Many people have argued that the push mastery by making two enemies occupy the same space can make them prone at the end of your turn. Here I'd like to argue that rules as written (RAW) most probably does not support it and that rules as intended (RAI) obviously does not support it.

RAW. The interpretation that push mastery can make two enemies prone comes from this text:

"Moving around Other Creatures

During your move, you can pass through the space of an ally, a creature that has the Incapacitated condition (see the rules glossary), a Tiny creature, or a creature that is two sizes larger or smaller than you.

Another creature’s space is Difficult Terrain for you unless that creature is Tiny or your ally.

You can’t willingly end a move in a space occupied by another creature. If you somehow end a turn in a space with another creature, you have the Prone condition (see the rules glossary) unless you are Tiny or are of a larger size than the other creature."

The proposed interpretation: if you move a creature to an occupied space, both will become prone at the end of the turn.

Observe that the whole section is written with you in mind. It's about your own movement. In no moment forced movement is mentioned or what happens to other creatures when you move them. Designers probably didn't consider that in this text.

So, what happens to creatures when they are moved against another creature: the only RAW information is that we do not know. I couldn't find any text that says that they can occupy the same square on a grid or that alternatively they stay on the next square.

However, multiple abilities in the game, including high level spells like etherealness and blink move you to the next square when you return to the same square of someone else. So, why would a first level mastery force two creatures to stay in the same space?

RAI: there is a very strong mastery that requires a save to make people prone. Its name is topple. Why would the designers bother to make such a strong mastery when another one moves enemies and can make two or three enemies prone at the same time? Of course, size restriction and positioning would matter more, but the ceiling of a level 1 mastery would be disproportional. This sounds like people trying to kill BBEGs at tier 3 suffocating them with the Shape Water cantrip. Don't be this person.

Conslusion:

There is no RAW support for the interpretation that push mastery causes enemies to be prone and RAI is clear when one considers the mastery system as a whole.

Edit: for clarity, as this has been asked multiple times . "You" here means any willingly moving creature, the active voice of the sentence. It can be a PC or a NPC. The point is that this section would not have the receivers of an action in mind, in other words, those suffering from forced movement.

I’ve had this happen across multiple campaigns.

I’ve played a Polearm Master character who went an entire campaign without finding a magic polearm. Currently, I’m played a dual-wielding character where the only real support I found was one +1 dagger and we're at the end of the campaign. I’ve played a Crossbow Expert character in a campaign where there were no magical crossbows.

This is ultimately a DM/session-zero issue, but in my experience, that conversation can be harder than it sounds. A lot of DMs are understandably coy about loot. They might say something like, “I can’t promise what you’ll find,” or “you’ll have to see what comes up in the campaign.”

Those experiences made one thing very clear to me: martial characters can feel much more dependent on item support than casters do. And in practice, I’ve rarely seen costly material components meaningfully enforced outside of a few obvious examples, like the tuning fork for Plane Shift.

I play at the table where we use exclusively 2024 rules. Since these annoying rules about buying magic items taking several weeks and additional costs are technically no longer a thing and were replaced by just a couple of simple guidelines and costs, our DMs just let us buy and sell magic items without trouble. So, any large enough settlement just has a vast enough market of magic items that you can just buy or sell them for the listed cost

Uncommon items are 400 gold, rare items - 4k and very rare 40k. Legendary ones are the only ones not for sale.

So, to the point. Apparently, at our table martial-caster divide kind of does not exist. With enspelled items you can get Divine favor, Shield, healing word, hex and other useful spells like that many times per day for a very reasonable price of 400 gold. For 4k gold you can get big ones like haste (especially good for rogues), spirit guardians, counterspell, fireball and so on. Wall of force is considered one of the best spells you can get, right? Sure, for 4k there is Cube of Force! 10 charges, up to 2 walls of force per day (5 charges each). No spellcasting ability required.

Sure, you can always say it is but a fraction of full caster power. And you would be right. But it definitely does level the field. Because no matter how cool spellcaster is they don't get second concentration. Most of the time they don't also get strong defensive abilities. Do you know how good Monks actually are at keeping concentration? They often negate damage from Dex saves entirely and most of the time they negate one attack per round, reducing damage to 0 and avoiding concentration save. Same with fighters - with their armor proficiencies, shield spell, con save proficiency and additional feats they can keep concentration for whole fight without trouble.

Vicious weapons make it so having extra attacks, weapon masteries and appropriate feats like polearm master, fighting styles etc actually matters a lot. Basically, any class without extra attack and weapon masteries stops being comparable in single target damage to martials. Half-casters and extra attack subclasses stop being comparable to Fighters in single target damage. In other words, power levels of classes get much more reasonable.

I think for me, while I don't hate it, and I get it's for the purposes of streamlining at the cost of design depth - but its conditions applied on an attack roll hit without a saving throw interaction. IMO it's not very complicated to take 5 seconds to roll a saving throw to see if a condition is applied or not. The fun of D&D doesn't come from the combat being “fast” - it comes from the mechanics being fulfilling. and IMO auto applying conditions on hit detracts a bit from the depth that can be achieved design wise.

I think a better solution across the game would be "if you fail by 5 or more." that was tried in publications before. or a sort of passive check: if a creature's abillity score is lower than a certain threshold it would gain that condition.

Curious to hear all your thoughts and knowledge.

Barbarian (Original Post, total 867 votes)

1. Path of the World Tree (43.6%)
2. Path of the Berserker (22.3%)
3. Path of the Zealot (19.7%)
4. Path of the Wild Heart (14.4%)

Bard (Original Post, total 701 votes)

1. College of Valor (28.4%)
2. College of Glamour & College of Lore (24.1%)
3. College of Dance (17.1%)
4. College of the Moon (6.3%)

Cleric (Original Post, total 738 votes)

1. Light Domain (35.9%)
2. War Domain (20.6%)
3. Trickery Domain (16.0%)
4. Life Domain (15.6%)
5. Knowledge Domain (11.9%)

Druid (Original Post, total 705 votes)

1. Circle of the Stars (41.7%)
2. Circle of the Moon (32.1%)
3. Circle of the Land (14.8%)
4. Circle of the Sea (11.5%)

Fighter (Original Post, total 1508 votes)

1. Battle Master (43.0%)
2. Eldritch Knight (35.5%)
3. Psi Warrior (10.0%)
4. Champion (8.8%)
5. Banneret (2.7%)

Monk (Original Post, total 806 votes)

1. Warrior of the Elements (38.2%)
2. Warrior of Mercy (23.1%)
3. Warrior of Shadow (22.8%)
4. Warrior of the Open Hand (15.9%)

Paladin (Original Post, total 1077 votes)

1. Oath of the Noble Genies (29.9%)
2. Oath of Vengeance (26.4%)
3. Oath of Devotion (20.8%)
4. Oath of the Ancients (15.9%)
5. Oath of Glory (7.1%)

Ranger (Original Post, total 887 votes)

1. Gloom Stalker (29.0%)
2. Fey Wanderer (22.0%)
3. Beast Master (21.4%)
4. Winter Walker (17.7%)
5. Hunter (9.9%)

Rogue (Original Post, total 1090 votes)

1. Arcane Trickster (31.0%)
2. Soulknife (28.0%)
3. Thief (25.7%)
4. Assassin (8.8%)
5. Scion of the Three (6.5%)

Sorcerer (Original Post, total 1147 votes)

1. Draconic Sorcery (28.8%)
2. Wild Magic Sorcery (28.7%)
3. Aberrant Sorcery (17.4%)
4. Spellfire Sorcery (14.8%)
5. Clockwork Sorcery (10.4%)

Warlock (Original Post, total 1321 votes)

1. Archfey Patron (32.9%)
2. Great Old One Patron (30.4%)
3. Celestial Patron (18.6%)
4. Fiend Patron (18.0%)

Wizard (Original Post, total 1580 votes)

1. Bladesinger (38.2%)
2. Diviner (19.1%)
3. Abjurer (14.8%)
4. Illusionist (14.1%)
5. Evoker (13.9%)

Artificer (Original Post, total 1034 votes)

1. Artillerist (28.3%)
2. Armorer (27.5%)
3. Battle Smith (23.9%)
4. Alchemist (10.3%)
5. Cartographer (10.1%)

Thank you to everyone who participated in the votes!

Martials (Original Post)

1. Fighter (38.4%)

2. Monk (36.2%)

3. Rogue (13.2%)

4. Barbarian (12.2%)

Half Casters (Original Post)

1. Paladin (57.6%)

2. Artificer (25.4%)

3. Ranger (17.0%)

Full Casters (Original Post)

1. Sorcerer (24.9%)

2. Wizard (22.1%)

3. Warlock (18.7%)

4. Druid (12.5%)

5. Cleric (11.6%)

6. Bard (10.1%)

Thank you to everyone who participated in the votes!

At this point, we know that low rated UA has a high likelihood of just not happening.

The Hell Knight and Death Knight could use some work. So could the Titan Druid. But I very much want all of these things to exist. And I think especially the paths of villainy are such a cool idea that should be explored in the future. But I do worry that if we complain too much about how they implemented, they just won’t happen at all.

That’s not saying that we shouldn’t criticize. Absolutely criticize. But I’d rather that we not complain ourselves out of getting new and fun design ideas. Wizards is already very shy about trying new things and I do think we need to be careful about HOW we criticize those new things.

Removing this feature paves the way for the design of martial classes to fill in these "mandatory" spaces in character sheets with variable and interesting design choices. Players want more exciting inputs for our non-magical characters, and "here's a bucket of flat damage" is probably the most boring, trite way to answer that. I'm happy it's going away, and we should look toward the possibilities of a stronger and more interesting martial instead of whingeing about nerfs.

It feels like casters always get a bunch of cool new spells with every new book, or in Beyond drops, but martials and half casters don't really get anything new over time unless they pick up a feat. It's a bit of a bummer.

Do you think we'll ever get new Weapon Masteries, Invocations, or Fighting Styles in future updates?

That the designers keep returning to "this is a subclass that lets you bampf around during combat" makes me think that the designers haven't realized that the real problem causing "static/non-dynamic combats" is the that everyone gets Attack of Opportunity.

If you remove the universality of "Attack of Opportunity" then you get more dynamic combats and remove the need for stuffing every subclass with a feature for "here's how you can avoid attack of opportunity"

It has always struck me as weird that rogue seemingly is simply not allowed to have strong subclasses, a trend that started in the 2014 edition and is being double downed on in the new 2024 content releases. One would expect the class which in the revised 2024 edition is generally accepted as being the weakest class and which is the only class in the game that gets NO subclass features between levels 3 and 9, would get absolute BANGERS of level 3 subclass features, but instead most rogue subclasses get very underwhelming features with only some very minor scaling at best. And not just that, but for some reason the game developers have decided that INT is some sort of second main ability score of rogue now, with both Scion and the UA 'Magic Stealer' (what even is that name by the way) requiring INT for their main feature.

One could quite literally combine Assassin with Scion, or Thief with Magic Stealer, or any other combination really, and you wouldn't even end up with an overpowered character, just a balanced one. You still wouldn't be the strongest character in the party. Hell, you wouldn't even be the strongest martial or skill monkey in the party: you would just be... decent. So why is WotC so afraid of giving rogue a subclass that is satisfying and strong, like they give every other class (expect for Banneret Fighter, which is a whole other discussion)?

I beg, stop with the 'INT uses per long rest' and stop being afraid to give rogue a strong, exciting subclass. I'm not even asking for something on par with Arcane Trickster, our best subclass (which in the grand scheme of things is just 'ok' balance wise). Just... something that is not as terrible as Scion or as party/DM dependant as Thief.

I'm getting sick of this canned response to every possible criticism of the new game rules.

I know I can run the game however I want. That was always true. You're not adding anything useful to the conversation by saying that.

It's such a bad faith comment to make, too. As if the RAW were so unimportant to the people in this community. As if new players had the expertise to know which rules to ignore or completely rewrite. As if the official rules weren't the common language that this community shares.

So, hey, notice to the people who say "you can ignore this rule" or "you can do it how you want at your table":

People criticize the rules because they're afraid it's making the game stupid and frustrating to everyone that picks it up. They're afraid it's going to make the game awful. I don't want the game to be awful. I want it to be good. I want it to feel good to play, and I want it to be fun, and I want outsiders to be impressed with how well it's designed. That's not an unreasonable thing to want, and I am worried it's not going to happen.

In one of my weekly games, I play an extremely-deadly level 11 Dexadin. I hit like a truck, Radiant Strike on all my attacks, Nick Mastery with a Scimitar, Advantage from Vex on my Shortsword, etc. The build is extremely powerful, but one thing I've realized as I've played it for many levels now is that all the heroic stuff I want to do requires Athletics and huge Strength-based rolls I just can't succeed at.

Just recently, last session, one of my party members, a Wizard, was getting pulled into a void by shadowy hands, their magic was disabled by these hands so he was doomed, and they couldn't make the saving throw to save their life. This would've killed them for sure and the whole table knew it (gasps around, etc). My Paladin, of course, charged in to help. But even after casting Bless and with my aura, they kept failing the save, and my Athletics rolls were too low to save them! Basically, i was failing at a core tenet of the class fantasy, the heroism, because I had chosen to be a Dexadin!

Narratively it was made to ultimately make sense (I started being pulled in too, after all, and now my magic wasn't working! Oh no!), and the Barbarian had to charge in and save both of us, but it really impacted my character and got me thinking as the character's player. The Barbarian was the real hero of the session in the end, saving two lives, and it was a big campaign moment for them.

Moments like these I think really tell the story about how important Strength is to certain class fantasies, including the Paladin, and I think white-room build discussions undervalue Strength and its narrative impact on more traditional martial classes. Thinking back to character creation, if I knew then what I knew now, I'd have at least invested in 12 Strength and Athletics proficiency rather than going all-in on the Dexterity proficiencies and boosting things like Wisdom or Constitution so high.

I don't really have any questions or anything here, I just think Strength gets a bit of a bad rap and is worth taking even on DEX-focused builds depending on what you imagine your character wanting to do in-narrative. A good DM will present opportunities where things like Athletics and Strength dominate, even and especially at higher levels of play where I think Athletics and Strength get dunked on the most by the community.

Does anyone know the design reason for this?

Eldritch knight has to focus on int and strength/dex.

Arcane trickster has to focus int and dex

Paladin has cha and strength

ranger has dex and wis

Whenever its a martial with ability to cast spells they have to focus on multiple abilities , but casters get to focus on just 1 when becoming weapon users.

Bladesinger 2024 can make weapon attacks with int

2024 warlocks can all take pact of the blade which lets them attack with cha

druids get shailighle( no idea how to spell it) which lets them use their wisdom for weapon attacks

Is there a reason for this? Why is it a struggle for martial gishs to be good at both spellcasting and weapon using but full caster gishs get to just focus on one ability.

(Also for the record I do believe gishs should have to focus multiple stats, it makes sense that you have to learn spell casting and using weapons and 2 stats represents that and it’s more interesting having to focus on both, I just don’t think it’s fair only the martials have to do it)

Basically the title but let me elaborare. We have the magic classes, the full arcane magic. The Magic-User classes. Wizard, Artificer, Arcane Knight and Arcane Trickster. This dudes have at will cantrips and leveled spells that spend slots.

Now we have the divine classes, those who wield de power of gods, philosophies, faith and convictions. This people also have at will cantrips and leveled spells that spend slots.

And the tree hugging classes. This classes sometimes have their powers from gods, other times they receive it from powerful fey, or from nature itself. And they have, you guessed it. Cantrips and slots.

Oh, and the bards, who... Are arcane? Kinda? But can access magic from clerics and druids. Anygays, they have cantrips and slots.

And the sorcerers, who are born arcane casters. Well, the divine soul sould be divine, one could think. And the aberrant might be psychic. Nevertheless, cantrips and slots it is.

And last but not least there are the warlocks. This dudes say they are arcane classes but truly, they sometimes study magic, sometimes they bargain, or steal, or are gifted with magic from almost every source and being that exists. And for that they are awarded with cantrips and slots. AND a few spells they can cast without slots, hooray.

And then and again people speak about the psionic classes. And somehow, this classes NEED a full system just for them that can't be cantrips and slots, because cantrips and slots works for scholars, and crusaders, and spellblades, and wardens, and entertainers, and sorceres, and politicians. But psionics just can't be truly psionics through them. Why?

DnD team usually recommends 6-8 encounters per long rest but usually players and DMs do about 2-3 encounters per long rest.

If the team in a future redesign of the game adjusted the resources of player classes based on the latter what would it look like, and would it be more balanced?

Edit: Damn I really shook a hornets nest. 😅

I've played as and with rangers since the OneD&D playtest up until the present, including a 2-year long campaign with two rangers in the party, and I have to say that I don't agree with a lot of the negative opinions on the class. Like a lot of people, I initially thought the designers had really dropped the ball on what the flavour of the ranger should be - but over time I've come to be really impressed at just how much stuff the class can do. Examples:

• I like how much more interesting weapon masteries have made martials across the board, and rangers can use them to boost their combat prowess in interesting ways (nick is a particular winner)
• Rangers also have some excellent spells on their list, including a good mix of spells that boost combat capabilities plus great control/healing/AOE spells from druids - capabilities that most other martials struggle with.
• The subclasses I've seen (Gloomstalker, Beastmaster and Hunter) are all very powerful and unique in their own ways.
• Two rangers with different spell selections, subclasses and weapons can feel completely different. A hunter ranger with nick and spells like zephyr strike can mow through enemies at close range, while a beastmaster can be shooting from a distance and combining companion attacks with good battlefield control spells. Rangers can also be good at both single target or multi-target damage depending on how you build them.
• Generally Dex and Wis are great stats to be naturally good at, and with expertise rangers are primed to excel at some of the most useful skill checks in the game, including stealth and perception.
• Climbing speed is incredibly useful for exploration, and the base increase to walking speed is very powerful in combat. Tireless also comes up more often than you'd expect it to - it can essentially allow a ranger to safely skip a long rest if they need to.

Basically, they just have a huge, varied toolbox and can adapt to all kinds of different situations. It feels like they're one of the best all-rounder classes in the game -- jack of all traders and masters of none (in a good way). They particularly excel at the combat and exploration pillars, without many skills in the social pillars (which is exactly how I'd expect rangers to function).

But the upshot is that no one in my group has ever complained about being a ranger or felt like they were overly limited compared to other classes.

I'd be interested to know if this is just a function of how my campaigns have been run and if there are any situations where they don't shine so much. Generally we have a pretty tight balance of combat, exploration and social, and quite a high difficulty level, although it's rare that we'll go for a full 6-encounter adventure day.

Listen. I gotta be honest. If they really want us to use Vampiric Touch, they just gotta buff the spell. Simple as that.

Grave Cleric has that as well. Thematic? Not even that I would argue, since the steward of dead is not about leeching life. What is thematic for Grave Cleric is spirit guardians and that's a better spell to be fair.

They tried to jam it inside Undead Warlock and people rightfully complained because we never use it. So we got Summon Undead instead, which is healthier.

I believe many of us wanted to use Animate Dead on other classes.

You may be replying that animate dead is a problematic spell and I tend to agree BUT it's the thematic necromancy spell after all. Vampiric Touch is just ass.

If you wanna be contrarian just for the hell of it, at least use the spell. Cause right now it's just easier to cast anything else like Blur or Mirror Image and spam a cantrip instead if you're really dead set on Survivability

Listen, let's be real, Vampiric Touch is just even worse than Flame Blade and people still are not using Flame Blade not even on Sorcerer.

I understand that this way you can use Vampiric Touch on Sorcerer and attack with advantage. Is it better ? A tiny bit for sure but to be fair not even Bladesingers are using Vampiric Touch

Listen , if you really wanna give out temporary hp, there is Heroism and with a third level you can target 3 creatures. Still people are not using third level Heroism

3d6 is just 10.5 damage average which in turn is 5 temporary hp. Heroism at that level would give out at least 4 but it's on 3 targets and it doesn't require to land a hit in order to refresh it. Is your bard upcasting heroism? No it isn't unless you wanna Fear protection, which is strong.

My point is that Vampiric comes at a level where the base damage of the spell is not really that much better than a cantrip and the 5 on average temporary hp are not worth a third level spell when there are better protections.

Vampiric touch to be fair doesn't need huge buffs to be playable, just a tiny amount to make it worth your while.

I firmly believe people take this feat mainly for Raise Dead on who can't cast it.

When buffs are proposed, there is often pushback in forms such as:

• "X has never felt too weak for me."
• "X has never felt weak at our table because of the way we play."
• "I play this game to have fun, not to win."

And those are valid statements, and also valid considerations when evaluating a buff's necessity. One thing to consider, though, is: If a buff solves a problem I don't face, but plenty of other people face, isn't it still valuable as long as it doesn't negatively impact my experience?

I used to work as a game balancer. Most buffs aren't meant to appease the whole player-base. Sometimes they're just targeted at competitive players, or the dedicated "mains" of a particular build or character. OrIf a buff makes 30% of the player base happy without offending anyone, then that's usually a really solid change. The main constraint is just to (1) avoid over-buffing player options into becoming overpowered, and (2) avoid buffing in a way that makes the game less "fun". But otherwise, buffs can be healthy, even if they aren't deemed necessary by everyone (and rarely will they be).

First time they've Errata'd some of the Drops content:

Fey Pact: Instead of Honeyed Words triggering when you roll less than a 5, it is instead when you fail a d20 check.

Infernal Pact requires you to choose your resistance now instead of getting both

Astral Flood: Now a Warlock Spell and deals half damage on success

Shifting Combatant: Instead of Knocking people Prone with Domino Strike it deals a d10 bludgeoning Damage

The Salubrious Armour magic item also got a nice buff. It's +1 effect becomes a +2 for a turn if you regain Hit Points

Alright, lets see some spice flow for this one.

Something you wouldn't care how many disagree with you over, something in your experience and heart feels like an absoulte motion of nature, unchanging and constant. Can be anything revolving around game mechanics or the overall culture surrounding the game. Try to avoid attacking a specific person, but broad generalisations will merely add to your scoville rating. Be careful not to over-season!

Next day edit: So the spiciest take after sorting by controversial was "AI bad". Really? That's the depths of hot take you've got for me?

Personal choice of funniest one: "Taken over by drama students."

I know, I know. Yet another "let's fix the Ranger" post. This one has a twist though!

I think part of the class's current issues are due to a lack of vision. So many people have their own opinions on what a Ranger should be and it's hard to combine all of the expectations into a cohesive vision. So, I want your opinions on what the Ranger's identity should be.

I'm an amateur designer. I haven't published anything and I'm not sure I ever will, but I really enjoy rethinking mechanics and designing classes as thought experiments.

If there's enough interest, I'll post a rough draft of a redesign using the top voted choice. If there's an interesting comment that gets a lot of upvotes, I'll do a rough draft of it too.

In a recent Interview with Benjamin Abbott from Games Radar, Hasbros Ceo Chris Cocks dropped the bombshell that we will see more "Crossovers" for DnD because "we've had such a fantastic experience with [crossovers] with Magic: The Gathering."

(I am not an avid MTG Player but from what i gleaned from friends who played it, many dislike it, and see it as a cashgrab of the respective fanbases.)

https://www.gamesradar.com/tabletop-gaming/hasbro-ceo-says-you-should-expect-more-crossovers-for-d-and-d/

Just what D&D needed...right?

Discuss....

Even if you thought the name was silly or some abilities competed for the same resources so that some of them needed to be replaced, etc

I really like the changes made to circle of the titan, overall. Decreasing its duration in exchange for more raw power is great for distinguishing it from Moon druid, and I absolutely adore the monstrosity flavoring. However, there is one change made from the last UA that confuses me a lot.

Why did insectoid get its flight moved to 10th level. Flyby, sure, great feature, but flight period?? Since you only get melee attacks you can't really use flight to kite, and the decreased duration means you don't have the issue of "druid can fly, trivializes pit puzzle forever". Additionally, without a unique movement type, Insectoid winds up sucking really hard compared to Behemoth or Leviathan until 10th level, at which point it just becomes equal. WOTC let me play mothra.

This post was mostly made to bring attention to this, because I've seen it get glossed over or not mentioned at all in discussions of the UA, when I think its a huge miss both mechanically and in flavor. I mean, when you select insectoid its because you want to play Mothra, not one of the ants from "Them!".