Overall, this is a step in the wrong direction for me, on many different levels, especially when there are so many small details that were fundamentally wrong but remain unchanged. Here are my specifics:
I understand why they extended the expertise dice mechanic to Rogues - I know I've been clamouring for a unified physical combat system since this was introduced - but I don't get why they are doing it in such a horrible, horrible way. They've hit the limitation of using dice in the first place, which is that there isn't enough design space to have different classes use it in different ways, hence Rogues are just Fighters with different maneuvers. They're also still trying to balance a host of at-will abilities, which I think is very difficult and ultimately, it's unexciting to manage round-by-round resources. At the very least they might have considered giving Rogues a free dice whenever they have advantage - all they are at the moment are weak fencers with skills.
Speaking of shared systems, we're still stuck in the same spellcasting paradigm. Now, I don't mind spell levels, spell slots and so on, but once more all that happens is a consistent increase in how many spells you get as you increase in level. They reduced it though! This doesn't solve the too-many-spells problem, and introduces a new not-enough-spells problem at low levels. I much preferred minor at-will spells to this 0th level business too. Why can't the number of spell slots you have increase slowly, with the maximum spell level available marked separately, why dictate both precisely? Give the class say, 4 slots, plus 1 every 3 levels, and have the maximum level (or total of all levels) be capped at 1 + 1 every 2 levels (or 4 + 1 every level maximum total).
Then, for both of these systems, why not make them multiclass friendly? Currently there's no way to combine spellcaster levels, I can see adding martial character levels to determine dice, but then there's still no way to combine the two. Must do better!
I am disappointed that the Cleric has gone back to being so bland, though I think the deity archetypes are a step in the right direction. I really want to know who thinks Turn Undead should be a special ability of all clerics - I liked Channel Divinity and its multiple uses for different deities (particularly as it could be gained through a speciality, a bit like the Divine Magic speciality tries at the moment). I feel that we've lost the priestly cleric, and their form of spellcasting is still very confusing.
The Fighter and Rogue I think I discussed above. I will add that giving Fighters an additional attack is interesting, but I suspect that it's just too large a jump in power at that level - the 1st playtest packet had a more scalable feature that gave you so many extra attacks a day, and I think this works better on a short-rest or long-rest recovery. Poor Rogues, only as many HP as a Wizard now, and struggling in combat, but proficiency in thieves' tools.. what?!
Then we have the Wizard, and I see they have
solved changed the character low HP issue by bumping them up to Rogues. Yeah, not really getting the point is it? I'll complain here that we're still on +Con mod per level anyway so hit die barely matter anyway. There must be a comfortable medium between +con mod and +con score. Anyway, aside from the spellcasting rant above, I'm not particularly interested by traditions. I dislike signature spells, from the terrible wording of how they work to the actual choice of spells themselves. When they mentioned they were doing this I thought it might be interesting, that Battle Mages might get light armour casting, perhaps losing ritual casting as a tradeoff, and we might see spell school specialists that do more than just make your spell DC higher (yawn). But no, because of the sudden return of 0th level spells we mostly get some dictation of at-will powers and encounter powers, which is all a bit too 4E for me (especially after all that fuss about offering different magic systems as modules).
The racial options are still bland, and mixing up heritage with upbringing, and humans are the worst thing ever.
I maybe misunderstood how two-weapon fighting works now, but it seems.. sub-optimal. I haven't done the maths though. Whoever said it upthread was right: stop making it extra attacks. Let's do some maths on how it might work better:
- A heavy weapon chosen for damage does 1d12. A sword and board combo chosen for damage does 1d8 damage and +1 AC. We can surmise that +1 AC is worth ~2 damage.
- Let's restrict TWF to light weapons only, and make it a single attack, so that's 1d6 damage. I suggest TWF offers either +1 AC or +2 damage as a floating option every round. The former does less damage that S&B, the latter does less damage than a heavy weapon, but you have the flexibility of choice.
- Alternatively, let's expand the field of options, remove the light weapon restriction, and have TWF offer +1 to hit. Then you can choose, +1 to hit, +1 to AC or +2 average damage. That seems reasonable to me.
Moving on, I think they're moving in the right direction with skills, though I dislike the return of some useless ones and the separation of listen/spot - pretty sure that this makes sneaking damned difficult again, even if you make only one stealth roll (they get two rolls to notice you: in effect advantage). Alert people are alert for both senses! Search is slightly different, it implies a methodical and intelligent approach that doesn't just rely on keen senses.
I think that specialities, the few we now have, are getting better, though the Arcane Magic one is now useless to non-casters. Yay, I get a spell! Once per day. It doesn't do much. Oh and then I get a feat I CAN'T USE ON MY ONLY SPELL. But hey, quickened light, right? They should follow the Divine Magic example here: give you a little more spellcasting each time, a 'taster' of being a mage. Bump up the power a bit though. Healer is also better, though there's still a silly maximum effect so that each potion is 14 HP. Use 'roll twice, take the better number' mechanics here, it's good, but not too good.
I can understand when designers follow a particular path, but it's not to my taste - I respect that 4E is well-designed, but I don't particularly like it. What I don't understand is design decisions that don't add anything, that don't help future design, that actively make things more difficult. I sadly feel that this packet suffers from the latter.
