daddystabz
Explorer
What are all your thoughts on the 5th. edition Player's Handbook classes? I am curious to see what people think.
D&D 5E Thread: Your thoughts on the 5th. Edition Player's Handbook classes?
- Thread starter daddystabz
- Start date
Evenglare
Adventurer
I pretty much like them all. Each class has subclasses which easily lends to homebrew material because you only have to make up a portion of a class instead of an entirely new class. It provides the most expansive basic game compared to pretty much any D&D esque game so far. (I think). Everything seems to be more or less balanced, at least compared to other editions (though I have personally never experienced any real balance issues with any of the editions)
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
Barbarian: I never really liked barbarians, though the totem warrior does seem kind of cool.
Bard: I don't really like that it has 9th level spells. Also, the bardic music buffs don't seem very good compared to cleric spells like guidance and bless. The ability to pick some spells from any class's list is pretty cool, though.
Cleric: Seems pretty solid. I like the domains, though I was disappointed that they left the death domain out and put it in the DMG. It's not like all gods of death are evil. Thaumaturgy is also my favorite new spell in this edition.
Druid: A pretty powerful class, as always. I'm not a big fan of how wild shape gives you the hit points of the animal in addition to your own, though. The restriction against wearing metal armor is also a pointless (and nonsensical) appeal to tradition that I was hoping to see go, but oh well. I was also a bit annoyed that they don't get flamestrike in this edition.
Fighter: I keep seeing thread after thread on this and other forums about how picked on fighters are and how spellcasters rule, but I'm just not seeing it. I think the fighter is extremely powerful. And that's not just from looking at it on paper, but also from my experience playing the game. None of the people in my group who have played fighters felt like they were weak or underappreciated at all. Quite the contrary.
Paladin: I've never been a big fan of paladins, but I do think the oaths make the class far more interesting. I also am very happy to see that the evil radar from past editions hasn't made a comeback. I like the ability to sense fiends and such much better.
Ranger: I dislike how the ranger is more dependent upon spells than ever before. The beastmaster ranger is also very disappointing, having to spend his own actions to control his pet (but clerics and wizards are allowed to have hordes of animated dead and command them all with a bonus action
). Favored enemy is just... bleh. I also find the fighting styles (hordebreaker, etc) really odd. It seemed to me like they should have just given them up to 4 attacks like the fighter rather than trying to find weird ways of giving them similar damage but with all kinds of strings attached. It's unfortunate, but I feel like a fighter with the outlander backround makes a better "ranger" than the ranger does.
Rogue: I love the 5e rogue. It's just amazing, even if it doesn't do as much damage as other classes. Cunning Action is the best thing since sliced bread, and really makes playing a rogue fun. I also love what they did with the arcane trickster. 10/10.
Sorcerer: The poor sorcerer. He gets far fewer spells known than the freaking bard, and about the same number as the eldritch knight and arcane trickster, which are 1/3 casters. While I am glad that they gave them their own spell list, it's basically just like a third of the wizard's list, plus a couple token additions like earthquake. Overall, it's very disappointing. It's not absolutely terrible, and I'd probably still recommend it to new players for its relative simplicity, but I just can't see myself ever playing one when I could be a warlock or wizard instead.
Warlock: I love the flavor, but the mechanics are really strange, and work very poorly with multiclassing. They get short rest spells and invocations AND later daily spells too? It feels like a whole bunch of things that were thrown haphazardly together. It does look like a really fun class to play, though, despite looking a bit clunky from a mechanical perspective.
Wizard: I LOVE it. I love being able to cast rituals out of the spellbook without preparation. I love the speciality schools. They actually made playing an abjurer and diviner really tempting! Wizards have always been my favorite class, and they certainly don't disappoint in 5e.
Bard: I don't really like that it has 9th level spells. Also, the bardic music buffs don't seem very good compared to cleric spells like guidance and bless. The ability to pick some spells from any class's list is pretty cool, though.
Cleric: Seems pretty solid. I like the domains, though I was disappointed that they left the death domain out and put it in the DMG. It's not like all gods of death are evil. Thaumaturgy is also my favorite new spell in this edition.
Druid: A pretty powerful class, as always. I'm not a big fan of how wild shape gives you the hit points of the animal in addition to your own, though. The restriction against wearing metal armor is also a pointless (and nonsensical) appeal to tradition that I was hoping to see go, but oh well. I was also a bit annoyed that they don't get flamestrike in this edition.
Fighter: I keep seeing thread after thread on this and other forums about how picked on fighters are and how spellcasters rule, but I'm just not seeing it. I think the fighter is extremely powerful. And that's not just from looking at it on paper, but also from my experience playing the game. None of the people in my group who have played fighters felt like they were weak or underappreciated at all. Quite the contrary.
Paladin: I've never been a big fan of paladins, but I do think the oaths make the class far more interesting. I also am very happy to see that the evil radar from past editions hasn't made a comeback. I like the ability to sense fiends and such much better.
Ranger: I dislike how the ranger is more dependent upon spells than ever before. The beastmaster ranger is also very disappointing, having to spend his own actions to control his pet (but clerics and wizards are allowed to have hordes of animated dead and command them all with a bonus action
). Favored enemy is just... bleh. I also find the fighting styles (hordebreaker, etc) really odd. It seemed to me like they should have just given them up to 4 attacks like the fighter rather than trying to find weird ways of giving them similar damage but with all kinds of strings attached. It's unfortunate, but I feel like a fighter with the outlander backround makes a better "ranger" than the ranger does.Rogue: I love the 5e rogue. It's just amazing, even if it doesn't do as much damage as other classes. Cunning Action is the best thing since sliced bread, and really makes playing a rogue fun. I also love what they did with the arcane trickster. 10/10.
Sorcerer: The poor sorcerer. He gets far fewer spells known than the freaking bard, and about the same number as the eldritch knight and arcane trickster, which are 1/3 casters. While I am glad that they gave them their own spell list, it's basically just like a third of the wizard's list, plus a couple token additions like earthquake. Overall, it's very disappointing. It's not absolutely terrible, and I'd probably still recommend it to new players for its relative simplicity, but I just can't see myself ever playing one when I could be a warlock or wizard instead.
Warlock: I love the flavor, but the mechanics are really strange, and work very poorly with multiclassing. They get short rest spells and invocations AND later daily spells too? It feels like a whole bunch of things that were thrown haphazardly together. It does look like a really fun class to play, though, despite looking a bit clunky from a mechanical perspective.
Wizard: I LOVE it. I love being able to cast rituals out of the spellbook without preparation. I love the speciality schools. They actually made playing an abjurer and diviner really tempting! Wizards have always been my favorite class, and they certainly don't disappoint in 5e.
Raith5
Adventurer
The threads I am seeing are mostly concerned with the whether Fighters are interesting/have enough options and questions about power seem to be limited to high level.
It also seems that the pacing is a really important factor. Clearly battlemaster fighters and warlocks will want to form a union and have breaks as regularly as possible.
I really like the cleric, paladin and warlock. Like many, I dont know what they were thinking with the ranger.
gideonpepys
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Barbarian: I never really liked barbarians, though the totem warrior does seem kind of cool.
Bard: I don't really like that it has 9th level spells. Also, the bardic music buffs don't seem very good compared to cleric spells like guidance and bless. The ability to pick some spells from any class's list is pretty cool, though.
Cleric: Seems pretty solid. I like the domains, though I was disappointed that they left the death domain out and put it in the DMG. It's not like all gods of death are evil. Thaumaturgy is also my favorite new spell in this edition.
Druid: A pretty powerful class, as always. I'm not a big fan of how wild shape gives you the hit points of the animal in addition to your own, though. The restriction against wearing metal armor is also a pointless (and nonsensical) appeal to tradition that I was hoping to see go, but oh well. I was also a bit annoyed that they don't get flamestrike in this edition.
Fighter: I keep seeing thread after thread on this and other forums about how picked on fighters are and how spellcasters rule, but I'm just not seeing it. I think the fighter is extremely powerful. And that's not just from looking at it on paper, but also from my experience playing the game. None of the people in my group who have played fighters felt like they were weak or underappreciated at all. Quite the contrary.
Paladin: I've never been a big fan of paladins, but I do think the oaths make the class far more interesting. I also am very happy to see that the evil radar from past editions hasn't made a comeback. I like the ability to sense fiends and such much better.
Ranger: I dislike how the ranger is more dependent upon spells than ever before. The beastmaster ranger is also very disappointing, having to spend his own actions to control his pet (but clerics and wizards are allowed to have hordes of animated dead and command them all with a bonus action
Rogue: I love the 5e rogue. It's just amazing, even if it doesn't do as much damage as other classes. Cunning Action is the best thing since sliced bread, and really makes playing a rogue fun. I also love what they did with the arcane trickster. 10/10.
Sorcerer: The poor sorcerer. He gets far fewer spells known than the freaking bard, and about the same number as the eldritch knight and arcane trickster, which are 1/3 casters. While I am glad that they gave them their own spell list, it's basically just like a third of the wizard's list, plus a couple token additions like earthquake. Overall, it's very disappointing. It's not absolutely terrible, and I'd probably still recommend it to new players for its relative simplicity, but I just can't see myself ever playing one when I could be a warlock or wizard instead.
Warlock: I love the flavor, but the mechanics are really strange, and work very poorly with multiclassing. They get short rest spells and invocations AND later daily spells too? It feels like a whole bunch of things that were thrown haphazardly together. It does look like a really fun class to play, though, despite looking a bit clunky from a mechanical perspective.
Wizard: I LOVE it. I love being able to cast rituals out of the spellbook without preparation. I love the speciality schools. They actually made playing an abjurer and diviner really tempting! Wizards have always been my favorite class, and they certainly don't disappoint in 5e.
You missed monk.
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
Doh! I knew I was missing something.
Pickles JG
First Post
I have copied Falling Icicle's comments as I largely agree.
Interesting to see barbarians as relatively tanky cf fighters, basically Berserks who shrug off wounds.
Don't care about the complaints except that wildshape seems very strong because of the functionally free healing. Classes are not perfectly balanced at every level but appear reasonably balanced across a range of levels. Moon druids spike hugely at levels 2 (house rule this to level 3
) to 4 & look a bit strong thereafter.
Looks fine at low levels as usual. Some very meh abilities but probably OK. A bit one dimensional for me though the Knight with more options would probably suit me even if the spells are hardly powerful.
Agreed - much more interesting this time than usual. Sneak in a lot of the 4e stuff by piggy backing on spells rather than using special new mechanics which is good (see also ranger).
I think they may be able to abuse their top spell slots with font of magic & a bit of metamagic. That would make them even more limited in rounds of good contribution than wizards (& would reverse the 3.5 style) but those rounds would be very significant. Otherwise they look worse than wizards even without the wizard's school specialisation. I plan to play one next to see how it goes - may be disappointed. (If they can abuse polymorph (self) they look even more busted than Moon Druids at least at level 7-12 or so)
Looks very good. All the usual wizardly power and flexibility is there with no obligation to help other people like clerics do.
Warlocks & Rangers are very similar classes & seem to have carried over their 4e styles. Both of them will be spamming shots with damage boosted by Hex/Hunters mark, or be melee versions with more/better attacks at lower levels but probably without the boost. Warlocks refresh on their short rest schedule while rangers refresh on a daily basis. Both of them seem to be able to deal a lot of ranged damage.
Warlocks get the invocations which themselves are a mishmash of extra spell options (which seem superfluous given their limited slots & huge number of spells known), passive abilities, at will spells & upgrades to their Eldritch blast or pacts. They do seem to lack design elegance. One then later two encounter spell slots that are used at your highest level slot over 6th would have been more coherent though it still clunks. Maybe a better beginner Arcanist than the Sorcerer?
Rangers get their passive abilities & their path benefits. They get higher level spells & they can "nova" in a way Warlocks cannot. A bit....
The point about controlling pets is fair though I think this is more about the wizard spells possibly being problematic than Rangers being bad. The pets seem a little underwhelming though this was not found to be the the case when the alpha ones were mathed out. Dual wielding & controlling a pet will let you use your bonus action to attack & get the pet to attack too - worthwhile at 11th level & a wash at 5th hmm.
Favoured enemy is spot on - if you are opposing that enemy you get a significant boost but do not devastate those encounters & you can tailor them a bit by using the hunter options.
The fact they get to do these thing in a different way than fighters is a benefit of the system not a downside. After all if you feel a fighter is a better "Ranger" you can go play a fighter (who cares what your class is called?).
Monk:-
Look very good fun. Some resources to manage, combat effective & fast moving is a good start. The 1e style build looks a bit stronger than the others as it kind of gets its abilities for free on top of using Ki rather than spending Ki for extra abilities. It is less flexible & cool though
Good implementation. Dull as ditchwater - probably the most limited class in play tied with champions.
Interesting to see barbarians as relatively tanky cf fighters, basically Berserks who shrug off wounds.
Looks effective but does not do what I want it to - group buff. I don't like the single target inspiration, a bit fiddly & benefits only some allies. The main issue could be solved by a line of "song" spells that buff.
Strong as usual. I would like to try out a "selfish" cleric & compare his combat effectiveness cf a fighter but as a team player I think they are grand.
Don't care about the complaints except that wildshape seems very strong because of the functionally free healing. Classes are not perfectly balanced at every level but appear reasonably balanced across a range of levels. Moon druids spike hugely at levels 2 (house rule this to level 3
) to 4 & look a bit strong thereafter.Looks fine at low levels as usual. Some very meh abilities but probably OK. A bit one dimensional for me though the Knight with more options would probably suit me even if the spells are hardly powerful.
Agreed - much more interesting this time than usual. Sneak in a lot of the 4e stuff by piggy backing on spells rather than using special new mechanics which is good (see also ranger).
Agreed
I think they may be able to abuse their top spell slots with font of magic & a bit of metamagic. That would make them even more limited in rounds of good contribution than wizards (& would reverse the 3.5 style) but those rounds would be very significant. Otherwise they look worse than wizards even without the wizard's school specialisation. I plan to play one next to see how it goes - may be disappointed. (If they can abuse polymorph (self) they look even more busted than Moon Druids at least at level 7-12 or so)
Looks very good. All the usual wizardly power and flexibility is there with no obligation to help other people like clerics do.
Warlock: I love the flavor, but the mechanics are really strange, and work very poorly with multiclassing. They get short rest spells and invocations AND later daily spells too? It feels like a whole bunch of things that were thrown haphazardly together. It does look like a really fun class to play, though, despite looking a bit clunky from a mechanical perspective.
Ranger: I dislike how the ranger is more dependent upon spells than ever before. The beastmaster ranger is also very disappointing, having to spend his own actions to control his pet (but clerics and wizards are allowed to have hordes of animated dead and command them all with a bonus action
Warlocks & Rangers are very similar classes & seem to have carried over their 4e styles. Both of them will be spamming shots with damage boosted by Hex/Hunters mark, or be melee versions with more/better attacks at lower levels but probably without the boost. Warlocks refresh on their short rest schedule while rangers refresh on a daily basis. Both of them seem to be able to deal a lot of ranged damage.
Warlocks get the invocations which themselves are a mishmash of extra spell options (which seem superfluous given their limited slots & huge number of spells known), passive abilities, at will spells & upgrades to their Eldritch blast or pacts. They do seem to lack design elegance. One then later two encounter spell slots that are used at your highest level slot over 6th would have been more coherent though it still clunks. Maybe a better beginner Arcanist than the Sorcerer?
Rangers get their passive abilities & their path benefits. They get higher level spells & they can "nova" in a way Warlocks cannot. A bit....
The point about controlling pets is fair though I think this is more about the wizard spells possibly being problematic than Rangers being bad. The pets seem a little underwhelming though this was not found to be the the case when the alpha ones were mathed out. Dual wielding & controlling a pet will let you use your bonus action to attack & get the pet to attack too - worthwhile at 11th level & a wash at 5th hmm.
Favoured enemy is spot on - if you are opposing that enemy you get a significant boost but do not devastate those encounters & you can tailor them a bit by using the hunter options.
The fact they get to do these thing in a different way than fighters is a benefit of the system not a downside. After all if you feel a fighter is a better "Ranger" you can go play a fighter (who cares what your class is called?).
Monk:-
Look very good fun. Some resources to manage, combat effective & fast moving is a good start. The 1e style build looks a bit stronger than the others as it kind of gets its abilities for free on top of using Ki rather than spending Ki for extra abilities. It is less flexible & cool though
Don't forget Druids. Wildshape twice between every short rest. That's how many bonus hit points, plus the fighting form and spells, for Moon Path druids. Absolutely hysterically broken. DruidZilla is here and all your base are belong to him.
TrippyHippy
Hero
I like them.
I’d like to see a few more options for customising via specialisations for some classes (and also through more backgrounds), but the 12 included generally covers most ground needed. The major area for expansion, for my purposes, would be to include more options for court intrigue. I’d like Rogues to include schemers and spies for example, along with characters who had an aristocratic bent for leadership.
I’d like to see a few more options for customising via specialisations for some classes (and also through more backgrounds), but the 12 included generally covers most ground needed. The major area for expansion, for my purposes, would be to include more options for court intrigue. I’d like Rogues to include schemers and spies for example, along with characters who had an aristocratic bent for leadership.
Similar Threads
