and spells?

[ECMO3]

I'm curious to hear more on why you see these races as equivalent to other PHB races. To me the dragon breath changes feel substantially more powerful. One of my players wants to adopt these changes and I'm leaning toward saying no, so I'm looking for another perspective.

The fact that the breath does 3 things bothers me:
1. It scales damage with level. Most racial combat abilities do this, no issue here.
2. It scales uses with level by tying it to proficiency. I don't think any other racial does this (though I love the idea, it just needs to be applied to all racials).
3. It allows you to do elemental damage in place of a single attack (not using a whole action like other racial abilities).

If you remove even 1 of those I think it's probably fine, but I'm not sure how any other racial ability can compare to the power of that breath weapon.

p.s. If this is a new direction for racials, I love it. If all the racials were this dynamic and powerful I'd be fine with it. But I don't want my other players feeling left behind when my pally Red-Dragonborn is melting everything in sight, every combat...

I think it the changes bring dragonborn up to be middle of the pack or average of other races with the metallic being better than the others. I think compared to other races they are no longer the ones left behind.

I think Yuan-Ti, V. Human, Custom, Goblin, Kobold, Half-Orc, Half-Elf and Mountain Dwarf are all substantially better than any of the Dragonborn options.

I think Tieflings, most Elves, non-Mountain Dwarves, Harengon, Hexblood and Bugbear are generally better as well.

 

[ECMO3]

Hunters mark and hex are nice, but since they use concentration they are often not remotely the best choice.

I think that depends on what you are comparing it to and your character build. If you are a cleric or bladesinger that is going to be concentrating on something else while they swing their sword that is true. If you are an EK or non-caster though that is not going to be happening often and if you are a half caster the once a day option will probably be used because you generally don't have enough spells to be concentrating on something else all the time.

My big thing is 1d4 for 1 combat (usually 3-4 turns) a day is not very good. The damage resistance reaction is a lot better and has enough uses so you probably will never run out, but I still think this should have got a +1 on a stat too.

FWIW I would not get HM, that spell is not great IMO. Hex is a much better spell with a ton of out of combat uses and non-damaging uses in combat. Sneak past the guard (targeting wisdom), interrogations (target charisma weakening deception), decieving someone (targeting wisdom) or in combat hex wisdom to enable hide easier or if you want to grapple someone hex dex or strength- to give them disadvantage or make them switch to their lessor stat.

I am playing a 13th level human Arcane Trickster/bladesinger who started out with Fey Touched and Hex. She used it a lot in tier 1 but for the most part, when she casts hex it is to give someone disadvantage on something. Even at 13th level though she still uses her once a day use for this every day.

 

[ECMO3]

Another way of looking at it, is Absorb Elements is too situational to be worth preparing, and PB uses per day of a situational ability is pretty close to "always on".

This is a legitimate argument. AE is costly to prepare, and even more costly to know for an AT or Ranger and it is rare you get the bonus damage out of it (because when you use it the enemy is usually immune). I have found myself in this dilima before because AE is really good when you need it, but costly to have on your list when you don't.

My experience tells me either tables forget to roll consecration checks for minor damage, or they last about two rounds on average. And that's assuming you don't have some other spell you need to concentrate on. No concentration required is a huge boost, as is simply being not-a-spell. Which is not to say it is better than Hunters Mark - if you have spell slots (but are not a full caster) adding it to what you can cast is probably better, but if you don't have spell slots and do have the extra attack feature GCD is better. For example I could see a barbarian (not bear totem) picking it up to fill out resistances, and, as it's not a spell, you can activate the elemental damage whist raging. You could even use the ability on someone else's weapon - you can't do that with Hunters Mark!

The numbers work against this. To fail concentration you have to both get damaged and fail the save, and the save is easy more often than not. There is a lot of factors here obvioulsly, what are you fighting, what is your AC, what is your constitution, are you a front liner, but IME concentration generally lasts more than 2 turns.

I would argue because damage is higher, the difference with extra attack for a non-caster is actually is the reverse of your argument and tilts more in favor of the spell feat. The spell slots for a caster mean they can cast it more, but the guy without slots is less likely to be concentrating on something else. Since Hex does more damage, with extra attack this increases the per-turn damage difference in favor of the spell. From a math point of view, with extra attack even if you only get 2 turns out of hex, it is going to still be on par with 3 turns of damage from GMD. I think battles that last 3 turns or less are more common than battles that you lose concentration in 2 turns. So in general you are not going to lose anything and you have the opportunity for significantly more due to the longer duration.

Assuming we are talking about the magic initiate feat with hex. I think Hex is going to do more damage per day on average, what would really determine which feat is better is how you weigh the disadvantage from hex and the 2 warlock cantrips against what in play will usually be at-will elemental resistance as a reaction.

 

[ECMO3]

Another way of looking at it, is Absorb Elements is too situational to be worth preparing, and PB uses per day of a situational ability is pretty close to "always on".

This is a legitimate argument. AE is costly to prepare, and even more costly to know for an AT or Ranger and it is rare you get the bonus damage out of it (because when you use it the enemy is usually immune). I have found myself in this dilima before because AE is really good when you need it, but costly to have on your list when you don't.

ATs are the worst because there are 3 1st level spells I really want (shield, find familiar, absorb elements) and I can only take 1.

My experience tells me either tables forget to roll consecration checks for minor damage, or they last about two rounds on average. And that's assuming you don't have some other spell you need to concentrate on. No concentration required is a huge boost, as is simply being not-a-spell. Which is not to say it is better than Hunters Mark - if you have spell slots (but are not a full caster) adding it to what you can cast is probably better, but if you don't have spell slots and do have the extra attack feature GCD is better. For example I could see a barbarian (not bear totem) picking it up to fill out resistances, and, as it's not a spell, you can activate the elemental damage whist raging. You could even use the ability on someone else's weapon - you can't do that with Hunters Mark!

The numbers work against this. To fail concentration you have to both get damaged and fail the save, and the save is easy more often than not. There is a lot of factors here obvioulsly, what are you fighting, what is your AC, what is your constitution, are you a front liner, but IME concentration generally lasts more than 2 turns.

I would argue because damage is higher, the difference with extra attack for a non-caster is actually is the reverse of your argument and tilts more in favor of the spell feat. The spell slots for a caster mean they can cast it more, but the guy without slots is less likely to be concentrating on something else. Since Hex does more damage, with extra attack this increases the per-turn damage difference in favor of the spell. From a math point of view, with extra attack even if you only get 2 turns out of hex, it is going to still be on par with 3 turns of damage from GMD. I think battles that last 3 turns or less are more common than battles that you lose concentration in 2 turns. So in general you are not going to lose anything and you have the opportunity for significantly more due to the longer duration.

Assuming we are talking about the magic initiate feat with hex. I think Hex is going to do more damage per day on average, what would really determine which feat is better is how you weigh the disadvantage from hex and the 2 warlock cantrips against what in play will usually be at-will elemental resistance as a reaction.

Generally, if they don't prepare it, it's because the don't want to be pushed into the designated healer role. Clerics and druids have plenty of spells they can prepare. But if you have it it sucks up your spell slots like nobody's business. "I lost 10 hp in that fight, can you top me up please?" Show me a wizard with Cure Wounds and I will show you a wizard who never gets to cast Fireball.

I would not say Clerics and Druids have plenty of spells. Certainly my clerics don't (although they are low level). Healing Word is our go to first level heal spell.

I think healing between battles usually comes from Paladins, Goodberrys or potions. Assuming there is no time for a short rest.

I think your comment about Wizards is off the mark. Consider a Divine Soul is considered one of the best sorcerer subclasses and it is because they get access to cleric spells. They still hurl plenty of damaging spells though. I think Cure Wounds makes sense for a wizard because they have no other healing option other than false life and false life will not bring up downed allies. That is where I think it would be used the most is to revive downed allies and get them back in the fight.

If you are really playing strict RAW, in tier 2 reviving downed allies is extremely important, both to keep them from making death saves and to get them back in the fight. When an ally goes down you need to get them back up even if as nothing more than another target for a couple enemy turns. That is generally more important from an action economy point of view than dealing damage is. A lot of DMs house rule this and give exhaustion if you are downed or some other mechanic to complicate this play style, but strict RAW this is important and it is what I think the most common use of cure wounds for a wizard or any other character (although as you mentioned healing word is better for this).

I am curious though about why you think it could make sense for a sorcerer in some cases but not a wizard?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Healing Word is our go to first level heal spell.

That's because it's better. If you have this you don't need Cure Wounds - on any party member.

I am curious though about why you think it could make sense for a sorcerer in some cases but not a wizard?

Because Cure Wounds works well with metamagic, making it viable to use in combat. Also, sorcerers are desperately lacking in spells available - not a problem for wizards.

The main use of Cure Wounds is to top up hit points out of combat. It does that marginally more efficiently than Healing Word. But a wizard's spell slots are far too valuable for that.

 

[ECMO3]

The main use of Cure Wounds is to top up hit points out of combat. It does that marginally more efficiently than Healing Word. But a wizard's spell slots are far too valuable for that.

Copy, if that is your play style. I would not use it for that, and I certainly would not use it for that as a wizard unless it wasright before taking a long rest or a short rest and I was going to get back the slot.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Copy, if that is your play style. I would not use it for that, and I certainly would not use it for that as a wizard unless it wasright before taking a long rest or a short rest and I was going to get back the slot.

When would you use it on a wizard? You going to rush up to the front line in the middle of a battle to revive a fallen tank? - rather than disable the enemies attacking her with a crowd control spell?!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

When would you use it on a wizard? You going to rush up to the front line in the middle of a battle to revive a fallen tank? - rather than disable the enemies attacking her with a crowd control spell?!

I’ve done essentially that with a potion to get the main healer back up. Sometimes having that PC back up is the better choice.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I’ve done essentially that with a potion to get the main healer back up. Sometimes having that PC back up is the better choice.

Carrying a 50 gp potion is a lot cheaper than a feat!

 

[ECMO3]

When would you use it on a wizard? You going to rush up to the front line in the middle of a battle to revive a fallen tank? - rather than disable the enemies attacking her with a crowd control spell?!

Yes, although usually the wizards I am playing are Bladesingers on the front line already. Keep in mind if your ally just went down you have much more hps than she does, are much further from death and will last longer on the front line than she will.

It is going to be rare that reviving an ally is not the best move if you can get to her and do it. In the rare case where you can reliably wipe out an enemy in 1 turn, usually the rest of the party will be able to wipe out the enemy in one round anyway (especially if the downed character is back up).

Also from an economy point of view, it would not use a spell slot to bring back an ally using this feat the first time and could be done with a 1st level slot even after that. A control spell that will reliably delay enemy actions for multiple enemies for a turn so they don't kill your ally is going to require a higher level slot usually.

Obviously the initiative order is a big factor here, but even in the worst case where you go right before the bad guys, bringing the front liner up so they can play whack a mole with him every turn is going to be a winning strategy as the rest of your party whittles the enemy. That would assume the rest of the party can't heal him though, in which case it would be even more important to have someone with in-combat healing.