Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 6368237" data-attributes="member: 17077">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 <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />). 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.</blockquote>

Verification