Well, the best part of that is its once again splitting information. The foraging semi-not-rules in the travel section are 'make a survival check when the DM says to. See the DMG for real rules'
So, I'm thinking fighters are once again a two-level dip class. Or maybe not at all, since multi classing severely interferes with getting to the ability boosts.
They had a lot more abilities in the playtest, and beyond action surge and extra attacks, everything worthwhile comes at level 1... and a large part of that is just having access to real equipment.
The latter of which is the real problem with the rogue. Light armor sucks ass. Its passable at level 8 when you have a full 20 Dex, but you're ridiculously behind the AC curve for most of the game. (AC 15 vs AC 19, starting out, and anyone with heavy armor can push 21 with money, while the rogue requires ability increases, which is to say, levels.)
On the other hand, the rogue can kite like a mother fucker, and sneak attack (now that the progression is fixed from the playtest) actually does real scaling damage, and can be done every round. And a reaction to halve damage every round is a lot better than once per combat heal 1d10+level. And then there are all the other abilities they get, including cutting off the lower half the range for skill checks and getting a real bonus to skill checks. And eventually blindsight. And immunity to advantage.
Clerics get a pile of stuff in addition to spells. Including damage bonuses at higher levels (in lieu of extra attacks). Plus spells that give them extra attacks or AC bonuses or whatever. Essentially they can imitate one aspect of fighter for the length of a fight through spells. Or use hold person and just take out opponents. Or cast combat-long damaging spells.
Unlike clerics, wizards are just spells, and spell design suggest they really want blaster wizards again. But, due to the magic of bad design, you can cherry pick broken spells instead, and just run riot with 2 or 3 level appropriate abilities per day.
Mostly though, everything is just boring. Blindsight as an inherent ability is the most exciting thing that ever happens, and there isn't even any reason for it. Rogues jog around at hyper speed with a light crossbow a snipe people for extra damage because they happen to be standing next to
whoever you suckered into playing the fighter the cleric. Wizards wait for something worthy of blowing their load on, or throw useless and not-level appropriate spells around just for something to do.
The main positive to the rules is that while the language is generally inelegant, it is mostly
clear. Shit like suggestion aside. Most of the rules are X does Y. To do X, roll d20 and add stat+prof. The end. Next, to do Z, roll... and so on. It adds to the boredom factor, but does cut down on rules interpretation arguments, simply because it doesn't leave much to actually discuss. On the other hand, the layout is shit, nonsensical and they do the reference dance far too many times.
Though... there are some bits that are actively stupid.
Heavily obscured, p 65 wrote:A heavily obscured area, such as darkness, opaque fog or dense foliage, blocks vision entirely. A creature
in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition.
Blinded wrote:A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that require sight. Attack rolls against the creature have advantage and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.
Hiding in the bushes to ambush someone is the worst decision you can ever make. You can't see your targets coming, and they get bonuses to attack
you.
In lighter foliage, you just have disadvantage to see people (perception checks), and cover... is in another section.
