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

[Sadrik]

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.

True enough. I think what you have to do is sit down and say what is the core feature of this class and have that level up (spell casting is a prime example). Then when you have that nailed down anything else on top of that is bells and whistles and gravy.

 

[Mistwell]

They made the choices they made based on a huge amount of feedback they got, including internal playtest feedback, paid consultant feedback, private playtest feedback, public playtest feedback, public survey feedback, and public debate feedback from social media and message boards.

In other words, they made informed choices. It could never be the perfect system for all people. But, they made as many choices they could that pleased the most number of people most of the time.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

A lossy process, versatile in principle if you had a good spell selection.

And I will pretend you didn't write the second part. It shows contempt and misunderstanding for a class I love.

 

[MoonSong]

They made the choices they made based on a huge amount of feedback they got, including internal playtest feedback, paid consultant feedback, private playtest feedback, public playtest feedback, public survey feedback, and public debate feedback from social media and message boards.

In other words, they made informed choices. It could never be the perfect system for all people. But, they made as many choices they could that pleased the most number of people most of the time.

They didn't get open feedback on sorcerers and warlocks though.

 

[Steely Dan]

They didn't get open feedback on sorcerers and warlocks though.

Both of those classes were in the open play-test.

 

[Sadrik]

They made the choices they made based on a huge amount of feedback they got, including internal playtest feedback, paid consultant feedback, private playtest feedback, public playtest feedback, public survey feedback, and public debate feedback from social media and message boards.

In other words, they made informed choices. It could never be the perfect system for all people. But, they made as many choices they could that pleased the most number of people most of the time.

Yes, except in this case everything was always through the lens of heavy class features throughout the playtest. All of this stuff on your list did occur. It was an excellent open playtest. All playstyles and options could not be accounted for and allowed though. The choice was clear that class features should exist and they should occur at every level so there are no "dead levels" because that was a thing in 3e due to the multi-classing rules mostly and how their programmed class features interacted. While a gripe for me, it may not resonate for some at all and some might say that is cool either way and some might say that would have been neat. YMMV

 

[Sacrosanct]

A lossy process, versatile in principle if you had a good spell selection.

I guess we have different definitions of "good spell selection" as well as versatile. I'm looking at the sorcerer spell list and it's full of good spells.

And I will pretend you didn't write the second part. It shows contempt and misunderstanding for a class I love.

Wait, what? AD&D 2e had a functional sorcery caster with that book using spell points (ad hoc casting not dependent on traditional memorization of spells which is pretty much what a sorcerer is). Just because it might not be your perfect version in no way means it didn't exist. Contempt and misunderstanding of the class? Dial back on the hyperbole just a bit.

 

[evilbob]

Really happy that some classes got lots of options, or at least three distinct and interesting options. Disappointed that the druid, ranger, and sorcerer (anyone else?) got the short end of the stick with only two options. Each of these classes really needed more options.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I'm not happy at all with the Bard.

I really wanted them to continue with a bard being the fighter/mage/thief and dabbling in all three without mastering any of them. I would like for them to have gone more into the bards music and buffing abilities, they seem to fall a bit short.

 

[keterys]

I really wanted them to continue with a bard being the fighter/mage/thief and dabbling in all three without mastering any of them.

To be fair, don't the multiclass rules cover that angle quite well already, especially with the arcane trickster and eldritch knight in play?

I would like for them to have gone more into the bards music and buffing abilities, they seem to fall a bit short.

I don't have the PHB at work to look at their spell list, but if you assume their spells are music-based (ie, they sing a charm spell, etc), do they not have notable music and buffing abilities?