D&D 5E New D&D WotC survey! On classes.

[Ruin Explorer]

Well that was a lot more like hard work than I thought it would be!

5E has some really good and really "bleh" class and subclass design.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, if they weren't asking for feedback specifically on the PHB ranger, I'm sure more people would be kinder.

As for me, I went against the grain by ripping into half of the wizard schools. Yeah, they are wizards, but some of the level 2 powers are parlor tricks, and some of them are Portent.

I definitely did criticize how a lot of Wizards I've seen at various tables basically all pick the same spells with Traditions impacting little in that regard.

Oh, I personally trashed that one!

The class has a main feature that only one archetype really uses. Yeah, we get it, moon druids are awesome. On the other hand, you have land druids which have those....feature:

I suggested that Wild Shape actually be a range of versatile forms (e.g., Guardian, Prowl, Flight, etc.) that actually scale with level. IME, many druid players want to wild shape into a particular thing for the aesthetic (e.g., wolf, bear, owl, etc.), and the current model doesn't scale well and requires book-keeping of the different animals. I think scalable forms would fix a lot of the core problems with the druid and wild shape.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I suggested that Wild Shape actually be a range of versatile forms (e.g., Guardian, Prowl, Flight, etc.) that actually scale with level. IME, many druid players want to wild shape into a particular thing for the aesthetic (e.g., wolf, bear, owl, etc.), and the current model doesn't scale well and requires book-keeping of the different animals. I think scalable forms would fix a lot of the core problems with the druid and wild shape.

I suggested something similar to this.

 

[Maxperson]

You've clearly never seen a bard played well. I have. They're useful, versatile, and a tremendous amount of fun.

They remind me of the Frenchmen from Monty Python.

Bard: "You empty headed animal food trough wiper." take 2d4 from Vicious Mockery.
DM: "The ogre groans at your words."
Bard: "Now go away or I will taunt you a second time."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I know. Bards take so long to create, and with such little result. They are empty spaces disguised as etchings on a character sheet.

Man what? Bards in 5E are astonishingly effective characters.

 

[Bolares]

Bards in 5E are astonishingly effective characters.

I feel like that about monks too, but that never stopped the discourse around them.

 

[Zaukrie]

I got about a couple pages into the survey before I realized I just don't really care about trying to get WotC to "fix" anything. It's been seven years-- anything I have an issue with regarding the classes and subclasses I've already fixed myself. So I just 'X'd out of it.

Ya, I gave them some strong feedback, but agree....decided I was mostly wasting my time. 5e is what it is, and no amount of letting them know my thoughts matters.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I know for a fact they do read these results.

how do you know this?

Well, if they weren't asking for feedback specifically on the PHB ranger, I'm sure more people would be kinder.

As for me, I went against the grain by ripping into half of the wizard schools. Yeah, they are wizards, but some of the level 2 powers are parlor tricks, and some of them are Portent.

I want to smash enchantment and illusion together and replace abjuration with something with more bite or at least with a more useable theme.

Did
Bards- I think they are very good
Clerics n Paladins- channels need a tweak
Druid- are awesome
Rangers- need some work

druids need more thematic work as well they tend to just mutate into animal lovers and that feels wrong but I do not know why?

Oh, I personally trashed that one!

The class has a main feature that only one archetype really uses. Yeah, we get it, moon druids are awesome. On the other hand, you have land druids which have those....feature:

• gain one more cantrip; sadly the PHB has only a few worthwhile druid cantrips.
• Do not receive any power boost to cantrips or melee attacks, like clerics do.
• Moon get stronger and stronger forms? Well you get to avoid being stuck in grass and brushes.
• Moon get to shape into elementals? Well you can resist being frightened and charmed...by 2 creature types.
• At 14th (!) level, those fearsome beast and plant creature need to pass a save once to be able to attack you. You know, those legendary beasts and plants DMs constantly throws at you when you are 14th level?!

At this point I just told them to make the moon shape progression into the main class chassis a have the Moon archetype be able to take more esoteric forms: Monstrosities, Plants or Elementals.

or we could just take shaper shifting away from the default?

I feel like that about monks too, but that never stopped the discourse around them.

monks are the best they have ever been, I just want them to be more broken than cleric and druids were at the height of codzilla.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I feel like that about monks too, but that never stopped the discourse around them.

The difference is that it's possibly to trivially objectively demonstrate it with Bards, and they can be effective in a wide variety of ways, for the very simple reason that they're full casters+.

Whereas with Monks, their peak effectiveness is as a one-trick pony. It's a pretty good trick, but it's only one trick, and otherwise they're demonstrably a class that has "certain issues". Not a disaster, though, certainly "fine". The main point to redesign with 5E would be to remove a lot of the Shaolin elements from the base class chassis and allow more design space in subclasses (which would mean redesigning all subclasses, note). That and either nerf Stunning Strike or buff other uses of Ki (or both).

No 5E class is a disaster. 5E classes only run the gamut between "Okay" and "WOW!", unlike say, 3E, where the gamut was between "Total trash" and "I AM GOD!!!" (4E was the only edition with a narrower gamut than 5E, but min-maxing had worse issues for 4E so that's a complicated story).

 

[Mind of tempest]

The difference is that it's possibly to trivially objectively demonstrate it with Bards, and they can be effective in a wide variety of ways, for the very simple reason that they're full casters+.

Whereas with Monks, their peak effectiveness is as a one-trick pony. It's a pretty good trick, but it's only one trick, and otherwise they're demonstrably a class that has "certain issues". Not a disaster, though, certainly "fine".

No 5E class is a disaster. 5E classes only run the gamut between "Okay and WOW!", unlike say, 3E, where the gamut was between "Total trash and I AM GOD!!!" (4E was the only edition with a narrower gamut than 5E, but min-maxing had worse issues for 4E so that's a complicated story).

can we just have only wow classes then?