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

[Sailor Moon]

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 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?

If I remember correctly, the bards song ability doesn't affect everyone with in hearing distance.

I really don't want to have to multi class in order to get the classic bard.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

I'm working off of Basic v0.2 and forum info (I haven't purchased any 5e books), but from all indications I've seen, this Fighter should never have seen print.

I don't even care whether the math behind his attacks and defenses are good. You don't present the game as being made up of 3 pillars -- exploration, combat, and social interaction -- and then have one lonely class whose features completely do not interact with two of them. (Technically, Remarkable Athlete does aid exploration, but it feels like splitting hairs to include something so laughably small.) There will always be people who clamor for an "easy" class, but this is nothing less than failing on the designers' own terms. If the target is to hit three areas and you can't come up with good social and exploratory abilities for a class -- one of the flagship "typical" classes, no less -- either you don't have a solid class concept or your framework is broken. Decide which one you think it is and address it.

There are plenty of things about 5e I don't like personally, but this is frankly the one that disappoints me the most for what it says about the overall design process.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't even care whether the math behind his attacks and defenses are good. You don't present the game as being made up of 3 pillars -- exploration, combat, and social interaction -- and then have one lonely class whose features completely do not interact with two of them.

The thing is, exploration includes picking locks and finding traps as well as climbing walls and kicking down doors, while social interaction includes deception and diplomacy. You don't need the class to grant additional features for each pillar, because you can build a competent character through ability scores and skill proficiencies. Other classes may allow you to do unique things in those pillars, or augment your skills even further, but the baseline Fighter with proficiency and a decent ability score - and Fighters do have higher base stats than other classes - can still perform perfectly well.

 

[Sadrik]

The thing is, exploration includes picking locks and finding traps as well as climbing walls and kicking down doors, while social interaction includes deception and diplomacy. You don't need the class to grant additional features for each pillar, because you can build a competent character through ability scores and skill proficiencies. Other classes may allow you to do unique things in those pillars, or augment your skills even further, but the baseline Fighter with proficiency and a decent ability score - and Fighters do have higher base stats than other classes - can still perform perfectly well.

To plus this-
Characters should have access to all pillars but in different measure. The fighter has every background available to them and can easily come up with a very social interaction character. Fiddly little class features that give numeric bonuses do not equate to good design because it limits everyone else at attempting those things. Everyone should be able to be competent at the stuff they decide they want to be. Fighter with a criminal background can have lock picks. Sage fighter can have knowledge stuff, and a noble fighter has persuasion. Best aspect of 5e right there.

 

[Quickleaf]

I noticed that the Warlock is the one class which gets a "suite of options" class feature (Invocations) in the core class. Other classes (Totem Barbarian, Champion Fighter, Four Elements Monk, and Hunter Ranger) get "suite of options" features thru choice of sub-class.

From a Story perspective, I'd expect classes like Bard, Ranger, and Rogue to have "suite of options" class features worked right into the core class.

Bards have all sorts of little tricks they pick up that should reflect their adventures. Maybe Selkie's Kiss would give them limitd water breathing, or Siren's Song lets them lure people when singing, that sort of thing. Having some kind of a performance ability or (song) spell keyword that these "suite of options" augmented would be one approach.

Rangers cover lots of ground in terms of archetype. Guides, scouts, trackers...a "suite of options" feature could let a ranger player tailor their character to get the sort of ranger they imagine. I'm imagining a version of 4e's wilderness knacks just better thought out, less fiddly, and more of a narrative statement.

Rogues encompass so many archetypes it's not even funny, and I don't think sub-class can hold all the differences. The kind of stuff I'm envisioning for the rogue would probably interact with rules from DMG not released yet, and would add utility.

Personally, I wished Fighters also had more utility, though I realize that's not a popular position.

 

[Fion]

I've been a Warlock fan since 3x and was very happy when 4th ed brought them into their own. As one might expect I am rather happy with the class in 5th ed. It really keeps that unique feel they had with 3x and the higher complexity and versatility of 4e. They do seem to be one class that won't mix well with multiclassing, but I'm sure at some point someone will discover a wicked little combo. One issue I have with the class is that - as others have said - it seems to be a bit of a mish-mash, rather thrown together. The way spells work for example, I suspect is designed as such to diversify the spell-casting classes. Wizards are.. classic wizards with the ultimate spells. Sorcerers have their sorcery point system (though no unique spells which I find really odd), etc.

The only way in which I am disappointed is how mechanically similar the Fey Liege is with the Old One while being quite significantly less powerful. Compared directly the issue becomes apparent.

The Archfey
1st Level - Project fear or charm (saved)
6th Level - Invisible & Teleport when hit (essentially Blink, which is free & much better.)
10th Level - Reflect the occasional Charm power, resisted with a saving throw.
14th Level - Charm a creature for 1 minute, requiring concentration oh and can be saved against.

Great Old One
1st Level - Telepathy with any nearby intelligent creature (fey arguably better)
6th Level - Gain Advantage and give Disadvantage when hit (Blade Pact here I come!)
10th Level - Block telepathy, resist psychic damage and reflect that damage.
14th Level - Perma-Charm an incap. creature and gain unlimited telepathy on the same plane.

Compared like above, it becomes obvious which is the better choice unless you want to be able to occasionally put the Fear condition on an enemy or just 'gotta' have that Psuedodragon pet. Mechanically there is no reason to chose Archfey over the Old God.

 

[Consonant Dude]

What are all your thoughts on the 5th. edition Player's Handbook classes?

If there's one area I'm likely to house rule before long, it's the different classes.

Barbarians: I haven't used this class since AD&D. However, I am planning to roll a barbaric nature, rage, etc... into subraces. The idea came to me after checking out the dragonborn. I can use the latter's breathy weapon, ability bonuses, etc as a baseline to balance things out.

Bards: I wanted less spellcasting than 3rd edition. I love the fact they bumped hit points to a d8. Making it more of a warrior-poet and skald. But there's too much spellcasting for my taste. I'd like spell casting to start around level 6 or 7. But what would I replace it with ?

Clerics: Out of all the classes, this one usually needs a lot of home brewing to be suitable for my campaigns because that's the one that most ties with the world, the cosmology and plainly, just the way things work in the setting. I've read at least two posters mention it and it is making sense to me; I'd love for the Cleric to work more like the Sorcerer. I want them to have access to a small spell list, very centred on their faith/tradition/domain but I'd like for them to be able to cast often. They could also have divine points that they can convert into spell slots or miracles, the sorcerer way. I'd like the hit die to be lowered to d6 and less emphasis on melee, more on spells. So that there is less overlap between the cleric and paladin.

Druid: It feels like a natural (pun intended) evolution from past editions for this class but I was hoping for more. The cleric and druid share too many mechanics and spells for my taste. I'd like a more distinct spell list and another way of casting.

Fighter: I like it a lot as is, but I'm definitely bumping the hit die to d12. I have done so in all the D&D editions I have played. I might add a few unarmed options later. See monk below.

Monk: Like the barbarian, I don't use this class in my campaigns, ever. But this time, I think I want to salvage a few elements of the martial artist. Maybe as feats ? Maybe something else ? Fighters can definitely get some stuff through fighting styles/archetypes. But it would be cool for Rogues to have access to some of this if they to want as well. This is one area where I don't know yet how to proceed. Maybe someone has an idea ?

Paladin: I'm torn. There's a lot of cool stuff here... but I was hoping for spellcasting similar to the AD&D version, when these guys had access to spells at 9th level. Just felt right to me. 3.0 made it too early at 4th level. And now they're spellcasters almost out of the gate! I want a class that's easier to pick up and play. Strong core abilities. But 2nd level paladins throwing Bless and Command around ? That just doesn't work for me.

Ranger: Same deal as the paladin. I'd prefer if they started throwing spells at level 9 or 10. I've read that many people are dissatisfied with the Ranger as is, finding it underwhelming and underpowered. The animal companion will be easily houseruled to make it more independent and powerful. I don't want the ranger to tread on the other classes any more than it does. I think that's a case where I will want to add something new if I reign in spellcasting.

Rogue: I really, really like this one. I think this class has nicely evolved over time, with legacy features being ported "the right way" to fit with the new rules.

Sorcerer: It's an improvement over 3e but there's room for more. If your main feature is that you are a spellcaster, I think getting your own spell list is a must. Sharing with the wizard is OK. But it will never make the Sorcerer truly special. I think I need to fish for old d20 spell/magic supplements and see if I can come up with alternatives. Anyone has suggestions ?

Warlock: Because I stopped buying after the 3.0 core books, this stuff is basically new to me. I heard a lot about it. I don't know how it was implemented in the past but here, it is promising. I just don't know what niche it fills for me and again, the spell list doesn't feel right for me. Not as bad as the Sorcerer but almost.

Wizards: I like what they did with this one. It's the wizard as I know it. With bits from 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition carefully integrated. I like specialization. I like how most spells are handled as well. Best version yet of this class, although I will probably houserule a few spells. And just because I'm attached to this sacred cow, it's going back to a d4 for hit points.

So that's it as far as what I think of the classes for now. It might look like I don't like this edition if I change so much but it's the other way around. I love 5th edition. My favorite D&D so far. I'm going to tweak a lot of the classes because I'm going to play this game a lot. But the rules foundation is rock solid at this point.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Decent overall. I do wish there was a non-magical ranger, but I suppose one could be created by mixing fighter and rogue with appropriate feats and background. I also find it a bit odd that there isn't a summoner or animal companion druid option.

Perhaps some of those options will pop up down the road.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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

The sorcerer and warlock were only briefly in the public playtest (in the 08/17/12 packet), and then we never saw them again.

 

[yakuba]

The only way in which I am disappointed is how mechanically similar the Fey Liege is with the Old One while being quite significantly less powerful. Compared directly the issue becomes apparent.

I like the class overall, but I agree on the weakness of the Fey Pact features, especially the 14th level feature. I keep reading it over and over waiting for it to make sense. A shame because the Fey Pact Warlock was my go to build in 4e.