Tank McDoomulus's page

So our group stopped mid campaign to take up this play test.
After first I didn't have much interest, but decided to give it a try thinking maybe input from players would have overall impact on the finished product. What I am finding is a convoluted system and a play test besieged with rule changes.
Look, I get that people will have complaints about the play test, but to be told that they made rules changes to the play test??? Were is the consistency across the board?
Some big things I have noticed thus far that is just turning me off completely.

1.) How is a Gnoll using a non magical short bow doing 2d6 of damage, while my ranger using a non magical short bow only doing d6? Is that a typo or is the deck stacked in the monsters favor? And speaking of ranger, why is his first ranger bow feat for a crossbow? Why am I being forced to wait for a ranger feat like Favored Aim and instead getting a feat for reloading a crossbow??? Nonsense.

2.) Why on earth do I need to spend resonance points and a charge from a wand to use said wand? And why are wands so limited with just 10 charges?? Makes purchasing or selecting them for a character almost meaningless.

3.) When did cantrips become so powerful and why is magic missile so powerful?? You use vebral, somatic and material and you get 3 missiles at 4th level??? Nonsense.

I could go on and on but a lot of people have already covered the complaints I have.

The upside so far is I do like the ability build with ancestry, class, and background. Kind of gives you a balance of abilities without breaking the bank.
I do like how proficiencies are done, but there doesn't seem to be a way to increase your armor proficiency or weapon proficiency. Unless I really missed something.

But in the overall scheme it seems like from what I have experienced so far is there is a very favorable approach to the monsters in the at test.
I get this is a play test and I am not investing in the characters long term, but I would like to enjoy the game regardless.