Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dualazi" data-source="post: 7027168" data-attributes="member: 6855537">In no particular order:The Wizard UA blew across the board, with pretty much every new subclass they have being incredibly versatile and likely OP. Given how dominating wizards have been basically from the game's inception, I am staunchly against power creep for wizards.Cleric was middling, with their features swinging in either direction of effectiveness. However, the protection cleric was incredibly bad, from both a thematic and mechanical standpoint. It also highlighted the fact that the armor/weapon/cantrip damage isn't being experimented with at all. I wish this had been something you chose as a base cleric, so you could have the option of being a melee life cleric or a ranged one.Bard I had no strong feelings on at all really, aside from the small worry they might be a bit niche in concept.The ranger update+ new subclasses has been amazing. All of them are pretty cool and have interesting mechanics, and at my table at least it has really reinvigorated interest in the class.Fighter was...alright. I like where they're going with them, but they really need some work, especially arcane archer, which was pretty terrible. Samurai was great mechanically, but could use some lore adjustments, and knight needs some usability polish IIRC.Barbarian was pretty good. Didn't wow me, but they seemed to be where they needed to be and had some cool story potential. I quite liked that they didn't step on the toes of other classes much, it'd be very difficult to mistake a zealot for a paladin.Druid sucked. It was power-creepy in some ways and weirdly weak in others (and undead hunter that deals necrotic damage? How'd that slip through.). Especially for a class with as much potential for variation as the druid does it was a bummer.Monk was the worst UA article, I think. Kensai is the blandest iteration of the concept I've ever seen, and comes with a way too complicated method of determining monk weapons to make the concept work. If there was ever a sign of designers trying to force a square peg into a round hole, this is it. Tranquility monk was also awful, simply because I don't think the subclass gave enough room to embody the concept, which showed the limitation of subclasses in general.Sorcerer ranged from fantastic (sea) to mediocre (phoenix) to “should be purged” (metal). Not much to say here, metal will never be an acceptable replacement for the swordmage, because subclasses do not have the potential to warp the main class to a necessary degree for that to work.Paladin was great. I liked both options and I think they'll play sufficiently different even though they're both potentially evil. Rogue was good, scout is an amazing alternative for those that want a different take on the spell-less ranger.Warlock was super disappointing, which sucked as they've huge potential. The hexblade has weird theme issues, steps on the toes of bladelocks, and has the most broken 1 level dip potential ever. Raven queen is yet another edgy necrotic themed patron, woo. Then, a lot of the invocations are needlessly specific when they could easily be re-fluffed for multiple patrons.Overall, my favorite was the ranger. The combination of the class overhaul with the new subclasses really breathed new life into the class.Least favorite is actually monk. I figured it would be the wizard/warlock one, but in retrospect monk fails on basically every level for me</blockquote>

Verification