|
Peas and Rice posted:I last tried it in 3.0, and 3.5 / Path didn't seem to improve anything, so I wrote it off. Ya Bards were pretty lackluster in 3-3.5 and path. Still played them though cause I liked being the guy who brings a guitar to a sword fight! They are way better in 5th and are my second favorite class by far. Most favorite class has got to be druids though, mostly cause of holy poo poo BEARS!. Were they this awesome in the other editions? 5e was the only time I really gave them an honest try.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Bards were insanely strong mechanically in 2nd, 3.x, and 4th, and even the older editions as well. Did you guys play different games then I did or something? Edit: They might have been lackluster in Pathfinder, but then again I've never actually tried a Bard in it because it's probably my least played "edition" of DND (4th was out at the same time and I liked it a lot better, so thus played it a lot more). Knowing how that game tends to be ruleswise though, I'm sure there's 10 different ways to make an overpowered as gently caress Bard in it somehow. goldjas fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Ya Bards were pretty lackluster in 3-3.5 and path. Still played them though cause I liked being the guy who brings a guitar to a sword fight! They are way better in 5th and are my second favorite class by far. Most favorite class has got to be druids though, mostly cause of holy poo poo BEARS!. Were they this awesome in the other editions? 5e was the only time I really gave them an honest try.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Bards were insanely strong mechanically in 2nd, 3.x, and 4th, and even the older editions as well. Did you guys play different games then I did or something? I always found my bard pretty outclassed most of the times unless I was in a social setting where I kicked rear end. Also pretty much played as the groups sneakthief so I always had a bit of a multiclassing going on. That may have skewed my views. Still loved playing as them though. Music is power and all that! ImpactVector posted:They owned in 4e too. I had an angry drill sergeant dragonborn Bard that could not only yell people back on their feet like a warlord, but could also yell people to death (via Vicious Mockery). I am loving playing as Dragonborn, running around singing songs, healing people and breathing acid on anyone who's foolish enough to get close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Bards in 4e have a few builds, but my two favorite ones are WARRIOR SKALD who meshes with warlord later on to grab some of those powers and just buffs everyone by ludicrous amounts and then leads the party in a heroic charge, and TRICKSTER ARCANIST who takes that one paragon that lets him grab powers from any drat ol' arcane class he's multiclassed into and is just cackling and charming and messing around with everyone all the time. In 3e bards are the best spellcaster class in Core because they're not completely broken and once you add supplements they become a non-wizard's best friend by giving them hilarious damage boosts and a big spell list full of different kinds of buffs. This is ignoring poo poo like that one prestige class that's just "GUESS WHAT, YOU'RE ALSO A SORCERER NOW." TheDeadlyShoe posted:With advantage and the 18 crit, a champion can be getting crits on 28% of attacks, or a 63% chance of landing at least one crit per round with 3 attacks. Champions also get a bonus to initiative which i hope noone is going to sneer at. The math was done in this very thread that showed champions are exceedingly lackluster mathematically because crits are pretty lovely. Indomitable you get at a stupid high number and is what, once per day? So it's almost entirely ignorable. Also if you're going to claim "I want options" has to equate to "I need full spellcasting" then jesus dude, leave the D&D hole and try playing some other games. Alternately if you're going to claim "full spellcasters are ALWAYS better then non-full spellcasters" then...well, I think you're agreeing with the others in this thread? Except most of us think that's a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I had a guy who cheese Fighter/Rogues who would disagree with you on that. Two comments: One, no matter how much of a Barbarian(Lion Tribe) 1/Fighter 2/Rogue 1/Raging Berserker 7 mess of char-op a martial 3.5 character is, they're still only as good as a properly prepared wizard in one specific niche, while casters can be just as fight-ending while also having some amount of versatility. This is more a problem with 3.5 classes than a problem with 3.5 multiclassing, but it felt like an appropriate time to mention it. Two, the main problem with 3.5-style multiclassing is that it erodes class identity. What makes a Fighter 3/Rogue 2 different from a Fighter 2/Rogue 3? What makes a Fighter/Cleric different from a Paladin? What makes a Fighter(Eldritch Knight) different fictionally from a Fighter 2/Wizard 18? Classes are supposed to be a character-defining thing. 3.5-style multiclassing removes that by letting you mix everything together to the point where things start losing their flavor. Also, note that every d20 spinoff of 3.5 that keeps 3.5-style multiclassing takes measures to make people not want to use 3.5 multiclassing and instead stick to one class. It is not a very good system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Cainer posted:Ya Bards were pretty lackluster in 3-3.5 and path. 3 and maybe 3.P, but not 3.5. The only way bards are lackluster is if "doesn't get 9th level spells" is lackluster. They have tons of ways to contribute, and a ton of builds that are awesome (fohucan lyrist for 9th level spells, inspire courage optimization for like +8 to attack/damage on everyone at level 8, crusader multiclass for being awesome melee monsters).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:3 and maybe 3.P, but not 3.5. The only way bards are lackluster is if "doesn't get 9th level spells" is lackluster. They have tons of ways to contribute, and a ton of builds that are awesome (fohucan lyrist for 9th level spells, inspire courage optimization for like +8 to attack/damage on everyone at level 8, crusader multiclass for being awesome melee monsters).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:Two comments: One, no matter how much of a Barbarian(Lion Tribe) 1/Fighter 2/Rogue 1/Raging Berserker 7 mess of char-op a martial 3.5 character is, they're still only as good as a properly prepared wizard in one specific niche, while casters can be just as fight-ending while also having some amount of versatility. This is more a problem with 3.5 classes than a problem with 3.5 multiclassing, but it felt like an appropriate time to mention it. I absolutely agree with you, except that the powergamer will not hesitate to multiclass in almost every instance, which always stuck in my craw. I ran a 3.5 game from 1 through 20 where I had half a group that powergamed/multiclassed, and half a group that storygamed/didn't give a gently caress, and by the end, poo poo was so unbalanced the final session seemed liked a tacked-on afterthought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:the main problem with 3.5-style multiclassing is that it erodes class identity. I don't particularly mind that kind of multiclassing, but I do think you're better off just having a kind of point-buy, shadowrun-esque system (maybe there's a better way to describe it but my rpg exposure is limited) and grabbing the elements you want. Then have the "classes" be prebuilt/normal builds of those elements (Fighter is Martial 10, Paladin is Martial 5/Divine 5, etc.). I mean that's sorta how it already is, but yeah, it is a little odd that things like a Fighter|Cleric and a Paladin are somehow distinct entities. 4e's hybrids kinda do this too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I mean that's sorta how it already is, but yeah, it is a little odd that things like a Fighter|Cleric and a Paladin are somehow distinct entities. 4e's hybrids kinda do this too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
"5E is the most/best <thing> of all D&D editions and also I didn't play 4th" seems to be a pretty common consideration, tho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:In Pathfinder there are no less than 3 "martial cleric" classes in addition to Fighter/Cleric and pure Cleric, which does the fighting thing better anyways. Granted, the Inquisitor is more of a Ranger/Cleric thing, but they still have the Paladin and Warpriest. I don't know why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
And Pathfinder still doesn't have an official martial shapeshifter, you know a class that is actually better than a Druid at shapeshifting but gets no spells. Despite how many people were asking for one when they were talking about the, at the time, future supplement that was all around building new classes that were a mashup of two others. There have been some 3rd party ones, but they are either worse than the Druid at shapeshifting, while also not having spellcasting, or have some other things tacked on that are completely and utterly broken in all likelihood beyond even 9th level Wizard and Cleric spellcasting would be. That is another thing I was disappointed with in 5e. The Druid path that focuses on Wild Shape wasn't strong enough on wild shaping and still has way too much spellcasting baggage for the kind of thing I wanted to see. And at least at the moment no other class gets anything like Wild Shape. Also I am super disappointed that Wild Shape is strictly weaker than spells that the Druid, and Wizard, get. Even the Warlock can get a once per day that can have better forms, though that spell has the restriction of losing class features when it is cast on you. I really wish there were more subclasses, and I REALLY wish that the subclasses changed more about their classes than they do. Most of the subclasses feel like afterthoughts that have little effect on the class. And the Fighter ones in particular seem disappointing. Which reminds me how I wish the one Fighter talent idea someone had on the RPG.net forums had actually gotten fully fleshed out because I actually liked the ideas they were having. Also wish I, with some help, had finished fleshing out that one idea for a Fighter subclass I had. Where they would basically gain permanent buffs that were kind of like various spell buffs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I absolutely agree with you, except that the powergamer will not hesitate to multiclass in almost every instance, which always stuck in my craw. I ran a 3.5 game from 1 through 20 where I had half a group that powergamed/multiclassed, and half a group that storygamed/didn't give a gently caress, and by the end, poo poo was so unbalanced the final session seemed liked a tacked-on afterthought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:With advantage and the 18 crit, a champion can be getting crits on 28% of attacks, or a 63% chance of landing at least one crit per round with 3 attacks. Champions also get a bonus to initiative which i hope noone is going to sneer at. Oh wow, a 63% chance of doing... what, 1d8 extra damage or something? Look, improving your crit range by 1 in 5e means a 1-in-20 chance of doing your damage dice twice. For a Rogue this would be cool. For a Champion-Fighter this translates as less valuable than a straight up +1 damage bonus would be. Not only is the average damage gain pretty small, but due to the erratic nature of the dice sometimes you get your oh-so-cool crit on a monster that would've died from a normal hit anyway. The Champion Fighter is the class that gets the crit range increase but he rolls the least dice (compared to Rogues, Barbarians, Paladins, War Clerics, and Marking Rangers), meaning he barely benefits from it. It's an example of what I consider to be a widespread problem with 5e's design: feels good, thinks wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:"5E is the most/best <thing> of all D&D editions and also I didn't play 4th" seems to be a pretty common consideration, tho. I'm playing 5e because it has a reasonable compromise between many different editions. I would never deny that 4e provides a richer tactical combat experience, but 5e has very quick combat. I also intend to run a game in the style of an OSR (to the point where I am actually taking a bunch of rules from ACKS). However, unlike ACKS and other OSR games, 5e has pretty unified mechanics (though ACKS has that as well), and a modern lack of dead levels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Oh wow, a 63% chance of doing... what, 1d8 extra damage or something? Look, improving your crit range by 1 in 5e means a 1-in-20 chance of doing your damage dice twice. For a Rogue this would be cool. For a Champion-Fighter this translates as less valuable than a straight up +1 damage bonus would be. Not only is the average damage gain pretty small, but due to the erratic nature of the dice sometimes you get your oh-so-cool crit on a monster that would've died from a normal hit anyway. The Champion Fighter is the class that gets the crit range increase but he rolls the least dice (compared to Rogues, Barbarians, Paladins, War Clerics, and Marking Rangers), meaning he barely benefits from it. I read stuff like this, and I start to think stapling on BECMI style weapon mastery to 5e might just be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Something that bothered me very much when looking over the playtest docs and the final release was the consistent nerfing of Fighters...hell not just nerfing, they took what used to be class features from them in playtest and gave them to other classes on release. I still don't really get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
If 5e combat is quicker, what do you use to fill in that extra time? If the answer is "more combats" then 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:If 5e combat is quicker, what do you use to fill in that extra time? I played a lot of 4E and I really disagree with this sentiment. There's a lot of value to forward momentum that your thought process seems to ignore. Although the correct answer is not 5E, it is Strike!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
ascendance posted:I read stuff like this, and I start to think stapling on BECMI style weapon mastery to 5e might just be a good idea. Hey, go for it. I'm not a fan of 5e but I'm not blind to its strengths. (I know, I know, the laws of the internet dictate I shouldn't say so.) It's pretty easy to houserule 5e and I really doubt the Champion Fighter would suddenly become overpowered by gaining some weapon mastery ability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:"Least clunky" I can maybe see, if you mean "least amount of diverse rules for things" and you're ignoring BECMI. Ryuujin posted:And Pathfinder still doesn't have an official martial shapeshifter, you know a class that is actually better than a Druid at shapeshifting but gets no spells.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:There's a lot of value to forward momentum that your thought process seems to ignore. It was also ignored by the thought process that came up with Hit Dice and one-hour rests, so 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Really like the Monk in 5e. It irritates me a little because it has a lot of poo poo I think the Fighter should, but yeah, it's base features are super solid and Open Hand has a rad save-and-take-10d10-or-die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:If 5e combat is quicker, what do you use to fill in that extra time? You know, all the other stuff people do - interacting with NPCs, solving mysteries, operating shady businesses, etc. etc. or maybe just tapping walls and floors with 10 ft poles in the hopes of not dying suddenly to an overly elaborate and nonsensical mechanism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:It was also ignored by the thought process that came up with Hit Dice and one-hour rests, so
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Unless, I don't know, the DM put a strict time limit to the adventure, which is different because
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Well, 1 hour rest really means DM decides if you can rest, whereas with the 5 minute rest, you could almost always rest. The problem with that is there are classes that really suck without them. Some don't care at all aside from when they need to spend their HD because their features/powers are tied to the long rest anyway, but it sucks if you picked like, a Battlemaster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:Unless, I don't know, the DM put a strict time limit to the adventure, which is different because
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Well, 1 hour rest really means DM decides if you can rest, whereas with the 5 minute rest, you could almost always rest. If a DM doesn't feel able to say "No" just because the rules say "five minutes," that's between them and their therapist. And now that it's an hour there are a hundred times as many situations where the DM has to decide between MY IMMERSION and not screwing over the party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:The problem with that is there are classes that really suck without them. Some don't care at all aside from when they need to spend their HD because their features/powers are tied to the long rest anyway, but it sucks if you picked like, a Battlemaster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
ascendance posted:and the flip side of it is that some classes are arguably a bit too good with a short rest before every fight, like monks after a certain point. Yes, this is a problem. I'd agree with that, monks and warlocks look like they were designed around the short rest mechanic being somewhat rarer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:If a DM doesn't feel able to say "No" just because the rules say "five minutes," that's between them and their therapist. Otherwise, why would people ever play Rifts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I'd agree with that, monks and warlocks look like they were designed around the short rest mechanic being somewhat rarer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
quote:Oh wow, a 63% chance of doing... what, 1d8 extra damage or something? Look, improving your crit range by 1 in 5e means a 1-in-20 chance of doing your damage dice twice. For a Rogue this would be cool. For a Champion-Fighter this translates as less valuable than a straight up +1 damage bonus would be. Not only is the average damage gain pretty small, but due to the erratic nature of the dice sometimes you get your oh-so-cool crit on a monster that would've died from a normal hit anyway. The Champion Fighter is the class that gets the crit range increase but he rolls the least dice (compared to Rogues, Barbarians, Paladins, War Clerics, and Marking Rangers), meaning he barely benefits from it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Interesting thought: poor design forces you to take ownership of your own campaign, and make changes to suit the kind of game you want to play. Having a tightly balanced, well constructed discourages people from tinkering. This is supposed to be a good thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
ascendance posted:well, it becomes another situation where the DM just has to make a house rule because the existing rule is stupid. Interesting thought: poor design forces you to take ownership of your own campaign, and make changes to suit the kind of game you want to play. Having a tightly balanced, well constructed discourages people from tinkering. "Bad design is great because the customer is required to fix the shittily made product!" Having good rules means you are free to tinker with rules for fun and to personalize games, instead of being practically forced to do it because the rules are crap. Stop excusing bad game design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:1d8 if you are sword and boarding, but the champion doesnt really synergize with that. 1d12/2d6 dropping 1s is more their style, and with the DMG we'll probably see on-crit bonus equipment. The battlemaster adding dice to his damage on demand outpaces the champion's crits like whoa. There'd have to be some ridic magic items in there to make it worth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
You guys I've made the world's best RPG. *hands you post it note with "do whatever you want" written on it*
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:25
|
|