What are all your thoughts on the 5th. edition Player's Handbook classes?
If there's one area I'm likely to house rule before long, it's the different classes.
Barbarians: I haven't used this class since AD&D. However, I am planning to roll a barbaric nature, rage, etc... into subraces. The idea came to me after checking out the dragonborn. I can use the latter's breathy weapon, ability bonuses, etc as a baseline to balance things out.
Bards: I wanted
less spellcasting than 3rd edition. I love the fact they bumped hit points to a d8. Making it more of a warrior-poet and skald. But there's too much spellcasting for my taste. I'd like spell casting to start around level 6 or 7. But what would I replace it with ?
Clerics: Out of all the classes, this one usually needs a lot of home brewing to be suitable for my campaigns because that's the one that most ties with the world, the cosmology and plainly, just the way things work in the setting. I've read at least two posters mention it and it is making sense to me; I'd love for the Cleric to work more like the Sorcerer. I want them to have access to a small spell list, very centred on their faith/tradition/domain but I'd like for them to be able to cast often. They could also have divine points that they can convert into spell slots or miracles, the sorcerer way. I'd like the hit die to be lowered to d6 and less emphasis on melee, more on spells. So that there is less overlap between the cleric and paladin.
Druid: It feels like a natural (pun intended) evolution from past editions for this class but I was hoping for more. The cleric and druid share too many mechanics and spells for my taste. I'd like a more distinct spell list and another way of casting.
Fighter: I like it a lot as is, but I'm definitely bumping the hit die to d12. I have done so in all the D&D editions I have played. I might add a few unarmed options later. See monk below.
Monk: Like the barbarian, I don't use this class in my campaigns, ever. But this time, I think I want to salvage a few elements of the martial artist. Maybe as feats ? Maybe something else ? Fighters can definitely get some stuff through fighting styles/archetypes. But it would be cool for Rogues to have access to some of this if they to want as well. This is one area where I don't know yet how to proceed. Maybe someone has an idea ?
Paladin: I'm torn. There's a lot of cool stuff here... but I was hoping for spellcasting similar to the AD&D version, when these guys had access to spells at 9th level. Just felt right to me. 3.0 made it too early at 4th level. And now they're spellcasters almost out of the gate! I want a class that's easier to pick up and play. Strong core abilities. But 2nd level paladins throwing Bless and Command around ? That just doesn't work for me.
Ranger: Same deal as the paladin. I'd prefer if they started throwing spells at level 9 or 10. I've read that many people are dissatisfied with the Ranger as is, finding it underwhelming and underpowered. The animal companion will be easily houseruled to make it more independent and powerful. I don't want the ranger to tread on the other classes any more than it does. I think that's a case where I will want to add something new if I reign in spellcasting.
Rogue: I really, really like this one. I think this class has nicely evolved over time, with legacy features being ported "the right way" to fit with the new rules.
Sorcerer: It's an improvement over 3e but there's room for more. If your main feature is that you are a spellcaster, I think getting
your own spell list is a must. Sharing with the wizard is OK. But it will never make the Sorcerer truly special. I think I need to fish for old d20 spell/magic supplements and see if I can come up with alternatives. Anyone has suggestions ?
Warlock: Because I stopped buying after the 3.0 core books, this stuff is basically new to me. I heard a lot about it. I don't know how it was implemented in the past but here, it is promising. I just don't know what niche it fills for me and again, the spell list doesn't feel right for me. Not as bad as the Sorcerer but almost.
Wizards: I like what they did with this one. It's the wizard as I know it. With bits from 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition carefully integrated. I like specialization. I like how most spells are handled as well. Best version yet of this class, although I will probably houserule a few spells. And just because I'm attached to this sacred cow, it's going back to a d4 for hit points.
So that's it as far as what I think of the classes for now. It might look like I don't like this edition if I change so much but it's the other way around. I love 5th edition. My favorite D&D so far. I'm going to tweak a lot of the classes because I'm going to play this game a lot. But the rules foundation is rock solid at this point.