Search results

Well, sure, you can't playtest combat encounters. But you can still review a game's mechanics regardless, i.e.: are the magic rules to your preferences? How do people feel about the ruleset, compared to SotDL? Do you like the paths and/or ancestries presented? That's still reviewing the game...

Targeted responses about what? Stuff that plays well with the original PHB, but might not with the new, revamped classes? Even eschewing maths, you play the complete package, not the single element. "Old ranger + new feat/spell" might well "feel" and play way different from "New ranger + new...

And, again, even assuming that's what they're going for, providing a comprehensive package of the stuff they intended to change rather than small, disjointed chunks of the rules would've given them a clear picture of what was going to stick after a single round of playtest and survey, rather...

It might surprise you, but "satisfaction", for a bunch of people, means "playing this class doesn't suck". Which is pretty dependant on balance. All the changes they've proposed are about mechanics. Mechanics need to be evaluated. Depending on how they feel, certainly, but also on how impactful...

They're changing classes. That's not "details". Weapon Mastery, for example, is a whole new system. The way feats interact with classes is very significant, balance wise. "Well, the new version of Great Weapon Fighter seems more in line with the rest of the feats, but hits fighters, who tend...

Well, if internal testing were enough to iron out every bug, the game wouldn't have had errata and a fair amount of clarifications over the past few years. Even the 0.01% of their fanbase is, quite likely, an order of magnitude or two bigger than their internal playtest team and allows for...

Look, while I'm not really a 5e fan, I appreciate them playtesting the game, because getting a free preview of the game is nice, if nothing else. That said, the main purpose of a playtest isn't (or shouldn't be) reaching a consensus among the playerbase. Sure, when something isn't well...

Eh, honestly, I'd prefer it to work that way as well. Unfortunately, WotC doesn't seem to be going in that direction at all. And yeah, the idea of a fighter constantly switching weapons while a monster tries to hack his face to bits does seem more than a bit silly to me as well, but oh well...

Meh. Just remove Flex and rule that a PC that doesn't want to take advantage of weapon mastery gets a +1 damage. It's, mostly, an irrelevant amount anyway, especially for classes that don't get extra attack. Then, give the longsword, an iconic weapon, a weapon mastery that's actually meaningful...

The level 13 feature, IMHO, isn't even that appealing because of mastery prerequisites. I'd appreciate if fighters could ignore WM prerequisites altogether, at a given level, and increase the number of masteries they can apply to a single weapon. Let me customize my master of weaponry as I see...

Monks do scale as long as you keep MA scaling. I was just disagreeing with the idea that damage scaling (coming from class abilities other than Extra Attack) doesn't fit with the concept of bounded accuracy and bringing some examples of other martial classes that do seem to get some form of...

Because you're still limited by action economy. You can only flurry once/round, you aren't going to flurry more than 5 times in a 5-round fight anyway, so how much ki you get is not that relevant, as long as you get the amount of short rests/day the rules assume. And all of the other features I...

Well, actually, most martials gain a straight bonus to damage when leveling up, on top of extra attacks (Barbs gain a static bonus to damage while raging, which, at higher levels, is "always", and Paladins get Improved Divine Smite at level 11. Fighters are the exception, but they do get two...

I'll have to disagree with a couple of your points, here. 1) the scaling of Unarmed damage with level is very much in line with Bounded Accuracy, IMHO. In fact, the idea behind BH was that leveling up would increase damage numbers and HP rather than attack bonuses (especially before proficiency...

It's a reaction. It's not competing with other spells. You can cast that other, level-appropriate spell with your regular action, incapacitate one opponent and then make yourself virtually unhittable by anything still standing for the rest of the round by casting shield (especially at higher...

You're not going to incapacitate lots of stuff with a single 1st level spell past level 4 or 5 anyway. And anything that spends its turn missing you pretty much wasted its turn, so...

It's a reaction. It's not like you cast it with your regular action and lose your action in the process... you can still attack. So, the next round you're one spell down, likely still dealt your own damage to an opponent, and anything that tried to hit you is likely several hitpoints and one...

Which, if anything, proves his point. For example, WoTC, contrary to what most "modern" games do, doesn't even bother with any sort of active defense system for martials, using instead HP and AC as a broad measure of the character's defensive capabilities. Which is ok when you want to keep...

True, but 3.x feats (at least "core" feats) suffered from both a lack of synergy and didn't really scale at all. Stuff like, for example, Tactical feats worked much better in that regard (yes, anyone could grab Shock Trooper and become good at charging. Most martials could also take Combat...

I detest this new direction as well (but, I suspect, for entirely different reasons). To my recollection, encounter/per short rest abilities were first introduced to reduce the 15 minutes workday, which was generally loathed in 3e. Now, suddenly, we're back to per day abilities, except for...