Converting a solid amount of material from older editions to suit the 5e design process, Alex has created a supplement that will undoubtedly find use at many tables. While we've only had a chance to use a fraction of the content from the book, so far nothing has caused our games to become broken. Two thumbs up!

Not sure where robert o. is getting his 5000+hrs of 5e play, considering that means he's spent 5hrs of every day for the last three years playing 5e, but...

I really love this guide. The class conversions in here are a lot of fun and offer a lot of really interesting playstyles for people who are both veterans and newbies to D&D. Everything in here is easy to read, easy to follow, and offers good insight on the strengths, weaknesses, and playstyles surrounding each converted class.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to trying out the Entropomancer and the Trapsmith. Can't wait to give em a whirl!

Before going on I'll say I know these are archetypes translated from 3rd edition, but this is going to be coming from a 5e standpoint with over 5000hrs played/DM'd in 5e so far. I'll start from the beginning...

(For anybody not interested in much reading - there are some interesting options here but it's mostly stuff that will never be touched and things that are pretty weak on the whole.)

• King/Queen of the Wild: On the weak side, especially when compared to current iterations of barbarians and rangers which this seems to be pulling from. Not particularly special seeming or more interesting than other barbarian types.
• Stonelord: On the weaker side as well. The resistances are nice and I understand the idea behind the being hard to get away from but other things do this better and with more flare. Also the level 14 ability is sort of terrible.

• Dirgesinger: Interesting, useful, and fills a gap that bards are currently missing in 5e. Song of awakening sucks, but Horror and Grief are great abilities.
• Virtuoso: Another interesting archetype, however half of it is reliant on being in a heavy RP setting. Other than that it seems thoughtful and well written.

• Inquisitor: The idea is good, but learn the truth should be gained way earlier, and cathartic torture is underwhelming and not nearly as thematic as the rest of the archetype.
• Master of Shrouds: Very interesting, fairly powerful, and certainly the sort of thing we could use seeing more of in 5e.
• Void Disciple: Terrible. It's clunky, worse than a knowledge cleric and divination wizard, and offers some strange buffs and debuffs that are pretty much unnecessary across the board. I don't think I'd ever see somebody play this.

• Blighter: Interesting, and works with a setting I've been working on. However, it's not very druidy but doesn't really lean into that ENOUGH. It seems like somebody who wants to play a druid gone kind of bad, but without having to give up anything and not becoming too bad.
• Oozemaster: This has nothing to do with druids whatsoever, and makes no sense. It's fairly powerful, but this makes more sense in something like "The Morph" from the book "A Touch of Class"
• Verdant Lord: Excellent, interesting, ultra thematic. This archetype speaks for itself.

• Dervish: Horrible archetype. It's good for 1 turn every short rest until level 17 where it can use it's main feature a whopping two times. Also, the lvl15 feature is garbage.
• Dread Commando: "your use of any type of heavy armor no longer imposes disadvantage on your Dexterity (Stealth) checks." is said at both the level 10 and 15 features which seems like it makes the level 15 pretty horrible considering half of the feature is redundant... otherwise this is a cool archetype and pretty powerful generally speaking. (great in 3.5 too)

• Pale Master: Great flavor, pretty powerful looking as well... maybe too powerful?... I'm going to use this for an NPC lol

• Corrupt Avenger: Sworn Foe should maybe be buffed to fall in line with the newer idea behind the UA Ranger rework so that humanoids become one categorization rather than having to pick specific races (there's a lot of those, hardly seems reasonable to ask for 2), but that's being nit-picky. Otherwise it seems pretty good, and fairly interesting. I don't love it but it's solid.
• Mythic Exemplar: Super interesting. Excellent archetype.

• Foe Hunter: Hated Enemy's attack bonus is BROKEN. A possible +5 on all attacks against all favored enemies (and you get 6 total RAW from this) is ludicrous. With archery you have a possible +7 without even adding dex into the mix at level 3... now add sharpshooter plus the rancor bonuses etc etc... this is a stupid archetype and needs a huge nerf out of the gate.
• Vigilante: Another garbage ranger archetype. Tools of the trade are far too late, and the rest of it is uninteresting. The monster slayer ranger has it's toes stepped on by the no escape feature and the rest of it is a fairly uninteresting take on an urban ranger.

• Trapsmith: Trap Trickster is written twice... besides that it's an interesting archetype, which is likely not incredible, but it's uniqueness makes it cool. The big problem here is that a vast majority of enemies are not going to walk on your traps mid combat unless the DM purposely makes everything beyond retarded... meh.
• Fang of Sseth: Pretty damn cool poisoner specialist. I'm a fan and I think a lot of other people would be as well. One of the better ones in the document.

• Entropomancer: This is fairly interesting and alright, but it's wordy and the main ability in the shard is just... underwhelming. I would pretty much ALWAYS rather use my spell slots on spells than that thing. Not very good.
• Tainted Scholar: This doesn't say when you get the Heretical Lore feature, otherwise it's fairly interesting. I don't think it's very good though... in fact it's definitely pretty bad.

• Dread Necromancer: Garbage. The wizard necromancer does this kinda stuff but WAY better and there's nothing stopping people from playing it as a charisma class and calling it a day.
• Noctumancer: it says "Dread Necromancer Expanded Spells", but besides that it's just not very good. Like the Dread Necromancer, this archetype falls flat as can be and it purely outdone by other spellcasters in 5e (which also happen to be more interesting).

• Archivist: Interesting idea, but garbage. +1s and +2s are not interesting, not interactive and feel lame. The level 14 is fairly decent, however it's level 14... This wizard is perhaps the worst of the bunch when compared to everything WotC has released. Very disappointing.