Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="brehobit" data-source="post: 6562809" data-attributes="member: 12032">ErrataRealizing this has turned into something of a flame war, I'll jump in anyways.The game could use some errata.&nbsp; There are a few problems at a few levels and a few things that just could stand to be fixed IMO.&nbsp; I think warlocks are a bit over powered when it comes to at-will damage from levels 11+.&nbsp; The moon druid is a bit too much at lower levels.&nbsp; The fighter sucks at higher levels if you aren't using feats and the champion could use a bit of a boost.&nbsp; Spells like barkskin could use clarification (stacks with shield?&nbsp; With cover?)&nbsp; Druid armor rules could stand clarification at the least, and some better options at the most (I think it's the only class that if you multi-class into it you lose the use of other abilities).&nbsp; The multi-classing rules on the whole have a lot of gaps, and it would be nice to fill those (how does the barbarian or monk AC abilities work in wildshape for example).&nbsp; It could also use some fleshing out of player options.&nbsp; I agree cleric domains would be welcome.&nbsp; As would some other sorcerer options.&nbsp; I would like to see a spell-less ranger and I'd like to see a fighter option that leans toward cleric (though the paladin does that okay, I'd claim there is room in there just as the Eldritch Knight is between a bard and a fighter).&nbsp; But mostly it needs adventures and more (interesting) monsters.&nbsp; All that said, I think it's the cleanest edition we've had at the start.&nbsp; 3e really needed 3.5 and 4e really (really) needed 4.25.&nbsp; 5e doesn't need much really.&nbsp; But it still could see some improvement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="brehobit, post: 6562809, member: 12032"] [b]Errata[/b] Realizing this has turned into something of a flame war, I'll jump in anyways. The game could use some errata. There are a few problems at a few levels and a few things that just could stand to be fixed IMO. I think warlocks are a bit over powered when it comes to at-will damage from levels 11+. The moon druid is a bit too much at lower levels. The fighter sucks at higher levels if you aren't using feats and the champion could use a bit of a boost. Spells like barkskin could use clarification (stacks with shield? With cover?) Druid armor rules could stand clarification at the least, and some better options at the most (I think it's the only class that if you multi-class into it you lose the use of other abilities). The multi-classing rules on the whole have a lot of gaps, and it would be nice to fill those (how does the barbarian or monk AC abilities work in wildshape for example). It could also use some fleshing out of player options. I agree cleric domains would be welcome. As would some other sorcerer options. I would like to see a spell-less ranger and I'd like to see a fighter option that leans toward cleric (though the paladin does that okay, I'd claim there is room in there just as the Eldritch Knight is between a bard and a fighter). But mostly it needs adventures and more (interesting) monsters. All that said, I think it's the cleanest edition we've had at the start. 3e really needed 3.5 and 4e really (really) needed 4.25. 5e doesn't need much really. But it still could see some improvement. [/QUOTE]

Verification