Thank you for doing this. This is actually really good feedback.
I completely agree, especially with the part I've bolded. The Warlock has such interesting flavour that it's maddening to be stuck with the poorly-designed options available in the Player's Handbook.I very much agree. The warlock and sorcerer both illustrate the problems that better playtesting would have found. The warlock's way too tied to the short rest mechanic and has a lot of "feat tax" issues vis a vis invocations as well as a dominant strategy (spamming Eldritch Blast) that makes doing other things as a warlock not very cost-effective. Warlock is one of those classes a lot of people take a few levels in just to get EB and then leave. I can think of many ways to make it better, but they didn't support any of them and I think with more playtesting these issues and potential solutions would be more apparent. On the flip side, the sorcerer basically doesn't benefit from short rests and runs out of sorcery points quickly.
Um... There's something a little hinky about that poll...
Same.The best part about that number: I know for a fact I did not vote for the Monk in that poll, so they can't possibly be at 100.00%.
The best part about that number: I know for a fact I did not vote for the Monk in that poll, so they can't possibly be at 100.00%.
I've seen a sorcerer in play up through the levels and there are some benefits. The sorcerer is usually tougher than the wizard and is a Charisma caster. But yes without spontaneous casting being a thing they're not nearly as cool. Metamagic helps a good bit, though. More than once I've seen a sorcerer character pull off things that shouldn't work.I don't think the bottom three are any great surprise.
The Sorcerer fails in a narrative sense to really capture any niche, and mechanically has been compromised by spontaneous casting becoming a universal thing for all Classes.
In the game Pillars of Eternity the beast companion is implemented really well. The ranger synergized with it nicely and it was very helpful to the rest of the party without the beast being able to win fights. I get why WotC hates pets but to make the action economy work out they could have keyed it off the ranger's bonus actions or let the ranger give the beast an attack. An alternative would be to burn spell slots to make the beast better. So basically the beast is just a beast unless the ranger really wants to make it nasty. In general pets should work that way. Familiars tend to become progressively less useful at high levels, too, and there are some other examples of that, too, where a power gets introduced and it's impressive but by level+5 it's just meh.The Ranger remains a classic archetype, but the execution was a bit off especially regarding the Beastmaster. I actually think that the companion beast should be a feature of all Rangers, while they could possibly be better differentiated by terrain and quarry if you want to make different sub-classes. In short though, it's all a bit of a mess.
IMO the Champion is a great implementation for the kind of player who doesn't want a lot of fiddly powers to keep track of and just wants to roll dice. That's a win in my view and something that's important to have as options. The Berserker Barbarian, the Thief Rogue, and the Warlock are also good examples of that. One of the real failings of the initial 4E classes was that they forced everyone to be a spellcaster and didn't have a "OK I whack it with my axe!" type class until Essentials. I'm glad 5E put some of those in, though I certainly wish that the Warlock was more than just "I Eldritch Blast it" without feeling like you have to multiclass to get out of that.Fighters are still just a bit boring for many, particularly the Champion.
The Battle Master is possibly better, but I think that the various manoeuvres could have possibly been done better as Feats again. The Knight - done in the same way as the Purple Knights - would have been a better general archetype. In all though, how often do people actually prefer to play Fighters over Paladins, say, these days? That's the real issue.
What draws my attention are the classes with a confluence of very high satisfaction AND very low dissatisfaction – Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Paladin, Rogue, and Wizard. IMO that should be the sort of reception all classes are designed towards.
I don't see, for example, the rogue or wizard class being "allowed" a different metric than the fighter or sorcerer class. For example, you mention fighter design being more contentious among D&D players and therefor conclude that "it's OK and even impressive" that the designers were able to get as much satisfaction from ENWorlders as they did. I disagree. I'd hold ALL classes to the same bar as Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Paladins, Rogues, and Wizards.
If you've enjoyed those classes in play, then that's something that I cannot disagree with you about. That said, I think you apologize too much for the design failures in these three classes.The sorcerer double resistance is about as problematic as double armor proficiency. The extra damage on dragon breath is compensating for the loss.
The warlock has very flavourful options. You don't have to take agonizing blast or even eldritch blast. There is so much more to find if damage is not your only metric.
The ranger is also not bad by default. My dissatisfaction is coming from having had better iterations in the playtest. The current ranger is a berfed variant of the last playtest. He is lacking too much. He is still top damage dealer but there are features that just don't play well together. And features that you get too late. And if you just allow him to be ritual caster he would have a great repertoire of utility spells that make travelling easier.
It seems like an egregious oversight that the Dragon Sorcerer subclass offers redundant features to Dragonborn (who should be their most iconic race)<snip>
Certainly, and by making this be a tax they remove the interesting non-combat options.Regarding Warlocks, you say that they're much better as long as "damage is not your only metric", which I find fallacious. Obviously damage can't be the only measure of a class, but in D&D it has always been an important one.
Agonizing Blast is a constrained choice (i.e.: and "invocation tax"); it's too good to pass up and it's boring as hell. It shouldn't even be an invocation--rather, it should have been built directly into Eldritch Blast (which should be a Warlock feature, not a spell) so that every Warlock could spend their invocation on something more flavourful.
100%.Book of Ancient Secrets, Thirsting Blade, and Voice of the Chain Master should each have been a feature of their respective boons.
Thief of the Five Fates is a waste of an invocation: cast Bane once per day rather than using Hex?p
And probably suck at it because Athletics isn't a trained skill. It's better with some multiclassing though.Otherworldly Leap is awful; you've waited until 9th level, and now you can cast Jump on yourself at will...