I'm sure others will post more. I'm trying to codify while running 5e as my current campaign with a group of entirely new players, half of which have never gamed with me before. I'm currently using the PHB with pulling some supplementary fluff from the 2e Calimport book, and the 2e Calimshan fluff-splat.
My primary complaint is the Fighter class.
I feel the Fighter is still neglected and not fully realized in lieu of all the definition of the class. I find all the class is really bringing to the table is extra attacks - ironically which other classes can simulate with their own abilities and narrow the gap in effectiveness while retaining all of their own baked-in abilities.
Let me be clear here - I do not advocate nerfing other classes for the sake of the Fighter. I'm wanting the Fighter, in terms of what the class is supposed to represent, to stand out in that arena. Do they? Sort of. Early on they're quite solid, but I can see the old cracks developing.
Case in point - I happen to have a Fighter who is a two-weapon guy (scimitars) - his claim to fame is he can attack, even at 3rd level, four times in one round with a use of his ability. My other player is running a Priest of War - and can do the same thing (more or less) and do it more often.
Now this is just mechanical finagling, and certainly isn't representative of a massive problem with the game. Rather to me it represents a problem that has been extant since 3e - BASED on how other classes have progressed mechanically vs. the Fighter. And it's rearing its head here - namely, the assumption is the Fighter will be "balanced" based on itemization. For some this isn't an issue. For me it is. I'm of the opinion that Fighters are a binary necessity in a class-based system. Either it stands to be the melee badass or it doesn't need to exist. There is no half-way. While people split hairs over the differences between a Ranger and a Barbarian - it will always come down to a couple of "iconic" abilities - like Rage, or Chosen Enemy (respectively) but meanwhile both classes will have a LOT of overlap, or for many GM's be essentially the same.
The Fighter is poorly described and becomes poorer as everyone demands their respective melee-schtick be given full-class treatment. Swashbuckler? Knights? Mounted Archer? etc. Not that this has happened - but as written in the PHB Fighters are still saddled with lackluster mechanical options. GRANTED - they're better than 3e or 4e, but I was wanting more meat on the bones of it. Is it a deal-breaker? No. But I'm banking on the DMG letting me pull this out of the fire before I do a re-write. If I do a re-write, I'll add more fighting styles (or beef up what's there via Feats) and fold in the sub-classes into the main class, and create more specialist sub-classes on my own.
Itemization As Balance - They flattened out the power-curve. But this legacy of balancing out classes (see Fighter) by itemization is generally silly. Is it a deal-breaker? No.
Inspiration System - Let's just flesh it out to be Aspects and call it a day? I'm already one-step away from just removing this mechanic and/or replacing it with slightly modified Aspects rules.
Nothing here is a dealbreaker to me. Just observations that I know I'll either be fixing with the DMG or houseruling. I find the spellcasting thus far to be very nice.
My primary complaint is the Fighter class.
I feel the Fighter is still neglected and not fully realized in lieu of all the definition of the class. I find all the class is really bringing to the table is extra attacks - ironically which other classes can simulate with their own abilities and narrow the gap in effectiveness while retaining all of their own baked-in abilities.
Let me be clear here - I do not advocate nerfing other classes for the sake of the Fighter. I'm wanting the Fighter, in terms of what the class is supposed to represent, to stand out in that arena. Do they? Sort of. Early on they're quite solid, but I can see the old cracks developing.
Case in point - I happen to have a Fighter who is a two-weapon guy (scimitars) - his claim to fame is he can attack, even at 3rd level, four times in one round with a use of his ability. My other player is running a Priest of War - and can do the same thing (more or less) and do it more often.
Now this is just mechanical finagling, and certainly isn't representative of a massive problem with the game. Rather to me it represents a problem that has been extant since 3e - BASED on how other classes have progressed mechanically vs. the Fighter. And it's rearing its head here - namely, the assumption is the Fighter will be "balanced" based on itemization. For some this isn't an issue. For me it is. I'm of the opinion that Fighters are a binary necessity in a class-based system. Either it stands to be the melee badass or it doesn't need to exist. There is no half-way. While people split hairs over the differences between a Ranger and a Barbarian - it will always come down to a couple of "iconic" abilities - like Rage, or Chosen Enemy (respectively) but meanwhile both classes will have a LOT of overlap, or for many GM's be essentially the same.
The Fighter is poorly described and becomes poorer as everyone demands their respective melee-schtick be given full-class treatment. Swashbuckler? Knights? Mounted Archer? etc. Not that this has happened - but as written in the PHB Fighters are still saddled with lackluster mechanical options. GRANTED - they're better than 3e or 4e, but I was wanting more meat on the bones of it. Is it a deal-breaker? No. But I'm banking on the DMG letting me pull this out of the fire before I do a re-write. If I do a re-write, I'll add more fighting styles (or beef up what's there via Feats) and fold in the sub-classes into the main class, and create more specialist sub-classes on my own.
Itemization As Balance - They flattened out the power-curve. But this legacy of balancing out classes (see Fighter) by itemization is generally silly. Is it a deal-breaker? No.
Inspiration System - Let's just flesh it out to be Aspects and call it a day? I'm already one-step away from just removing this mechanic and/or replacing it with slightly modified Aspects rules.
Nothing here is a dealbreaker to me. Just observations that I know I'll either be fixing with the DMG or houseruling. I find the spellcasting thus far to be very nice.
Criticisms of 5e
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire