D&D (2024) My current assessment…

[Blue]

The disparity between martial and magical classes is growing.

Based on ... not seeing not seeing any of the Warrior group or either group with full casters.

The best of the martial builds got kneecapped, but there is no evidence of that lost damage potential being regained elsewhere.

The only martial class that has been shown is the Ranger. So you are either claiming the Ranger is the best, or you are going for a GWM or SS feat build where we haven't seen anything and are using the fact that they haven't published the other classes yet as your negative evidence of "there is no evidence of that lost damage potential being regained elsewhere".

Given that magical classes still have something of an edge as is, that’s not a good change.

Based on what information? Are you assuming that all casters are going to be like the Expert half-casters? Without any possibility that Expert casters are prepared with more spells specifically because they are experts?

Invisibility got buffed to the point that it’s virtually stealth without a skill check. That steps on the toes of the rogue.

Invisibility in terms of stealthiness stayed right where it was. You can't be seen. It did gain in that now it grants advantage on initiative, but your claim it got more stealth is just wrong.

In fact, relatively speaking, the rogue seems to have gained power compared to other materials, but only because their most powerful builds were kneecapped, while being nerfed compared to those who could truly steal their spotlight: utility casters.

Okay, we don't know anything about non-Expert casters, so that's just conjuncture. Rogue is buffed and debuffed some. It can't do sneak attack on other's turns, and sneak attack can't work with a melee cantrip if they are the same as current. Melee rogues also got buffed in that they can TWF for double the chance to apply SA without impacting their bonus action features.

Stealth has been nerfed significantly due to relative context.

Is this about your claim for Invisibility?

Also, with more classes gaining expertise, the rogue has even less of a place to shine mechanically.

Ah yes, the Ranger, long considered one of the weaker classes, now sharing an ability with the rogue makes the rogue no longer desirable.

One has a lot of potential, but as of right now, the devil is in the details…

ABSOLUTELY.

And I recommend you familiarize yourself with the details we know, and clearly mark conjecture that is not supported by any details.

 

[Olrox17]

While it’s indeed too early to freak out, we should watch how things develop very carefully. Yeah, with SS and GWM (and polearm master to a degree) deprived of their broken features, WotC now has the chance to buff martials, bringing up their baseline performance, without worrying of the broken builds becoming too broken.

I agree that what we’ve seen with the rogue is worrying. Their most optimized tactics were nerfed, and too little was given in return.

 

[Horwath]

While it’s indeed too early to freak out, we should watch how things develop very carefully. Yeah, with SS and GWM (and polearm master to a degree) deprived of their broken features, WotC now has the chance to buff martials, bringing up their baseline performance, without worrying of the broken builds becoming too broken.

I agree that what we’ve seen with the rogue is worrying. Their most optimized tactics were nerfed, and too little was given in return.

PAM was just fixed that is "working as intended", and it also got a +1 ASI so that is a buff.

Now you can be an 8th level fighter with GWM, PAM&HAM and have 20 STR instead of 18.

This is better for STR based martials.

HAM is also fixed that it works against magical B/P/S attacks.

 

[Olrox17]

PAM was just fixed that is "working as intended", and it also got a +1 ASI so that is a buff.

Now you can be an 8th level fighter with GWM, PAM&HAM and have 20 STR instead of 18.

This is better for STR based martials.

HAM is also fixed that it works against magical B/P/S attacks.

Cool, and I also prefer how those feats are handled now. HAM may be a bit too good, but I’m not sure yet.
What I’m saying, is the most powerful combos involving those feats were nerfed.
Examples:

GWM/SS + accuracy boosters for insane damage output
Polearm master/crossbow expert + GWM/SS for a bonus attack with insane damage output
Polearm master + sentinel to stop a foe walking into your halberd’s reach dead in its tracks
Warcaster + polearm master to fire away booming blade as an opportunity attack very reliably

Those top optimal strategies are all gone now. And that’s a good thing for the game, I believe. I also believe that now, martial classes should receive some buffs (especially at higher levels) to keep up with pure casters.
Well, unless WotC decides to bring out the nerf bat for the most powerful spells, too. That would also work.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Maybe a little early on this?

I mean, that seems like a misunderstanding of what the OP is saying.

He said "My current assessment", not "my final judgment".

And currently, nothing is really contradicting him.

It's unarguably true to say that the most powerful Martial stuff got nerfed, and the stuff that got buffed isn't as strong as that stuff was.
Rogues got an unarguable DPR decrease from the "Attack Action" phrasing change.
Rangers got pushed into being a more magic-centric class, relying on repeatedly casting Hunter's Mark for their damage to be even okay.
Bards have a messier selection of spells, but are vastly more flexible so will be even more of a menace re: out-of-combat magic.
The "everyone preps spells" change in generally increases flexibility for casters and favours out-of-combat casting.
Invisibility unarguably got significantly buffed, for no apparent reason. It's particularly bad because of the "natural language" nonsense 5E does (and presumably 1D&D will also).

The only martial class that has been shown is the Ranger.

What do you think a Rogue is?

It's a Martial class. If you don't think it is, you're using a different definition to everyone else. Martial in this context doesn't just mean "Warrior", it essentially means non-caster, though often includes partial casters too, just never full-casters.

And I recommend you familiarize yourself with the details we know, and clearly mark conjecture that is not supported by any details.

Except that pretty much everything he's said is supported by the details, and you're ignoring those, or dismissing them. As well as making errors like stating the Rogue isn't a Martial class (if anything, the argument would be that the Ranger wasn't).

Right now, we've seen buffs to magic-users, especially full-casters, particularly when we consider the video which says the preparation changes will extend to all casters, and nerfs to Martials. Including a wide-spectrum and bizarrely unnecessary change of wording to "When you make an Attack Action" across a lot more than just Rogues - this was also found in the first packet, inexplicably nerfing a bad Feat into an even worse one.

Will future packets also bring spellcasters down? Maybe, but I'm skeptical. Bards, overall, mechanically, seem stronger than 5E, and they were already strong in 5E. Wizards seem very likely to get buffed, because they'll need to be differentiated from other prep casters, and that's likely to mean them becoming even stronger, and they were already strong - especially outside of combat, where their flexibility was huge. Likely they'll be even more flexible!

So acting like this is not worth being concerned over, not something we should be definitely thinking about and talking about in our survey responses is downright irresponsible if you ask me.

 

[TwoSix]

So acting like this is not worth being concerned over, not something we should be definitely thinking about and talking about in our survey responses is downright irresponsible if you ask me.

Ignoring any other details, this is the most salient point. The playtest is exactly when every issue should be raised, no matter how nuanced or picayune, around both flavor and execution. Take their statement about "don't worry about the numbers" and toss that aside, this is exactly the time to make points about where the numbers are failing. They aren't going to come around and ask for more feedback about these classes again. We aren't going to get 3 rounds of iteration for every class, when this is a major product that's going to come out in next 18-24 months. Now is the time to raise awareness about anything you see, not assume that the next packet or two is going to fix everything.

 

[shadowoflameth]

The disparity between martial and magical classes is growing. The best of the martial builds got kneecapped, but there is no evidence of that lost damage potential being regained elsewhere. Given that magical classes still have something of an edge as is, that’s not a good change. Invisibility got buffed to the point that it’s virtually stealth without a skill check. That steps on the toes of the rogue. There is no sign that the rogue was buffed to make up for the loss. In fact, relatively speaking, the rogue seems to have gained power compared to other materials, but only because their most powerful builds were kneecapped, while being nerfed compared to those who could truly steal their spotlight: utility casters. Stealth has been nerfed significantly due to relative context. Also, with more classes gaining expertise, the rogue has even less of a place to shine mechanically.

One has a lot of potential, but as of right now, the devil is in the details… and these details will sink the edition. As of right now, One isn’t so badly balanced as to be a repeat of 3e, but it’s badly balanced enough for me to avoid updating if the final product doesn’t change significantly during playtesting. It undoes too much of what 5e did to achieve parity between martial and magical classes under its hood.

Agree that the Rogue took a Nerf but in this play test, it is clear that the Ranger is being overhauled in far reaching ways. My current recommendations are going to be something like this:
Rogue Don't restrict a fun and effective feature to only your own turn. This makes lying in wait and readying an action to sneak attack far less effective even though it seems like exactly what you'd want to be able to do with a sneak attack. On the Thief, don't over complicate Use Magic Device. Let it work on restrictions of Magic Items and add an attunement slot.
Ranger Do change Favored Enemy but don't take away the flavor and don't make it a spell. I would recommend making the Hunter's Mark effect just something that the ranger can do, and say that all of the Ranger's Favored enemy in the combat are treated as always effected by this ability. It works like what we're play testing, it keeps the tradition of an enemy that's special to the Ranger and it can't be counter spelled. It also doesn't step on the vengeance paladin's toes, doesn't need concentration or a change in casting rules.
Roving is very potent, maybe just give the ranger +10' when walking climbing and swimming. Nature's Veil doesn't need to be a spell either. Just say that when a Ranger successfully hides, he becomes invisible in a natural setting. Simple, can't be dispelled, doesn't need a slot and thematic, and it's in line with the potency of a 13th level ability. On the Hunter, just make Multi-Attack an extra attack against a favored enemy or a target of that ability. Conjure Barrage is bad, and 'down casting' bad is worse. Superior Hunter's Defense, just give the Ranger Uncanny Dodge. The Rogue gets it much earlier than 14th
The Bard I like using a reaction to give inspiration, but giving the Bard Magical Secrets that can be changed each long Rest is too much. Potentially, it has a Bard being able to cast every spell in the game and steps on the Wizard's toes. (Though we haven't play tested a Wizard yet). I would recommend making Magical Secrets give two spells from any group and in any one school, or just choosing two spells and then having them always prepared. This way, they can't be replaced on a long rest, don't count against your limit prepared and don't give you an ability that effectively turns you into a Wizard or Sorcerer. I also would recommend the Lore Bard get back his instance of this ability at 6th. It's potent, thematic, Backward Compatible and much more versatile than Cunning Inspiration.

I like the change in levels and the Epic Boon change. Some classes capstones in 5e are tremendously potent and others are near useless. This evens the field, gives choice and gives everyone who plays the long road to 20th level a truly epic ability that fits their character.

 

[Mephista]

Beyond the prepared spell thing (which only brings bard up to cleric/druid/wizard levels, not improves casters as a whole), I don't think bards really got strengthened. They're BI-starved with a subclass that wants to use them extensively, their ability to heal got heavily nerfed, and their spell list has issues.

While I'm not a fan of how they changed the rogue's wording, I can see how double sneak attack is an issue by making only one valid tactic of playing rogue - reigning in outliers is important, especiaslly when they just did the same to the power attack feats. The rogue does need to be buffed, but in general.

I suspect that thief lost Use an Item use because, well, basic subclass is basic. Same reason that Hunter is simpler now.

Ranger is... definitely improved in this version, and a bit on the strong side, but that's ironically because of the martial side, not the caster. Like... the cantrips are mostly lackluster (guidance nerfed, attack cantrips and Shil pointless) and the prepared spells are arguably on par with the loss of Tasha's Primeval Awareness and subclass spell lists. Its the Expertise and TWFing that really got buffed and make the Ranger stand out.

There's a very good argument that Bard and Ranger Expertise should be weaker than Rogue's. Or Rogue should be able to apply their Expertise to combat in more ways for that increase of combat wae're lacking. Or that every subclass have a way of proc-ing sneak attack with increased damage (hey, if paladins always get Channel Divinity for their first and aura for second, and bards get new BI use, there's nothing wrong with standardizing that.) It is odd that spellcasters with good exploration spells should be on par with Rogue exploration.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It is odd that spellcasters with good exploration spells should be on par with Rogue exploration.

They're not only "on-par", they're ahead, and they get further ahead as levels go up and challenges get wilder.

Beyond the prepared spell thing (which only brings bard up to cleric/druid/wizard levels, not improves casters as a whole), I don't think bards really got strengthened.

The redesign to the function of BI is significant too - not only is it Reaction-based, but it's "after you fail", whereas before, you had to decide whether to roll in the extremely annoying window of "before the DM says whether you succeeded or failed", which depending on the DM and situation could be like 0.3 seconds (literally!).

The prepared spells thing is pretty significant too, in terms of increasing the flexibility of Bards, particularly outside combat.

However there is some weird stuff, like pushing Jack of All Trade from 2 to 5 (why?) and pushing Font of Inspiration to 7 (again, why?).

Losing Song of Rest is I think likely to be fairly minor in real terms, especially as the scaling was embarrassingly bad.

 

[shadowoflameth]

The list of Bard spells for healing in Songs of Restoration are significant and they go into the territory of the cleric. It's fine for the Bard to be able to be the healer in a pinch, but things like Mass Healing Word and Greater Restoration may be going to far IMHO Your mileage may vary.