D&D 5E Thread: Your thoughts on the 5th. Edition Player's Handbook classes?

[MoonSong]

You have an odd definition of versatile. Being able to use metamagic to modify spell effects and being able to swap slots for other spells seems to be more versatile, not less. There's a lot more to versatility than max number of spells in your spellbook. Spells don't do any good if you can't cast them in an actual scenario (don't have them prepp'd, etc). In that context, the wizard only "knows" 25 spells (+5 Int modifier assumed + 20th level). Especially since the sorcerer can actually cast more spells than the wizard. They both use the same base table, but the sorcerer can use all of his or her spell points to buy extra slots.

Already accounted the spell points somewhere in there, and the point is the spells known, yes the wizard only brings 25spells to the table each time, until you take ritual casting into account -something sorcerers don't have and even if youbtake a feat keeping a book isn't the most sorecerous thing to do- a wizard just needs to know a ritual and is already being more overal versatile.

Having metamagic is cool, until you get into the detailsdetails

Careful spell- only works for blasting and some combat spells like sleep.
distant spell- this is a cool one
Empower - a blaster metamagic, pass
Heighten- can be useful for certain fringe spells that force savong throws, but most useful for blasting
Quicken -another good one, but the hard limit of 1 non cantrip per turn hurts
Subtle - this is the kind of metamagic that is both flavorful and has some utility if you just had silence in your spell list...
Twinned- good at low level and increasingly useless, the kind of spells you want to twin are spells that already grow to include extra targets. Of course it is very good for magic misile but again that is blasting

The widespread need of concentration and reduction of utility of the spells themselves coupled with getting too little variety of them overall and at any time-not to mention you cannot just decide to change them tomorrow- is what I mean by reduced versatility.

The problem is, this isn't D&D 3.75. So comparing it directly with 3.5 rules is a mistake.

Ok lets compare like with like

Bard
Gets one extra skill
Gets expertise
Chance of an extra skill
Built in single target buffing
Spell list focussed on utility and buffing
Has light armor and the chance of even better armor
Gets d8 for hit dice
Gets all simple weapons and four martial ones.
Has more spells known .
Has ritual casting

Sorcerer
Gets the standard issue two skills from a limited list
Gets toy weapons
No armor, but dragon ones have the equivalent to good light armor
Gets d6 for hit dice - 1 extra if dragon
Spell list of limited utility mostly combat spells but specially blasting
Less spells known
No ritual casting
The so called extra slots are spent quickly in metamagic that given the limited spell list only work for blasting
The slot to point conversion is lossy so in the end it might even end up with less castings each day
The only good thing, more cantrips than anybody else -yay

 

[Sacrosanct]

Having metamagic is cool, until you get into the detailsdetails

OK, I actually laughed out loud at this one. This is pretty funny, coming from the person who when makes arguments about the power of spellcasting (like being overpowered other classes), you almost always ignore the details (like does the caster have the spell prepped, did they learn it to begin with, do they have any available slots left, how many encounters will be had that day, etc, etc).

The bottom line is you're saying the wizard is a lot more versatile, and I don't see it.

Can the wizard swap out spells ad-hoc? No.
Can the wizard modify spells via metamagic? No.
Can the wizard cast as many spells as the sorcerer? No.

These are all things that offer more versatility, not less. Now, can the sorcerer cast ritual spells? No. Can they have as many spells in their book as the wizard? No, but then again, they don't need a book to begin with (more versatility since they don't have to worry about losing it) and can swap out spells as they level, so like the wizard, they have access to a lot more spells than they can prep at a particular time.

So when I look at the 5e wizard compared to the 5e sorcerer, I don't see the wizard being more versatile. And as mentioned, it's apples and oranges to compare the 3e versions. For one, why did you pick that version and not 4e? 2e?

 

[The Black Ranger]

I don't like the way they've done cantrips in this edition. I don't like the unlimited casting nor do I like how they made them into weapons essentially instead of a crossbow. I like for cantrips to be limited in all areas.

 

[Sadrik]

My thoughts on the PHB classes is this. I think they have too many little fiddly class features. I was hoping for something much more streamlined. At minimum I think class features are too programmatic. It would have been nice to see pools of class features and then for instance the rogue could select a "minor rogue talent" at certain levels and so on. With fixed class features, level dipping and planning become much more important. The planning part is the thing I don't like. Much less important than previous recent editions but still a thing.

That said likely the best edition of D&D. Time will tell.

Barbarian
Thematically this class is still too tied to its background. It is referred to as the savage who is an outlander, basically. That is not very interesting. The why, are some barbarians and some not is what I want to know. I don't feel like this is fully explained except that they come from the wilds.

As far as their bundle of class features go the only thing that I feel is their core feature is their rage ability. All the other stuff is pretty superfluous. Strangely they cannot turn their anger on while in heavy armor. Also I could image a rage feat.

Bard
I like this class, the class has a lot going for it and being a full caster now that can select spells from all class lists is great. Selecting higher level paladin and ranger spells is perhaps unintended.

The only core feature I see a Bard having is spellcasting with their unique spell list along with their HD, weapons, and armor. Everything else is superfluous.

Cleric
Excellent class. The only core feature I see a Cleric having is spellcasting with their unique spell list along with their HD, weapons, and armor. Everything else is superfluous.

Druid
Excellent class. The only core feature I see a Druid having is spellcasting with their unique spell list along with their HD, weapons, and armor. Everything else is superfluous.

Fighter
Give them d12 HD perhaps would have been fine if not preferred. Class that adds maneuvers that only they can do (or take the optional feat). Not that much of a fan of that implementation. Solid class though. A bunch of crunchy mini-bits all over it though. Strip all that out.

Monk
Would have given them a spell list like the ranger and paladin and made their "ki" spell slots. Not a bad class though and I think this is likely the best implementation of a monk in any edition.

Paladin
Divine spellcasting fighter. Strip the other stuff or turn them into spells.

Ranger
Nature spellcasting fighter/rogue. Strip the other stuff or turn them into spells.

Rogue
Sneak attack as superiority dice would have been neat. Solid class with some neat features. Again though I would strip those features out as default and allow them to select features from a pool of features. To make this perfectly clear all of the features classes have that are not converted to spells when applicable would become features that could be selected by classes (or if the DM wanted to play very simply could be just removed similarly to feats).

Sorcerer
Spell casting only, strip features. In this case it makes the sorcerer very wizard like. I can imagine their bloodline thing just being a feat for a spellcaster or a race or background.

Warlock
I am also concerned about the unique, does not blend well in multi-classing. I would have liked them to use the standard spell slot table with their unique spell list but perhaps add in a few features that would allow them to recover some on a short rest. And then at that point it sounds more like a feat or background.

Wizard
Excellent class. The only core feature I see a Wizard having is spellcasting with their unique spell list along with their HD, weapons, and armor. Everything else is superfluous.

So again, simpler classes with more optional things is what I would have preferred. Those optional things being pools of stuff and not tied to a specific level of a class would have been my preferred approach. This is likely my favorite edition. Easy to modify and change it to suit my vision.

 

[MoonSong]

OK, I actually laughed out loud at this one. This is pretty funny, coming from the person who when makes arguments about the power of spellcasting (like being overpowered other classes), you almost always ignore the details (like does the caster have the spell prepped, did they learn it to begin with, do they have any available slots left, how many encounters will be had that day, etc, etc).

The bottom line is you're saying the wizard is a lot more versatile, and I don't see it.

Can the wizard swap out spells ad-hoc? No.
Can the wizard modify spells via metamagic? No.
Can the wizard cast as many spells as the sorcerer? No.

These are all things that offer more versatility, not less. Now, can the sorcerer cast ritual spells? No. Can they have as many spells in their book as the wizard? No, but then again, they don't need a book to begin with (more versatility since they don't have to worry about losing it) and can swap out spells as they level, so like the wizard, they have access to a lot more spells than they can prep at a particular time.

So when I look at the 5e wizard compared to the 5e sorcerer, I don't see the wizard being more versatile. And as mentioned, it's apples and oranges to compare the 3e versions. For one, why did you pick that version and not 4e? 2e?

I don't get the first point. Didn't understand it,
Metamagic that is 90% about blasting because the spell list is so limited
Ritual caster is essentially high level unlimited magic. Metamagic is an alleviating feature not the panacea.

And merely if 2e had a sorcerer I wouldn't need 5e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't get the first point. Didn't understand it,
Metamagic that is 90% about blasting because the spell list is so limited
Ritual caster is essentially high level unlimited magic. Metamagic is an alleviating feature not the panacea.

And merely if 2e had a sorcerer I wouldn't need 5e.

Sorcerers can swap spells for spell points and vice versa. That's a ton of versatility there.

And lucky for you, 2e does have it. Sorcery spell point system in the Spells and Magic Player's Option book.

 

[Hand of Evil]

5E classes have not provided me with any excitement, at least not like 13th Age classes did but I need to sit down and do a side by side character creation with 13th Age and 5E, just to see how they stack up.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My thoughts on the PHB classes is this. I think they have too many little fiddly class features. I was hoping for something much more streamlined. At minimum I think class features are too programmatic. It would have been nice to see pools of class features and then for instance the rogue could select a "minor rogue talent" at certain levels and so on.

I think that would have really put a lot of players off from the game, myself included. Making lots of small choices is more of a Pathfinder/4E thing, that they're trying to get away from with 5E - which is most obvious when you look at the whole "large feat" paradigm, in a game where feats are entirely optional anyway.

 

[Sadrik]

I think that would have really put a lot of players off from the game, myself included. Making lots of small choices is more of a Pathfinder/4E thing, that they're trying to get away from with 5E - which is most obvious when you look at the whole "large feat" paradigm, in a game where feats are entirely optional anyway.

Instead we get lots of little things programmed by the game designers to occur at level X. Customization is a thing for many people. I understand that it was not the direction they wanted to go with this. There are a couple of ways that you could have slimmed down the choices.

• Eliminated them, do we really need a myriad of class features?
• Offered a pool of them and then said pick your favorites.
• Offered a pool of them and then said default is this (optional designer programming).
• Program them into the class and offer no choice

Clearly they went with the fourth bullet point. I like all three other bullet points better. YMMV

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Well, you need something there, or else people complain about empty levels. I'm not sure how well it would have gone over if you went from level 6 to level 7 and all you had to show for it was a hit die.

Not that I'm a fan of fiddly little abilities either, of course, but none of these abilities are remotely on par with Pathfinder's class features where you gain +1 to save against one minor category of effects. The equivalent for 5E classes is advantage on saves against one category of abilities, which at least feels meaningful when it does come up.