The feedback survey for Expert Classes doesn't go up until October 20th (during which I'll be flying to the East Coast for a friend's wedding) but I figured I'd gather some thoughts here about the various elements in the Expert Classes Unearthed Arcana playtest document - a sort of broad response as opposed to my deep-dives.
First, as a kind of general attitude I want to make clear: I'm generally in favor of change and evolution in these sorts of game systems. Given the passion that a game like D&D invokes, it can feel scary to see something that you love looking different (and while it is true that you can always just play earlier editions, I understand the anxiety people can feel that the game's community and culture will move on and that players will be forced to keep up). But I also think that the nature of this sort of long-running property is that issues do crop up, and revisions can make for a better experience. So much of what I'm seeing in these UAs is an attempt to make the game play the way it feels like it ought to play. It also seems like they're trying to make broader, more general rules to make it easier to add things to the game (also to possibly make digital gameplay easier to parse).
This post is going to focus primarily on what I am not so on board with in the UA. While I don't know if I will catch every little nitpick I have, I also want to make it clear that for the most part, I've been very happy with what I'm seeing. (I'll confess that I hate Guidance and sort of want it to stay the useless garbage they've made it into so that that cantrip never slows my games down again, but realistically it has probably been nerfed too hard. I'd prefer they just make it not a Cantrip - make it a 1st level spell that lasts for one hour on a single target). So, this may focus on the negative, but my overall impression is very positive.
I think the most shocking element here is the elimination (sort of) of class spell lists in favor of the three spell categories. I actually really like the way that the magic is divided this way for world-building. But I was initially convinced that this would be just be an additional tag on spells (or multiple tags, for those spells in multiple lists) in addition to class lists. Instead, it appears that classes will just get one of the three spell categories and then potentially have those further limited by school of magic.
The benefits here are clear: adding new spells to the game no longer requires making new spell lists in every rules-expansion book. Likewise, adding a new class like the Artificer, you simply give them a spell list and potentially which schools of magic they can use, and you're off to the races, never having to worry about whether to include them when new spells are added.
But the downside here is that some classes - particularly those that previously defied definition in this way - lose things, while also losing some specificity. In the first case, consider the Artificer. While very clearly an Arcane class, they also have plenty of healing spells that are not found in the Arcane list. The Bard needs a special Songs of Restoration feature to get its healing spells. Meanwhile, because the Bard's spells are simply Arcane now, there's nothing preventing a Wizard (who I will assume can take any Arcane spell) from picking up Vicious Mockery, a previously Bards-only staple. So far, the case that makes me feel worse here is the Bard, but I wonder how it's going to look when we see school limitations on Sorcerers and Warlocks (which I assume will have their selection similarly limited while Clerics, Druids, and Wizards each get their full spell lists).
Are these dealbreakers? I don't know. The benefits here might outweigh the costs, but it'll certainly feel weird.
From that very broad concern, here I'm going to delve deep into an absolute nitpick, which is the Hunter's Multiattack feature. I'd never really looked at Conjure Barrage before, but man does that feel like an insult of a spell. A 3rd level slot for 3d8 damage in a cone? Yes, it's an enormous cone (a 60-ft cone, when you actually look at it on a map, is huge). Unless you can hit an ungodly number of targets, I just do not see this being worth the spell slot. Now, I know that Lightning Bolt and Fireball are intentionally overpowered because they're iconic spells they want the players to use. But it occurs to me that just because Conjure Barrage is a Ranger-oriented spell doesn't mean it has to be underpowered compared to other 3rd level spells - the power penalty you get as a half-caster is that you don't get this level of spell until level 9, so making it less powerful on top of that because it's not intended for a caster-first class feels like a cruel double dip (I realize that I'm talking about a spell that already exists, and for all I know One D&D might buff it,) and so, while I think the notion of "downcasting" a spell is kind of interesting and novel, the new Ranger could spend that spell slot on Call Lightning, which is probably going to do a lot more for them.
I think I'd really consider having this feature do something closer to what it sounds like - like allowing you to, a limited number of times per day, make a single attack roll that deals normal weapon damage to everything in a cone (maybe a smaller one).
Also from the Ranger, while I really like the new Favored Enemy, the level 18 Foe Slayer feature is, still, a bit underwhelming. By switching Hunter's Mark to a d10, you only really increase the damage output of the class by about 4 per turn (assuming two non-critical hits) or 6 with the new way Light Weapons work if you're dual-wielding them.
While technically not a capstone anymore, this does feel a bit unexciting. I was not a huge fan of the 2014 Foe Slayer, though I realized that because it could work on either attack or damage rolls, it could help you more consistently hit those tough enemies. Still, I want a little more oomph here.
One thing I failed to notice on my deep dive for the Rogue is that Sneak Attack can only happen on your turn now - which prevents you from getting a devastating opportunity attack, or the amazing synergy with a Battle Master Fighter using Commander's Strike (something the Kenrecks demonstrate very well in Heroes of the Multiverse).
Rogues actually wind up outperforming a lot of more traditional martial classes in terms of damage if they can consistently get their sneak attack off, so I can see why WotC would want to close this loophole that grants them the potential for more than one per round. Unquestionably, this is a nerf. But is it an unfair nerf? This is the thing about this sort of game design - there's a tendency toward power creep in part because players are going to be more attracted to changes that make them more powerful. So, while I lament this change for the Rogue I one day will play (I did technically play one for two levels in the House of Lament - what started as a joke character actually wound up being one of the more compelling - and tragic - character concepts I'd come up with. Short description: he's a dhampir and his name is Xander von Zarovich. You can do the math).
Next, let's talk about the Hide Action. In some ways, the clarifications on how different ability checks should work using various actions like Study, Search, Influence (we'll get back to that one) and even Jump make these rules a little clearer and easier to adjudicate. Hiding, and thus getting to benefit from the Hidden Condition, is weird. The weirdest thing to me is that there's a universal DC, which is 15, at which point you automatically become hidden. So, does this mean that we're getting rid of passive Perception? To be fair, this will make the common Dragon legendary action "make a perception check" more useful, but it also seems weird to me that there's just one DC. It's also, I'd note, a DC that any Rogue who is merely proficient with Stealth (and doesn't have a bizarrely low Dexterity) will automatically succeed on every Hide action once they hit level 11.
Furthermore, because the action itself is against a DC of the universe, rather than specific creatures, and grants a beneficial condition that the player must know that they either have or don't, there's another very weird consequence of the way it's worded. You only have to be behind cover or heavily obscured from anyone you can see to take the Hide action. So, cool, you hide behind a stalactite in the cave lair of the evil archdruid you're facing, and they lose track of where you are. But if that archdruid has an invisible stalker minion that is literally staring at you while you do this, you can still take that action, and once you get a success, rules as written, that invisible stalker also loses track of where you are, even if they are still staring directly at you.
Obviously, a DM can interpret the nuances here (I'd rule that, sure, you get the benefit of being hidden from the Archdruid, but not from the Invisible Stalker, so we just treat your Hidden condition as separate conditions depending on which hostile creature we're referring to. But you can see how this sort of relies on the DM to reintroduce that nuance into the system that kind of just robs the purpose of simplifying this in the first place.
The Study action is actually very welcome, in my opinion, along with the Search action, to finally create a very clear distinction of what Perception versus Investigation do. However, as someone who tends to make high or at least decent-intelligence characters, but also just because I want that stat to mean something, I'd like to get a clearer sense of what a Study action can reveal. To me, I think that there should be actionable information that players get.
So often, I find that Intelligence checks (which is basically what the Study action describes) gives a bit of background information and some obscure hints to where one might go for the story, but rarely confers a mechanical benefit. I like that the major knowledge-base proficiencies (Arcana, History, Nature, Religion) each have specific creature types explicitly associated with them (I might quibble a little with Undead falling under Religion rather than Arcana, given that undead are often raised by arcane necromancers, but I also know that it's both traditional and also ties into how holy magic tends to be the most effective weapon against the undead) and I think that a successful check when studying one's knowledge about an oncoming foe should allow the players to explicitly know about things like damage resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities, condition immunities, and things like magic resistance or legendary resistance, so that they can use that knowledge to adjust their strategy. (For example: we try to figure out what we know about Dullahans, and our Paladin gets a 21 on their Intelligence (Religion) check, and thus knows perhaps one of the following facts: that they're resistant to cold, lightning, and poison damage, or that they have 2 uses of legendary resistance, or that they have Truesight, etc. Assuming Starfinder has a similar structure to 3rd edition, Intelligence used to be great for everyone because it increased the number of skill ranks you could take each level (ultimately replaced by the broad and universal proficiency system). But now, if you're not a Wizard, Artificer, or one of the subclasses that uses Intelligence, there's very little downside to dumping the stat entirely.
One of the interesting consequences of 1st level feats not having any ability score bonuses while 4th-level feats all have one is that, while you're allowed to take a 1st level feat at higher feat levels, you're sort of disincentivized to do so, as you won't be able to upgrade any of your ability scores that way. I'm not sure this is entirely a bad thing, but it introduces a little tension (then again, current feats some have ability score bonuses and some don't, so maybe this isn't something to make a big deal about).
Finally, I want to talk about something that is perhaps more speculative. The four class groups make a decent amount of sense, but I also can see how there is a bit of shoe-horning classes to fit those categories. For example, the Priest group is Clerics, Druids, and Paladins. I think Clerics and Druids are perfect fits for such a classification, but what about paladins? I think of the Paladin as primarily a martial class - when putting together a balanced group, Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins can play the role of the meaty tank. But are Paladins going to be missing out on some cool martial feature that all Warriors get? Granted, looking at the Ranger, we can see that the fundamental vibe of the class hasn't changed much, and they also get access to Warrior-only Fighting Styles and Epic Boons, so perhaps there's nothing to worry about much here. On the other hand, if Warriors are meant to be good front-line combatants who, according to the UA, can "deal and endure many wounds," I'm hoping that this then means the Monk will become a hardier front-line fighter, which it always should have been.
Anyway, those are the main issues I could think of while looking at the new UA. I'm very eager to see what other classes look like.
No comments:
Post a Comment