Community

To avoid a lengthy, adjective-heavy review that gets so obtuse you can’t process it, here’s my cheers and jeers for the playtest packet in twitter length bullet points.

Pre-review full disclosure

THE CHEERS

• 
  

  Been playing since 1E at 11 years old

• 
  

  Actively/formerly dabble in lots of systems (right now: Savage Worlds, Dungeon World, 5E)

• 
  

  I’m excited to have 5E NOT be 4E, 3E, 2E, or 1E. Flipping out over “OMG no auto familiar for wizards, bullcrap!” will be limited

• 
  

  As a usual DM who hates seeing OP players steal the fun from the group, I have a vested interest in balance.

• 
  

  Been playtesting the packets as they come out

THE JEERS

• 
  

  Haven’t playtested THIS packet yet :P

• 
  

  Bias disclosure: I usually play wizards.

• 
  

  Bias disclosure: But I ACTUALLY usually play the DM. Thus, I what I see as 5E’s main goals: simplicity, math you can’t break as easily, and flavor.

How to Play

THE CHEERS

• 
  

  Skills as a subset of Abilities makes the 5E flow more sensible.

• 
  

  I the shortened “stuff you can do” list, and I that “skill tricks” are now in that.

• 
  

  Removing the attack = Concentration casting rules is good. Its DC was totally unbounded, and making it attack specific is even better. Perhaps on require it on crits?

• 
  

  “Waah, I wanna bull rush with two battleaxes!” Don’t listen to them, short list is good.

• 
  

  Address PC creativity with a module: “Do anything requiring a feat, just take disadvantage.” Thus, Barbarian rages, gets advantage, spends it on disadvantaged TWF, Advantage and Disadvantage cancel out.

THE JEERS

• 
  

  Recall Lore: Just call it Lore.

• 
  

  With BA, less chance of a 28 Int wizard with brainmelting skills, but unlike Dex/Con no mundane reason for int. Add “Int = skill #” module?

• 
  

  17 Str. existing only as a number to arrive at +3 is still unnecessary to me. Why not just bonus as ability #?

• 
  

  Or. Do what you do with Con for dying and use it to abstract extra math.

• 
  

  Prototype skills from int module. “You start with 2 skills, and 1 extra for every 5 int. 20 int character = 6, 9 int character = 3.”

• 
  

  Have X feet of movement get traded for stuff more, it’s a fun mana pool. Drawing a weapon? 5 feet of movement. Quaf a potion? 5 feet of movement. (Nah, on second thought, that’s complicating things more.) Module?

• 
  

  I am really hoping the DMG, as talked about on podcast, starts resembling Unearthed Arcana more.

Classes

THE CHEERS

• 
  

  Overall: Purely martial classes of Barbarian and Fighter feel unique, but also feel balanced against each other now.

• 
  

  Overall: Martial + Tricks classes of Rogue, Ranger, Monk, and Paladin stand well against them, feel unique, but wouldn’t ruin a Fighter’s fun

• 
  

  Overall: Cleric and Druid don’t step on each others’ toes too much, both flavory.

• 
  

  Overall: An archetype for most mixtures of combat + magic are sound. On one end: pure combat (Fighter. In the middle: Trick combatants who add spells, skills, or utility. Also middle: Casters who can throw a punch (druid and cleric). Still not there yet: The purely caster end of the spectrum.

• 
  

  Barbarian: More in line with fighter, kew.

• 
  

  Barbarian Primal Might (use Str score instead of Str check.) More this! If we have to have Str 18/+4 instead of just saying +4, find ways so the 18 is numerically interesting.

• 
  

  Cleric. Rock solid. Be as healy or non-healy as you want. Deadly Strike on a caster makes racial weapons useful.

• 
  

  Cleric: Channel Divinity is flavorful and varied. “When in doubt, give them Turn Undead” is a good flowchart.

• 
  

  Cleric cantrips: Good assignments.

• 
  

  Domain spells: Good going just to L5 (and hey, spells can be up-leveled) for simplicity, and keeping the spell chapter light on L9 spells you’ll never choose/get to use.

• 
  

  Druid: combat stuff seems on par with a cleric. If both fought in melee with class features but w/o casting spells, they seem even (Deadly strike/Channel Divinity warpriest vs. wild-shape focused

• 
  

  Druid: Wild shape narrative openness is kew and flavorful. Dog? Why not a hyena? Steed? Why not ze majestik moose? GREAT CAT = VELOCIRAPTOR?

• 
  

  Fighter: Overall Solid.

• 
  

  Fighter, death dealer: I the Frazetta reference. This small gesture, to me, is a sign 5E’s heart beats true, flavor-wise.

• 
  

  Fighter’s Deadly Strike + Expertise: Well balanced. The worst abilities would get used on weapons that maximize Deadly Strike’s impact. Shield = dual-wielding = ranged = BF Sword.

• 
  

  Fighter Deadly Strike + Expertise: Compares kew to Barbarian’s Deadly Strike + Rage’s flat damage.  

• 
  

  Multiattack means fighters can be a liiiittle AOE in AOE-focused farm-fights, compared to AOE casters. Does Barbarian need something like that?

• 
  

  Monk is my favorite class right now. Less regular damage than all the other melee classes, but the funnest to play.

• 
  

  Paladin Mount not being a silly bag o’ crazy tricks = good.

• 
  

  Interclass similarities like attack bonus, spells, X/day abilities, and Deadly Strike = good for scaling into prestige or multiclass.

• 
  

  Rogue is tight. Overall, VERY happy with it. SA=Disadvantage and every Scheme has an Advantage tactic is such an insta-fix.

• 
  

  Rogue: I yanking skill stuff into feats. Like the combat stuff in “How to Play”, I think it’s another step toward simplicity til complexity is needed.

• 
  

  Rogue multiattack=similar AOE flexibility when giant damage dump doesn’t help vs. 80 weenies. I like!

• 
  

  Wizard...well, I’m sure your concept art is nice.

• 
  

  Wizard: This build isn’t totally wasteful. It’s a great draft of the NPC Adept class.

• 
  

  Wizard: In fairness: It’s not sneak-attack-from-three-packets-ago bad.

THE JEERS

• 
  

  Overall: Wizards seem weak. It’s basically an Oak Druid (new AOE attack spell + utility + refresh) but with worse HP, no combat stuff, and no class fun stuff.

• 
  

  Barbarian: A liiittle bit of feature bloat. Combine the “Feral” class features into one feature track that grows.

• 
  

  Barbarian: Contradicting my earlier bullet point, Barbarians have almost NO in-class optioning. Tree differentiating Skirmish/Soak/Thane/Damage barbarians?

• 
  

  Cleric: Trickster’s boon gives a 1st level cleric a 2nd level wizard spell. Do the other Channel Divinity options work out to that power level? Not against it, just make wizards not suck so hard in comparison.

• 
  

  Druid: Feature bloat. On top of managing a spell list, this is too much toolkit. (But haven’t Druids always been that way?)

• 
  

  Several druid spells are missing from the Spells chapter.

• 
  

  Druid is a lil OP. A Cleric’s healing spells, a Wizard’s AoE spells, single-target spells like both, plus Cleric-ish combat potency? Ouch.  

• 
  

  Druid circle of the Oak: I’m not saying making a wizardy Druid is bad. Look at arcane cleric.

• 
  

  Druid lore: Does every class have a backstory where they sat in the libary studying My Class 101? If so, what’s the bard-or-wizard-in-a-library good for?

• 
  

  Monk: Some Ki abilities aren’t balanced or don’t scale well, but I might need to playtest it more.

• 
  

  Paladin Channel Divinity: should it level up at 11 like some cleric ones? Deadly Strike + X/day Smite =5DX + 3d10, DS + Rechargable Expertise = 5DX + 6d6. Ooch.

• 
  

  Paladin Smite: also make it alignment specific.

• 
  

  Paladin mount: Since it’s not shooting lightning, how about a mounted combat specialty?

• 
  

  Paladin & Ranger after L12 seem awfully dead-leveled. Can’t believe I’m saying it, but MOAR FEATURE BLOAT HERE!

• 
  

  If Palaranger spells are their only not-dead level thing, why not make them spells worth bragging about? Waiting for Commune at 17th level =every ranger will prestige class XD

• 
  

  Palarangerbarian: Mehbeh give them something to target multiple enemies like Rogue/Fighter/Monk.

• 
  

  Palaranger: Despite multiple dice piles, at 11th level Rogue and Fighter get another (Ace in the Hole & Combat Surge). Can’t Palarangers handle something similarly unique? #deadlevels

• 
  

  Wizard: 1st level Trickster cleric is better illusionist than a 3rd level illusionist wizard. In a nutshell, Wizard isn’t the best at ANYTHING now, let alone wizardlyness

• 
  

  Wizard, Paladin, and Ranger all look and feel like 3E. In a bad way.

• 
  

  Wizard: Druids get Wizard AOE, utility, single-targeting, and recharge, not to mention HP and melee. In short, Wizards are fallen druids whose broken oaths mean they’re super-weak?

• 
  

  Wizard: this is 5E. Why does it look like a 3E progression?

• 
  

  Wizard, and more proof we’re looking at the NPC Adept class. Hold Person is a 2nd level Cleric spell. Hold Person is a 3rd level Wizard spell. Zoinks!

• 
  

  HOW TO DEFINE A WIZARD: “I am the best spellcaster in the party except for healing.”

• 
  

  Illusionist: +2 to DCs = unbounded accuracies. Just give them disadvantage on saving throws, like 1st level clerics get with Magical Might

• 
  

  Wizards just seem to be missing an entire section to bring them up to snuff. I get that devs don’t want them juggling a 1/day mechanic next to X/day spells, but too bad.

• 
  

  “Mode” spells should be separated from the spellbook, and turn into what makes Wizards special. “Mode” spells = concentration to use in spellbook.

• 
  

  Imagine a wizard, via class ability, goes into “Telekinesis” mode. It works like Rage, requiring concentration and having mechanics to end it. Can then use Actions to cast OR use TK punch, use move action to float stuff, perhaps a reaction. Manageable in that only 1 mode at a time happens.

• 
  

  In short, does it require concentration? Yank it, make it wizard class feature Channeling. Wizards already did this via spells, this just makes it formal.

• 
  

  It’s 5E, not 3E! Nothin’ wrong with wizards having support options. If we’re making clerics and druids better at wizarding than wizards, why not just say Wizards can science your wounds away? Get out of your mental prison, devs. Experiment. Destroy some playtester childhood memories.

• 
  

  And, hypothetically, let’s say 3E wizard was perfect. (It wasn’t.) But if it was, and you’re not going to innovate, why have 5E?

• 
  

  Wizards already manage a spellbook. People playing wizards are used to being the most complex, have-to-read-a-ton-of-source-material play styles.

• 
  

  Wizard: Don’t forget, this is the template future casting-only classes build on. If that means Spells level 1-9 plus class features that slow at 2nd level and stop at 5th level, you have almost no wiggle room to play with wu-jen, witch, sorcerer, necromancer, etc. They all just have to be a L1 ability pack and 9 levels of spells.

• 
  

  More “what is a wizard?” philosophy. Picture Goku, charging his blast for half an episode. Why no full-round bennies or casting? Or a Charge function? Snipers get it.

• 
  

  Conceptually, keep it as "confounded magic vs. pantheon of limited & fallable mortal gods", rather than "perfect science vs. perfect monotheistic god." The latter is 1. less fantastical, 2. more whargarbl, and 3. going to cause system imbalance due to your personal ideals. Wow, ending on a troll hook AND totally broke my twitter length rule ranting about wizards!

Aight, bed time. I’ll get more feedback on Specialties/Feats, Backgrounds/Skills, Races, and Spells later.