|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 6:43PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
Fighter
He looks okay numerically, my main issue is that he's boring. No special abilities. No stances. No powers. Just basic attack. That's all you do.
Cleric
The cleric seems ridiculously good. The buff battle cleric of 3E that outfights fighters is back, only now it's possible to make him at level 1. Shield of faith gives all attackers disadvantage for the combat. Searing light tosses out 4d6 + wis damage at 1st level (even more against undead), and spiritual hammer is giving you a free extra attack for the rest of combat. This guy just seems to have "nova" written all over him, because that's what he seems to be good at. Blow all your spells in one combat and become a god, then just take a full rest and get all your spells back to repeat it the next day.
The cleric needs to have way less of an emphasis on buff spells. Already they're too good, and I haven't gotten past 1st level spells yet. I am really not looking forward to this edition if it brings back the buff-based cleric who outfights a fighter.
Rogue
This class I'm still uncertain of balance wise. At level 1 he looks like he'd be rather weak, because the new sneak attack is much closer to backstab at least earlier on. However once you get spells later on to grant him advantage, like invisibility or simiar, this class could be insanely powerful as his sneak attack seems to scale at +1d6 per level (twice the rate of 3E).
I will say I love the concept of the Night Vision he gets at 2nd level. This is something D&D rogues have needed for a very long time. Monsters have darkvision, if the rogue can't see without a torch, he is useless. Very nice addition.
Wizard
The wizard is awful. His spells are just ridiculously bad. The wizard's damage output is worse than the cleric's and he can't even put an orc to sleep. To make matters worse he has that awful spell disruption mechanic that pretty much means you've got a good shot of botching the spell on the next turn (and that the cleric oddly doesn't even have for some reason). I could understand the disruption mechanic if we were talking about something similar to the 2E or 3E wizard, but we're not. This class isn't even remotely good and definitely feels like it needs some help.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 7:13PM
#2
|
|
|
I have to say I agree, except the figher.
the "fighter" we have a sample of is not really a member of a class. class implys some ability or mechanic that makes him unique or different from everyone else. this figher just does a basic attack....then another....then another, why have a figher class if that is it? I can just be a lv1 dwarf and do that.
I also dont understand the scaleing for the rogue, 1d6 per level seams insane with the damage scaling they are going for. would a level 10 rogue roll 10d6 with advantage? (and I hope they dont count on advantage being hard to get, because a way WILL be found to get it relibly)
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes.
Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 7:32PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2004
|
I agree with most your critques.
Fighter, statistically, seems strong. But, yeah, he looks also boring. I though were gone the days of "I attack him... I hit for 6 damage. I attack him, I miss. I attack him, hit for 8 damage. I attack...". Mechanically, you're not even motivated to do a nice description of your attacks because it's stated you usually don't gain an advantage for colorfull attack or save descriptions, it's abilities and spells who does.
I also think the Cleric looks a bit OP. I read in a colomn that cleric spells were all about subtle indirect magic : buff, healing, wards, that kind of stuff. Yet I read the spell description and they get the most powerfull damage dealing spells : Searing light, Radiant Lance, Spiritual Hammer, Sunburst. Searing Light is insane : 4d6 + ability mod with a ranged attack (and d12 vs undead) for a 1ST LVL SPELL VS Burning Hands that does 2d4 + ability mod with a Dex save half damage (though can affect multiple targets in a short arc). The next best thing for Wizard is Arc Lightning, also 4d6 + ability mod (miss half damage) and 2d6 to a second target but is 2ND LVL... while the cleric at 2nd gets Sunburst that does 2d8 on first round + blinded, 2d8 on second round, no attack check, save half and no blind and is a 10 ft-radius sphere. That's 4d8 + blind to MULTIPLE TARGETS. Since when clerics are casting "fireballs" (and at 2nd lvl) ?
I'm okay with clerics having a few not too powerfull occasional damage dealing spells, especially against undeads, demons and the likes, but I would like to see most of those spells nerfed if not totally gone.
Rogues : not bad but even if Night Vision is a cool addition... how the heck lore-wise does someone gain night vision as part of a rogue training? I mean, yeah, IRL I have a good night vision but I have big irises, that's nothing anyone can train to acquire. That said, I'm okay with a bit of abstraction for a fantasy game, as long as you provide me with with at least a "not very good" explanation for it. :P
The wizard would seem okay to me if you make abstraction of the cleric's spells.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 7:37PM
#4
|
|
|
as for the darkvision thing, I would say that through intence training and useing some drugs to help they have learned to open and close their iris' by thought alone, what would take most people a half hour of adjustment takes them a few seconds. that combind with knowing what to look for.
BS of course but close enough
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes.
Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 8:12PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Wizard
The wizard is awful. His spells are just ridiculously bad. The wizard's damage output is worse than the cleric's and he can't even put an orc to sleep. To make matters worse he has that awful spell disruption mechanic that pretty much means you've got a good shot of botching the spell on the next turn (and that the cleric oddly doesn't even have for some reason). I could understand the disruption mechanic if we were talking about something similar to the 2E or 3E wizard, but we're not. This class isn't even remotely good and definitely feels like it needs some help.
An orc has 11 hp. So no you can't put him to sleep unless he is injured. Perhaps they should increase the hp requirement to 15. Then again considering it effects every creature in a 20 radius I'm not so sure about that. How many creatures can you affect with a 20' radius anyway? I think the old school version of sleep had a limit to the number of creatures you could affect with it, this one doesn't. the automatic half speed effect is also rather usefull. Cast it on the group of orcs and then just pelt them with ranged attacks from 100 feet away. I'll have to think about this a bit more, but it looks like this version of sleep is a little more versatile and a bit more powerfull than even the 2e version. You can also use this version of sleep any any creature with 10 or less HP.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 10:21PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2007
|
Dwarven Cleric of Moradin:
Assassins must absolutely *Hate* Dwarves.
Can we at least get a Mundane on their poison immunity or a Resistance instead of Immune?
Low-Light Vision technically functions even in the Underdark, without a light source for fifty miles, at the bottom of a stone-covered covered pit without entrance or exit.
Arguing from absurdity, sure, but how about something like "If there is a light source within 100 feet"?
Dwarves technically also don't get lost in the most horrid, confusing and indistinguishable maze, so long as it's "underground".
How about "as long as there are distinguishing features to follow"?
From the sounds of it, Clerics prepare all? their spells and cast them spontaneously. Makes sense.
The Cleric of Pelor seems to have better stats. Rolled? An unknown benefit of "Human"?
The Healing Kit seems to allow dying characters to be automatically stabilized, using "an action". So technically, you can stabilize a dying character, *And* attack an enemy. Bwuh?
Maybe make it a full-turn action. Maybe even throw a roll in there?
One more Orison than the Cleric of Moradin. Human feature?
The Healing feature allows automatic max dice on some healing rolls. Not to get into edition wars, but the effect of a 3e "Maximize Spell" all the time seems...Rather powerful. OTOH, I haven't playtested it, or seen the rest of it.
Dwarven Fighter:
What's the difference between a "Mountain Dwarf" and a "Hill Dwarf"? Ability scores?
Endurance? The character gets three skills instead of four for this? I suppose it allows more loot back, but I'm not really feeling heroic by being the parties' mule.
Sorry, can't think of an easy solution. Maybe extra HP or a bonus on Hit Dice rolls? Maybe something for recovering from dying? (No, not all of those at once).
The Fighter seems simple; some people will like that, some people won't. As long as options come, it's good.
Halfling Rogue:
Halflings get a couple of 1d20 re-rolls a day. They can also hide behind creatures that are larger than them. The first one is good; the second is awesome and totally makes up for the Halfling only getting two abilities. "I hide behind the Half-Orc and stab him until he dies!" "Great, he notices you and, turning, slices you in..." "Nope, sorry, I'm hiding!" "Where?!" "Behind the Half-Orc." *Facepalm* Or at least, that's how I imagine it would go with a munchkin - Or a dedicated playtester. Combine this with Lurker...
How about hiding behind "Allies and unaware creatures"? And two abilities seems kinda poor, although I haven't playtested yet.
Hidden pockets? Awesome. Customizeable mundane gear? I hope so.
Commoner gets three skills (Commerce is probably very useful, so that's probably ok) and a commoner trade. If you can upgrade that to "Epic Blacksmith" or something? Awesome.
"My shins are covered! I'm hidden!" I'm guessing you probably mean you can crouch/go prone/contort such that you're hidden behind something a quarter your size, but if that's what you mean, you should probably say that.
High Elf Wizard:
Immune to charmed condition and sleep spells. I, personally both like and dislike immunities. They are flavourful, but they shut down mechanics, which can gimp/nerf characters.
So, I'd say Resistances; or, simple, why not just always have Advantage versus Charmed and Sleep?
Same problem as Dwarf on Low-Light Vision.
Could also split Low-Light Vision from Darkvision.
Just knowing where you can find knowledge? What, do you have "Scry: The Title of Every Book, Everywhere"? On second thought, I want that. Except my brain would explode. Anyway.
How about having Advantage on research?
Familiars - Oh vey. Your familiar now really is irrelevant unless summoned and has no real free will.
This is the stupidest fanon interpretation of familiar rules, made canon. Away with it.
Casters memorize spells at 1 minute per spell level per spell? Exponential spell memorization time is bad.
Yes, a lot of those are easily house-ruled or interpretable. However, I, as GM, shouldn't have to break the rules to use the rules.
GM's Advice:
A strength check to stop drowning?
If you're moving to the surface, include movement in the rules.
The rest later.
Thought for the day: Solid rules support solid gameplay and roleplay.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 10:29PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Um can someone explain the rogue's tools of the trade ability?
I mean they get the ability to perform tasks with tools that are normally impossible without tools?
Am I reading that right?
Seems like a non ability.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 10:46PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2010
|
On the fighter- the version here is very, very simple. You pretty much hit it with your weapon, and then hit it with your weapon, and once you are level 2 you can hit it with your weapon twice a couple of times per day.
HOWEVER, keep in mind we have only seen three levels of fighter, and he seems to add a new ability at each level. Fighter's surge and cleave both seem pretty cool. If things keep going at that rate, and if there is an extensive list to choose from, by the time you are 6th or 8th level I bet you have a significant number of specials you call pull out, other than just "swing sword."
Also, keep in mind that there are people out there who play 1st edition retro clones, and they are trying to bring those folks back to the table. Some people want dirt simple get-it-on-one-index-card characters. I am not one of them, but they are out there. This edition is supposed to be modular/tool box oriented, and we still haven't seen the majority of the tools. I feel confident that there will be plenty of love for the figher coming as more material comes one.
On a side note, I want to play the cleric of pelor. Now. Someone come over to my house with Caves of Chaos and lest get to it.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:07PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2007
|
keep in mind we have only seen three levels of fighter, and he seems to add a new ability at each level. Fighter's surge and cleave both seem pretty cool.
Cleave is not a fighter ability. Is a Feat/Theme benefit.
[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. Good Quotes
Show
Metaplot is to DMs what railroading is to players.
There are really three types of feats, in my opinion. My ratings are based on how much they add flavorwise to your character:
Feats that you pick because they fit your character: For instance, Jack of All Trades, Disciple of Lore, Skill Focus, Potent Restorables. In my game, my Artificer studied healing and magic extensively. He had a strong belief that while it wasn't possible to be the best at everything, it was important to understand a bit of everything. These feats didn't add any more opportunity to roleplay; they reinforced the ideas already presented with mechanics to back them up.
Feats that you pick because they represent what your character is becoming:For instance, Multiclass feats, White Lotus Evasion. My rogue is taking a Warden multiclass; representing him overcoming his fears of primal spirits. My artificer is taking White Lotus Evasion, because it represents him returning to his elven roots. These feats accompany adding ideas to your character, and add mechanics that allow these ideas to function where if they were missing, it would not.
Feats You Pick Because You Need Them Or Solely Because of a Mechanical Bonus: For instance, Weapon Proficency, Arcane Implement Proficency, Expertise. If you need to take a feat in order either 1. Complete a reasonable archetype (Enchanter who fights with Sword and Spell) or 2. Meet the expectations that the group puts on you (ie; In order to play in this Super Optimized group, I need to have X otherwise I'm pulling the group down), then it fits this. On the same end, sometimes you're going to pick a feat because it makes combat more fun; not because it adds to your character in any way. Expanded critical hit range? Makes the game more fun; but other than "My character got better", there's not much to it.
I would say that general feats often fall more often into the "Solely Because of a Mechanical Bonus" column. There's exceptions of course (Skill Power), but that's generally how I perceive things.
My DDI subscription is renewed. I really missed the compendium on my table.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:48PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2002
|
keep in mind we have only seen three levels of fighter, and he seems to add a new ability at each level. Fighter's surge and cleave both seem pretty cool.
Cleave is not a fighter ability. Is a Feat/Theme benefit.
Yep. Wizards can take the Slayer Theme feats.
|
|
|
