Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pickles JG" data-source="post: 6368284" data-attributes="member: 61501">I have copied Falling Icicle's comments as I largely agree.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />) 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).AgreedI 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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification