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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Benjamin Olson" data-source="post: 8785365" data-attributes="member: 6988941">I am mostly neutral on the loss of a class spell list. Being able to take any Arcane spell from certain schools is cool (even if I'll miss the iconic particular flavor of the ecclectic Bard list), but the new system also seems vastly more complicated. They think they've solved the problem by suggesting spells, but there is a vast spectrum of game familiarity I think between the people who are so new they want the makers to just assign them spells so they can play, and the people who feel up to going through a third of the games spells figuring out which ones are of the right four schools. I feel like WotC is just not in tune with how newer or less committed players approach the game, as I suspect when they playtest they mostly interact with veterans or absolute beginners having their hands held by some WotC employee.I hate the prepared spell system which I have encountered here with Bards with a firey passion that knows no bounds. Making them prepared spellcasters is one thing feels wrong but I might get behind it. Not having a prepared spellcaster's number of prepared spells be ability score dependent is a change I like. But the idea that you now must prepare spells of levels based on the spell slot progression is an unforgiveable insult to 5e. No. Just no. A thousand times no. You got it wrong. Think of something else. I don't care what other editions did, 5e got that thing right. Make whatever employee thought that was a good idea spend a month playing a prepared spellcaster in actual 5e and don't let them near any more playtest materials until they do.I like changing inspiration to be proficiency bonus based, as I feel like, being based on charima bonus, it has been one of those things that made it actually unfeasible to play a class mediocre in their primary ability score. I kind of like moving it to the reaction, as it both makes it more powerful (which given that most bards will have less of it most of the time is fair) and avoids the problem of being dependent on other players remembering one of the Bard's class features. But now the Bard is one of those classes in search of something to do with their bonus action, and I liked the ludonarrative logic of giving inspiration in advance better. I am intrigued by making inspiration usable instead as a heal. The value of a slight increase to a critical die roll vs. a die roll of hit points at a clutch moment is difficult to quantify, and might make for compelling gameplay, I'm not sure.But they moved short rest inspiration regain, something I've long though should be the default at level 1, from 5th to 7th level. Now I understand that requiring several levels of Bard to get it might be necessary to balance multiclassing, especially with it being proficiency bonus based, but come on, level seven? And level 5 for Jack of All Trades? No. Characters should have all their iconic class abilities earlier, not later. I understand the joys of delayed gratification, but I shouldn't have to get 10 to 20 sessions in for my character of X class to feel like a proper character of X class.And on that subject, the level 1 Bard, not yet getting their extra healing spells, and having only 2 Arcane spells, has been severely nerfed. As have level 1 parties whose healer is (going to be) a Bard.Taking away a Bard's proficiency in rapiers and handcrossbows is an incorrect decision, though not as absurd as taking away the Rogue's proficiency in handcrossbows, which seems like it must just be a straight up oversight.</blockquote>

Verification