Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6175113" data-attributes="member: 40233">I did the survey.  As these things go, it was surprisingly free of "tell us how wonderful we are", and it had lots of comment sections that allowed me to expand on my thoughts.As I recall, I commented on the Fighter, the Mage, the Cleric, the Ranger, and the Rogue.  I thought the fighter looked good, though I don't like class based combat maneuvers, and prefer those to be part of the combat chapter.  I think the mage is great, and I'm happy with the name change, but that evocation spells are currently too weak for both monster hit points and relative to other classes' spells.  I preferred the previous playtest's deity mechanic to the Domain mechanic of this package for the cleric, and the rogue has a lot of neat stuff, but is too weak overall, the Ranger should have spells, and they should not be afterthoughts.  They need to be things the ranger wants to cast.And I told them that right now, noncombat action resolution is the worst thing about the game, because the bonus provided by attributes doesn't provide enough of a distribution between "moderately competed (stat 10)" and "best ever (stat 20)" or in between, and their recommended DC's basically have normal characters playing the lottery to succeed at things they should be competent at.Oh, and I told them they should eliminate the monk, because a guy able to kill things with his bare hands that others need a sword to kill isn't a different class from the fighter, he's a higher level fighter!  But I don't think that's going to get much play.Oh, and humans are too weak.</blockquote>

Verification