Here is a link to an Enworld thread where a guy has a copy of the PHB and seems to be answering some questions.
The Hunter archetype has a feature called Hunter's Prey which carries some of the ranger's damage potential: Colossus Slayer (extra damage to an injured creature), Giant Killer (reaction to attack a Large or larger creature that attacks you), Horde Breaker (attack a second creature).
Nice change on colossus slayer. Much simpiler that way.
Probably have to wait another month at least. Le sigh the downsides of living down under.
Warlock spells come back after a short or long rest apparently. Throw in 2nd wind and everyone will want to short rest it seems. Rogue art looks bettert than the other classes art we have seen so far, looks like assassins creed chacter sort of.
mellored wrote:
Level 20 Warlock ability.
Spend 1 minute to regain all your expended spell slots (from Pact Magic), once per long rest.
Lightly Armored Feat
Lightly Armored that increases your Strength or Dexterity by one (maximum 20) and gives proficiency with light armor.
Heavy Armor Master Feat
2 - +1 Strength, -3 damage from piercing, bludgeoning, slashing damage from non magical weapons
Nakes a dex based fighter not quite so OP, may be a feat tax IDK.
Zardnaar wrote:
Great Weapon Master:
When you score a crit or drop a creature, you can make an attack as a bonus action.
You can take a -5 penalty to attacks for +10 damage.
souldoubt wrote:
OH boy; with 4 spells per "encounter", I sure hope high level monsters have a lot of HP; otherwise, Warlocks will never have to fall back on cantrips and can just 8d8 damage 4 times per encounter and never have to fall back on cantrips.
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
I guess on the bright side, that extra damage no longer gets doubled on a crit, no longer being a die roll.
Some DPR calculations on the final Great Weapon Master vs. the playtest one vs. no GWM
In all cases a Fighter (Champion) 20, greatsword, Great Weapon fighting style, +5 STR + 6 prof vs. AC 16
Playtest GWM:
4 * ((.4 * (16.67 + 10)) + (.15 * (33.33 + 10)))
+ (.15^4 + (4 * ((.15^3 * .85) + (.15^2 * .85^2) + (.15 * .85^3))) * 17.1675
= 68.67 + 7.65
= 76.32
Final GWM:
4 * ((.4 * (8.33 + 15)) + (.15 * (16.67 + 15)))
+ (.15^4 + (4 * ((.15^3 * .85) + (.15^2 * .85^2) + (.15 * .85^3))) * 14.0825
= 56.33 + 6.275
= 62.605
No GWM:
4 * ((.65 * (8.33 + 5)) + (.15 * (16.67 + 5)))
= 47.66
So, yeah, it is a substantial nerf from the playtest, but at the same time it's still a pretty massive boost over not having the feat. It's just now a 30% boost instead of a 60% one, which still might be considered overpowered.
Um, it might be more powerful. Make an attack = attack action, doesn't it? Which means it intersects with Fighter's Extra Attack option as an example...
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Maybe not a feat tax in the "take this or you'll suck" sense (GW fighting style is No. 1 in DPR even without GWM), but a feat tax in the "this is so good you'd be an idiot not to take it if you use a two-hander" sense, yeah.
GladiusLegis wrote:
Isn't it just Cleave+Power Attack? All of the feats in 5E are bigger than previous feats.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
So heavy armor master is almost as busted at low levels where having more than 16 CON is possible but rare. But at high level where it wasn't really busted it's nerfed. Funny guys.
Great Weapon Master is even better for low STR characters now, which is sort of ridiculous. Did they really remove the once per turn on the bonus attack? REALLY? REEEEEALLLLLY? 18-20 crit range always having advantage barbarian splashed fighters will be loving it.
Sturmunddrang wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
It's not a tax. It's an expression of an archetype.
A tax is one of two things:
1. An unrelated or subpar ability one must take as a prerequisite to an ability central to one's archetype.
2. An ability required for a broad category of characters to be viable in play (like the math-correcting accuracy feats in Fourth Edition).
Great Weapon Master might be too good, but it's not a tax. It's a natural place to go. ("I want to play a character who's a master of a big weapon. What should I take?")
Anyone want to do the math for a dual-wielder at 20 with two rapiers? (Or more to the point, at like 10 and 15 since most groups won't be hanging out at 20 for that long.)
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
I must admitt I am not overly keen on where the design team has landed with the feats. It feels to me as if not going with the mandatory feats for your build (gwm, heavy armor master, warcaster etc) followed by bumping your primary stat to 20 would have severe impact on your characters power level. Sadly this leaves precious little room for actual customization. I will try to use feats for customization regardless, but I am a bit iffed that it will come at such a staggering cost.
Also: variant human yao. Its a "pretty good" race. If we by "pretty good" mean "mechanically dominant choice for every class".
Let's not forget that feats are completely optional. Some groups may play without them.
Personally, I'm rather excited about the mini-bestiary they included at the back of the book. Apparently it's got "8 pages, beasts and mounts, familiars, and a couple undead. Things a player would need for their character." So it sounds like druids, necromancers, summoners, anyone with a familiar, beastmaster rangers, and so on won't need to reference the MM for their critters. I'm so glad they thought to include this in the PHB.
Yeah, I was kind of hoping feats wouldn't affect DPR at all (or at least not much).
Feats like Shield Master, Tavern Brawler, Elemental Adept, Durable, etc were all great. They are somewhat useful but extremely flavorful. They embody a concept without significantly changing the power level of a PC.
But those feats are all garbage compared to the likes of Heavy Armor Mastery, Great Weapon Master, Sentinal, and Warcaster. It is the same problem 3e and 4e had with feats where all the cool flavorful feats had to compete against feats that very significantly affect combat potential.
kalil wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
kalil wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
kalil wrote:
Varient Human uber alles.
Enough said.
-Polaris
Overpromises wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Starting to lean towards no feats at all now. Your 1st 3 feats seem chosen for you as martial types, and variant humans seem really really good as in effect they get +2 to their primary stat, +1 on secondary stat and the benefits of the reast of the feat that doesn't grant a +1 bonus to an attribute score.
To get players to use the crap feats/non combat feats they need to be a class bonus really.
Polaris wrote:
I have a vitally important question that needs to be answered immediately or else I might die.
Is there a bastard sword in the PHB?
Thank_Dog wrote:
Artifact wrote:
No!
I need bastard sword. It is vital to my character concept. His entire existence revolves around this sword.
Ok, that's an exaggeration but I'm a tad drunk so it's to be expected.
Hmm, I wonder how you'd even stat a bastard sword? Traditionally it was 2d4 but then you'd have to increase it for wielding two handed...
Thank_Dog wrote:
You could always have a bastard's word. It's not much use in a fight though.
FallingIcicle wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Serow_Darkstar wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Serow_Darkstar wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Just throwing this out there, Elemental Adept won't help just the pyromaniac sorcerer who only has fire spells known, however it obviously will help him or her.
It will also help those who are casting elemental based spells on targets that have resistance to ALL magic. In fact, depending on the number of targets with resistance to all damage from magic, this might be a feat many casters would want to take.
In fact, if a target has resistance to ALL magic damage, then elemental adept is one of the only ways to do full damage to that target.
It's funny to me but I believe the +2 stat bump is still the min/maxers choice early on. They have though made the feats fun enough and flavorful enough that people actually want to give up stat bumps to get them. Well done Wotc. At least on that point.
I also like the starting at 17 cap. Even variant human using his feat for a +1 bump half feat is still capped at 17, and requires what are generally, IMO, a crappy feat compared to the non stat bump feats.
This requires one to take 1 full stat increase and at least half of one to get a 20, rather than just starting with one or close to it. For those with 5 stat/feat choices, that only gives them 3 full feats if they just HAVE to have a 20.
found this too
theres 8 pages of monsters in there? OMG gimmie now please 
Pyromantic wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I just would have preferred great weapon master to provide new as interesting options in combat like most other feats. Something like this:
Great Weapon Master
The great weapon mater feat gives you the following options in combat:
Sweeping Strikes - When you take the attack action on your turn, you can choose to have your two handed melee weapon attacks affect all creatures within 5 ft of you, but they deal only 1/2 damage to those creatures. Make only 1 attack and damage roll and apply the result to all adjacent creatures.
Overpower - When you hit an enemy with a two handed weapon attack on your turn, you can attempt to shove them as a bonus action.
I'm eager to see how much has changed from the so-called "Alpha" document. So far, the changes seem few and positive.
My impatience drove me to locate a WPN store, and I discovered a local comic store is now on the list. It will cost me $20 more than Amazon, but I've reserved a copy for Friday morning. I'll pretend I did it all for the good of the FLGS. It had little to do with my impatience. 
Honestly, it is nice to throw some money their way. The price increase is more than I'm willing to pay consistently, but it's cool when my money and demand align with their business.
Lawolf wrote:
You know whats funny about 5th. People complained about one power in 4th making fighters magical so wizards went ok fine fighters are magical in 5th.
Edited by Orc_Barrons: Inappropriate Content violates the Code of Conduct: http://company.wizards.com/conduct'
Emerikol. wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
You made him/her blush.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
mellored wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Mountain Dwarves make great blade pact warlocks. Str is actually useful for you!
Polaris wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
My basic point is that raw DPR isn't actually the most important factor in a character's overall combat performance, much less his overall survival. I'd say there are several feats just as "essential" to various martial archetypes as GWM, and notably fewer "essential" feats for casters.
Let's remember, part of the way they're achieving the design goal of flexible martial classes is through extra feats. Imagine the fighter were broken up into three classes, and instead of a feat at 4th level you could make a Defender with Sentinel, a Swordmage with War Caster, or a Slayer with GWM or the TWF feat. Those classes would STILL have more feats than a wizard, and they'd be more narrowly focused like 4e classes. But instead of doing that, they broke off those archetype-defining abilities into feats, so a paladin or wizard or whatever can dabble in defending or war magic or MAD DAMAGE without multiclassing. Meanwhile, a fighter in a less combat-intensive campaign has a bit more leeway to get his skills and exploration abilities up to par.
Sturmunddrang wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
thewok wrote:
Further more the battlemaster isnt a warlord either, and mixing it with a valor bard still will not get you a warlord. Im fine(mostly) with not getting a warlord in 5th but at least be honest about it. Honestlt the fact that you cant really build a defender fighter(which is different than a sword and board fighter) is one of the things that disappoints me the most.
masterfat78 wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
tallric_kruush wrote:
mellored wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mounted Combatant - you have melee advantage against unmounted enemies who are smaller than your mount. you can force an attack on your mount to target you instead. if you mount gets a dex save for half it takes half anyhow and none on a save.
So... halfling rogue with a shape changing druid ally....
Lawolf wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
mellored wrote:
Herrozerro wrote:
mellored wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
IMO, when the fighter said he was interposing himself between the hostage and the enemy, baring any other abilities such as Protect or Sentinel, I would have adjudicated that as a readied action to move in response to the enemies movement. So the enemy would either need to double team him or come up with some other means of getting by like an ability check, to get to the hostage.
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Room was 20 ft by 20 ft. If the target fled, it would have still been able to easily move and kill the helpless woman. The rogue made two attacks, so protection style would not have mattered. The woman was killed by just 1 attack (automatic critical sneak attack).
And the best defenders in 5e are not protection fighters. Great Weapon sentinel fighters are better. And clerics using Demand or Warding Bond are even better.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
A little confused on the timing of this scenario.
If the cleric managed to get a command off, didn't the mage have at least one turn to act, since the rogue leader was spending his turn following the command?
Where exactly was the leader? If the command had been flee, would the leader not have had to take at least a step away from the hostage, especially if the cleric had a chance to position him/herself first? At which point the fighter could either go in grab the hostage and retreat, as suggested, or could move in and grapple the rogue leader.
Even if the cleric couldn't do this, would the fighter have enough movement to grapple the rogue leader and drag him at least 5'?
It just occurred to me we may have actually been bamboozled. It might not even be a real encounter, but rather a thinly veiled attempt to show how lame fighters are in 5e.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
spelley wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I think we are all forgetting that the Basic game lacks the tactical combat module we were promised. Will it be in the PHB? I don't know. I expect that it would be. Will it be enough to give people the stickiness that they want? I don't know. I'll find out when I get whatever book it's in (either the PHB or the DMG, I'm sure of that much).
Lawolf wrote:
spelley wrote:
Um it is clear in the rules that hostile creatures cannot move through another hostile creatures space unless it is two sizes larger or smaller. Your space is 5x5 on a map. So no you can't just walk around combatants. It's in the moment section. To move out of that space you have to disengage or suffer opportunity. This means walking around a fighters reach is an invalid move since his space equates a 5x5 space on a grid.
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
And where does that say that. On page 71 with moment and space it is crystal clear you cannot move through a hostile characters space. Move around in a circle on any hostile combatant is movement. A creature of medium size has a space of 5x5. So if I stand in a square in front of a combatant and want to move around him according to this rule that is an illegal move unless I disengage and do not step into a hostile creatures space. As for AO attacks if you could move through that space then yes you have not exited the reach. But I as a DM would disagree on that it is vague because you technically left my front reach to get my flank reach. If you used minis you would move in a diagonal pattern hence leaving my reach to move into a different space. Also this would count as difficult terrain so you would use up 20 feet of movement to move around me. But since the rules are specific on 71 that that is not possible everything else is moot.
So I believe with the movement rules as written when defined by space on page 71 Fighters, heck any class can be sticky. But Guardian Fighters are a very viable option
Azzy1974 wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
LanethanAK wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
spelley wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
What's really unfortunate is that you can't trip or grapple as an OA.
That would go a long way to making a defender.
mellored wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
mellored wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Earlier you stated the rogue moved around you because you moved between the rogue and the hostage. Why are you now stating the rogue didn't need to move?
Ashrym wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
spelley wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
And the Rogue would have to disengage to get out of the fighters space. You cannot move in a persons space which is 5 feet or every square around you. This could have happened but wasn't stated. The Rogue cannot just walk around the fighters reach area freely so he would have gotten an OA unless disengage.
spelley wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
But you cannot move anywhere in my reach. Characters take up a 5x5 space. So anything that I can reach a hostile character cannot move in. It's on page 71. Basically this means unless a hostile creature is two sizes smaller or larger they cannot move through any part of the 8 spaces surrounding your character on a map without disengaging. You cannot move diagonal. You cannot go front to back or side to side(like a shift) or walk around in a circle on two hostile creatures without first disengaging so you don't get OA or take a chance at OA and eat up move movement and stay out of the Characters reach.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
spelley wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
viper5 wrote:
viper5 wrote:
mellored wrote:
This is what I was saying earlier: I don't think the result would have really been much different with a 4E fighter, except that additional punishment could have been dealt. The rogue would receive an immediate action attack from the fighter for shifting but it's not an opportunity attack and wouldn't prevent the movement. The probability of hitting would have been lessened a bit due to the mark although it's far from a sure thing. So, I don't think this situation illustrates that much about the difference between 4E and 5E fighters in terms of their defender status. It was generally pretty difficult to stop someone from attacking another individual if they were dead set on it in 4E, but you could punish them for it and/or reduce their chances of success.
That being said I agree that in general a rule allowing someone to move unimpeded within someone's reach is definitely significant, and has the potential to influence gameplay in general. It makes all characters less sticky whether they be PC or NPC, defender or otherwise. It's also something that I would anticipate to be one of the dial settings you can play with using the DMG.
Pyromantic wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
mellored wrote:
At Mecha. I think we are going to disagree on that because in space it talks about your fighting space. Medium creatures can only have 8 surround them. That line clearly states that is my characters effective fighting space. Movement rules state I cannot move through hostile space. Gargantuan characters take up 20 spaces. Though you can move around them as difficult terrain. I guess we will agree to disagree but I've played with the stated rules as I've interrupted them and it works great and feels realistic in a sense and adds lots of drama.
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
And right after the Hobgoblin example it talks about your fighting SPACE. The space you take up to fight. This can be taken as your space for movement. As the rules state hostile space movement. You can interpret a no but you also can say May way isn't wrong. So if you did it the way I interpreted it then what has happened to people about movement could not happen.
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
The issue with this entire scenario is that even if the rogue didn't kill the hostage is that there were 4 other minions and an invisible opponent while the hostage was helpless and obviously low hit points or she would have just started making death rolls. If it wasn't the rogue it would have been one of the other opponents. The group was 1st level and out-numbered with a high-risk failure component built in. Either the encounter was over level significantly or the objective was non-combat resolution. A little parley might have been the best approach.
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
It's ok you guys don't understand the text about the squares around your character. The 8 squares around your character. These are your space too. It is very clear in the text. I quote " A Creatures SPACE also reflects the AREA it needs to fight effectively. Assuming medium combatants, 8 creatures can fit inside a 5' radius." This is clearly your space. If on a grid the 8 squares around you would be nil for movement, hence also making a 5' by 5' box around you. But in jus imaginary area you could not move through this space as per the movement rules stating " In contrast , you can move through a hostiles creatures SPACE only if the creature is two sizes bigger or smaller than you." The space word is telling. It means the squares and the squares that your weapon can reach all because of the also reflects the area you need to fight effectively. You can ignore this line all you want to justify OA and movement broken in this edition but to me that is clear as night is day on what you can do as far as once engaging in combat how reach and disengage work. Try it at the table and tell me then.
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
We'll mybe I'm wrong but according then to this way you could never pin a creature in a corner. Block a doorway unless you were directly in the hallway not in the room because you could always move diagonal and get out no matter what if you happen to use a grid. Oh we'll I enjoyed the discussion thanks.
I suspect (hope?) that the rumoured "tactical module" in the DMG will include more detailed rules on opportunity attacks. I understand it was a deliberate design decison to limit their use, but eing able to use your full movement speed to move around/between enemies with no consequence is one of the few things about 5E I really don't like.
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
Fantasyfilmsman wrote:
Oh I know it works both ways. I just see lots of tactics for RAW guys go by the wayside. I usually do a cinematic approach to combat. I honestly don't think I've ever used any movement rules in an imagine based game. Only miniature based games. The above example of the rouge going around the fighter to kill the hostage would never happen in my game. Different play styles but on a cinematic level it just doesn't work for me. I was looking at the it's space and also reflects and wording that can be taken different ways and defining space as two different concepts but also using wording to bind those concepts. Oh we'll I never have complaints at my table so no difference to me. But I guess I just house ruled without ever thinking about it. 
Fantasyfilmsman wrote: