D&D 5E Thread: Your thoughts on the 5th. Edition Player's Handbook classes?

[Fion]

I like the class overall, but I agree on the weakness of the Fey Pact features, especially the 14th level feature. I keep reading it over and over waiting for it to make sense. A shame because the Fey Pact Warlock was my go to build in 4e.

Mine too man, mine too. While short on damage output, it made up for that in versatility and control.

The 14 power is a big one, so similar and yet so clearly better for the Great Old One with 1 minute charm, saved against and requiring concentration vs perma-charmed target without save and unlimited telepathy. That said, the level 10 ability is almost as bad, with both 'reflecting' a damage type. Fey becomes immune to charm on the occasion a charm power is used against them they can charm the user for a minute, but the target gets a saving throw and any damage taken removes the effect. On the other hand with Great Old One gains telepathy immunity, resistance to psychic damage and reflects any psychic damage taken without a save.

The warlock barely got any play-testing and I must wonder who designed the Patrons, chose to make two very similar and yet one clearly superior. Hopefully an Errata can fix that. If not I'll be thinking up some house rules.

 

[MoonSong]

Wait, what? AD&D 2e had a functional sorcery caster with that book using spell points (ad hoc casting not dependent on traditional memorization of spells which is pretty much what a sorcerer is). Just because it might not be your perfect version in no way means it didn't exist. Contempt and misunderstanding of the class? Dial back on the hyperbole just a bit.

Not hyperbole, but you don't understand what a sorcerer is about. (Hint it is not an alternate casting mechanic) Sorcerers are about the different kinds of stories you can tell that are impossible with the traditional D&D Mage/Wizard. The channeler -the variation you are talking about- in that book is still pretty much a D&D Mage with the same story and the same overall characteristics. I don't deny that mechanics help with the sorcerer feel, but a sorcerer is more than just an spontaneous caster (and the hyperbole is on you, if I had found a perfect sorcerer I wouldn't care about them getting it right). Why else stick with an underpowered and undersupported class if not for the stories it can tell?.

Both of those classes were in the open play-test.

The sorcerer and warlock were only briefly in the public playtest (in the 08/17/12 packet), and then we never saw them again.

QFT
And also these versions of the classes were extremely limited and bear no resemblance to the final drafts of the classes. Almost as if the designers were too secure on what these classes were about and never openly asked about them on any way once they got drowned under complaints by wizard players that they wanted the poor child's toys too.

Mine too man, mine too. While short on damage output, it made up for that in versatility and control.

The 14 power is a big one, so similar and yet so clearly better for the Great Old One with 1 minute charm, saved against and requiring concentration vs perma-charmed target without save and unlimited telepathy. That said, the level 10 ability is almost as bad, with both 'reflecting' a damage type. Fey becomes immune to charm on the occasion a charm power is used against them they can charm the user for a minute, but the target gets a saving throw and any damage taken removes the effect. On the other hand with Great Old One gains telepathy immunity, resistance to psychic damage and reflects any psychic damage taken without a save.

The warlock barely got any play-testing and I must wonder who designed the Patrons, chose to make two very similar and yet one clearly superior. Hopefully an Errata can fix that. If not I'll be thinking up some house rules.

Indeed, both warlcoks and sorcerers are in need of extensive errata, it is as if they were an afterthought, I don't doubt they playtested parts of them, but I bet most of the playtesting got done on the fancy parts instead of the most functional ones.

 

[Thaumaturge]

And also these versions of the classes were extremely limited and bear no resemblance to the final drafts of the classes. Almost as if the designers were too secure on what these classes were about and never openly asked about them on any way once they got drowned under complaints by wizard players that they wanted the poor child's toys too.

I think they tried some radical things in the playtest, and were told "nope, that's too radical". So they made classes similar, mechanically to what they'd had before.

I wouldn't be surprised if we get the playtest sorcerer eventually as something else. That class was cool

Thaumaturge.

 

[steeldragons]

Complete redesign and additions/alterations to existing material (which are not, in themselves, incorrect) is not "errata." Errors are "errata." Typos are errata. Grammatical errors requiring a revision of a given sentence/paragraph/statement. Placing the sorcerer traits paragraph on/under the barbarian entry or copy/pasting to list the fighter's weapon allowances under sorcerer are errata. Factually incorrect statements are errata. Things that are objectively wrong that require correction are errata.

Things you [using the general/plural "you" here] don't like about this or that class (in this thread's case sorcerers and some warlock disappointment-to-hate) are not errors. They are things you don't like....or wanted different...or, from the tone often being used [in other threads as much as this one], expectations that weren't met and/or this baffling entitlement that pervades the game to "having things just the way I want them." None of that makes what's there in the PHB an error.

Stating one's opinions and preferences as objective fact does not, in fact, make them true.

The sorcerer is an alternate casting mechanic. That's the core element/defining feature of the class, as D&D currently defines Sorcerer, proper. That's why the class was created. The sorcerer is the D&D archetype for a spontaneous spellcaster. That is true.

Claiming they are about "the story/plot hooks" is no more true for sorcerers than any other class. Every character in an RPG is about their story...even if that story is nothing more than "I'm so awesome I do 500 damage per round!" All of the story stuff you need is in the existing sorcerer. You are a arcane magic-user who gets their power from their unique origin or bloodline. That's the sorcerer's story [at its foundation]. Where you take it from there, how your fluff/flavor that and what trappings you add [or your DM allows] is, obviously, up to you (and/or a kind DM).

Also, just an aside, I'm seeing this bandied about more and more often and have no clue what it means...what is "QTF"?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not hyperbole, but you don't understand what a sorcerer is about. (Hint it is not an alternate casting mechanic) Sorcerers are about the different kinds of stories you can tell that are impossible with the traditional D&D Mage/Wizard. The channeler -the variation you are talking about- in that book is still pretty much a D&D Mage with the same story and the same overall characteristics. I don't deny that mechanics help with the sorcerer feel, but a sorcerer is more than just an spontaneous caster (and the hyperbole is on you, if I had found a perfect sorcerer I wouldn't care about them getting it right). Why else stick with an underpowered and undersupported class if not for the stories it can tell?.

.

I hate to break it to you, but the D&D sorcerer is whatever they say it is in the D&D books. Telling someone they have "contempt" for the sorcerer because they don't share the same opinion as you is not only hyperbolic, but pretty ridiculous. Who made you the authority on what a sorcerer should be like? You have your opinion of what the class is, but clearly it doesn't jive with how D&D is viewing it. Get over it and move on.

If you really want to start talking about what a sorcerer should be, then I'd have to point you to Howard's and Leiber's versions as the "true" version of what a sorcerer is. And D&D is not, and has never been, the best system to represent those mechanically.

Also, "underpowered" and "undersupported" are entirely your subjective opinion. Judging by how you used "versatile" earlier, I'm not sure you really know what these words actually mean, but just sling out hyperbolic words from your own contempt. That would be some irony. Sort of like your statement about not paying attention to the details, details, details.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Stating one's opinions and preferences as objective fact does not, in fact, make them true.

So you say.

Also, just an aside, I'm seeing this bandied about more and more often and have no clue what it means...what is "QTF"?

Here.

Thaumaturge.

 

[SkidAce]

Also, just an aside, I'm seeing this bandied about more and more often and have no clue what it means...what is "QTF"?

Quoted For Truth misspelled?...I don't know...

 

[Andor]

Also, just an aside, I'm seeing this bandied about more and more often and have no clue what it means...what is "QTF"?

QFT means Quoted For Truth.

QTF I'm going to guess means Quarrelsome Tooth Fairy.

 

[yakuba]

Complete redesign and additions/alterations to existing material (which are not, in themselves, incorrect) is not "errata." Errors are "errata." Typos are errata. Grammatical errors requiring a revision of a given sentence/paragraph/statement. Placing the sorcerer traits paragraph on/under the barbarian entry or copy/pasting to list the fighter's weapon allowances under sorcerer are errata. Factually incorrect statements are errata. Things that are objectively wrong that require correction are errata.

Things you [using the general/plural "you" here] don't like about this or that class (in this thread's case sorcerers and some warlock disappointment-to-hate) are not errors. They are things you don't like....or wanted different...or, from the tone often being used [in other threads as much as this one], expectations that weren't met and/or this baffling entitlement that pervades the game to "having things just the way I want them." None of that makes what's there in the PHB an error.

You are completely correct about the denotation of 'errata'. However, for someone who followed WOTC's approach with 4e, it is reasonable to accept WOTC's own definition of 'errata'. WOTC used the term extensively to apply to things which were not publication errors, but flawed game elements. As such, I don't think that usage is out of place in this forum.

 

[yakuba]

Mine too man, mine too. While short on damage output, it made up for that in versatility and control.

The 14 power is a big one, so similar and yet so clearly better for the Great Old One with 1 minute charm, saved against and requiring concentration vs perma-charmed target without save and unlimited telepathy. That said, the level 10 ability is almost as bad, with both 'reflecting' a damage type. Fey becomes immune to charm on the occasion a charm power is used against them they can charm the user for a minute, but the target gets a saving throw and any damage taken removes the effect. On the other hand with Great Old One gains telepathy immunity, resistance to psychic damage and reflects any psychic damage taken without a save.

The warlock barely got any play-testing and I must wonder who designed the Patrons, chose to make two very similar and yet one clearly superior. Hopefully an Errata can fix that. If not I'll be thinking up some house rules.

You're right about the level 10 power as well, although I don't see it as egregious as the 14th level. I don't see how you can look at the three 14th level capstones next to each other and clearly see 'One of these things is not like the others'. Interestingly Hurl through Hell is just 5e-ization of the 4e PHB 29th level daily. If they'd have done the same thing with Curse of the Dark Delerium by making it a domination power, that would have been much better than pseudo-Enthrall.