|
Trast posted:As a war domain cleric I'm able to swing my weapon or cast a spell with my main attack and then heal with my bonus action heal in the same term. And I am having fun doing it. Your post just seems like something for the edition versus edition discussions. Healing word? The spell you can cast twice in six fights, that starts being completely ineffective as a heal at level 3? The one that takes up the slots you could be using to make actual interesting effects happen? Edit: Not saying cleric is poo poo or anything. I'm playing one in a campaign now. It's just lovely that I every time I want to cast shield of faith I have to weight it against keeping that slot open for cure wounds. That doesn't seem like a good game mechanic. IT BEGINS fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Feb 4, 2015 |
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Trast posted:As a war domain cleric I'm able to swing my weapon or cast a spell with my main attack and then heal with my bonus action heal in the same term. And I am having fun doing it. Your post just seems like something for the edition versus edition discussions. Fair enough. As noted, I'm a little out of touch - and I was commenting on an old podcast, not the current game. I should probably take a time out or whatever. Infinite Karma posted:That's a little bit disingenuous. Leaders all have a healing power. Strikers all have a damage boosting power. Defenders all have a marking power. Even if leaders aren't just healing (and healing is a minor action to keep things snappy), that was their role-defining ability. I'd argue strongly that enabling was the role-defining ability. It was the thing that was introduced in 4e that wasn't in prior editions - the leader role, and enabling as a concept, were introduced together. Not to mention that other roles got occasional healing powers, defending powers and +damage powers, although many of those were later on when the lines had started to blur a bit anyway - there was VERY little enabling outside leader classes. Enabling's still there, but again, somewhat more limited. I really like the paradigm that HP are a per-combat resource and *something else* is the out of combat resource that refreshes them - hit dice, surges, or gamma world-style 'just go back to full HP between fights'. It makes individual fights a lot easier to understand and predict (and therefore, as DM, control for the difficulty of) when there is an expected and predictable intro point. I don't want the hassle of worrying that because I got a lucky crit in encounter one, I might have to make encounter 4 easier in order not to kill the guy I crit in encounter 1 - as opposed to knowing that what I designed will work in the manner i designed it, but they might not get there until next session because their resources ran out a bit quicker than usual. 5e nearly got this with hit dice - but they're too small, too variable and too limited in number for my taste. They just don't give you enough stuff to use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:And going into fights half depleted is actually a blast and significantly more interesting than the alternative. The problem comes with Encounter-building. The nice thing about 4e is the assumption that you can restore your HP and Encounter powers after every combat, then means that any fight the DM builds (as long as it conforms to the guidelines) will work just fine, no matter where you are in your adventuring day. When spells and healing are balanced around the day, your resources decrease as the adventuring day goes on, and suddenly easy fights become harder; as a player, you might find that fun and interesting, but it makes for a constantly-moving target on the DMing side. The job of the DM needs to be made easier, not harder. Gort posted:The sooner the "adventuring day" dies a horrible death the better RPGs like this will be. Balance to the encounter, not the adventuring day, since an encounter is actually of a length you can reasonably predict. I think that combat abilities might as well all be at-will, but then have HP/healing as a daily resource/pacing mechanic. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
RE: Warlords, you'll have to make one yourself. Mearls flat out hated the warlord. It was the only base class not to re-appear in his Essentials materials, and during the playtest he openly poo poo-talked about it. You are not going to see it in 5e.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Trast posted:As a war domain cleric I'm able to swing my weapon or cast a spell with my main attack and then heal with my bonus action heal in the same term. And I am having fun doing it. Your post just seems like something for the edition versus edition discussions. The heal that takes a bonus action is utter trash. So is cure wounds for that matter. Just like 3rd ed, the only worthwhile heal is... heal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:The heal that takes a bonus action is utter trash. So is cure wounds for that matter. Just like 3rd ed, the only worthwhile heal is... heal. Hey now, Cure light wounds was really good (as a wand).
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:The heal that takes a bonus action is utter trash. So is cure wounds for that matter. Just like 3rd ed, the only worthwhile heal is... heal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:RE: Warlords, you'll have to make one yourself. Mearls flat out hated the warlord. It was the only base class not to re-appear in his Essentials materials, and during the playtest he openly poo poo-talked about it. You are not going to see it in 5e. Warlords rule, Mearls drool
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:It's trash but with how swingy combat is, it's a sad necessity. Good luck getting to do fun stuff with your cleric! I'm no sucker I only took 1 level in cleric to be a better necromancer!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:The heal that takes a bonus action is utter trash. So is cure wounds for that matter. Just like 3rd ed, the only worthwhile heal is... heal. yeah I am playing at level 6 and the value of healing spells in combat is to bring someone up from unconscious. But it takes up the bonus action I could be using to have my skeletons shoot at things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:RE: Warlords, you'll have to make one yourself. Mearls flat out hated the warlord. It was the only base class not to re-appear in his Essentials materials, and during the playtest he openly poo poo-talked about it. You are not going to see it in 5e. Given the discussion, I actually began thinking about what a "5e Warlord" might look like. Just spitballing here: Hit Dice: 1d8? 1d10? Profs: Armor: Light Armor, Medium Armor, shields Weapons: Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons Tools: Vehicles? Saving Throws: CHA, one of: CON or WIS Skills: Choose 3 from: Athletics, History, Investigation, Insight, Medicine, Intimidation, Persuasion Class Features:
And then some enabling poo poo; basically this boils down to "spend and Action to do something less effective than an Action but allow an ally to do something more effective than an action." You can describe this as granting advantage or adding a mod of yours to a roll of theirs or whatever, mix in some positioning stuff. You could probably mix in/borrow from something resembling Bardic Inspiration and/or Superiority Dice and/or Guidance/Resistance. Maybe have maneuvers use either INT or CHA for the DC of any checks they provoke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:The problem comes with Encounter-building. The nice thing about 4e is the assumption that you can restore your HP and Encounter powers after every combat, then means that any fight the DM builds (as long as it conforms to the guidelines) will work just fine, no matter where you are in your adventuring day. I'd be fine with at-will combat abilities too for any class, but I do think that the grinding down of HP/healing is really key. When day 2 breaks and your cleric is already cast out and people are at 90% health you can keep pushing. Then it's a night of hoping you don't get attacked, and when you do there's pretty much nothing left but the martials still going strong. By day 3 having people almost dead and deciding between resting and letting the bad guys get away/destroy some other town/etc vs pushing on and risking a party wipe. It's great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I'd be fine with at-will combat abilities too for any class, but I do think that the grinding down of HP/healing is really key. When day 2 breaks and your cleric is already cast out and people are at 90% health you can keep pushing. Then it's a night of hoping you don't get attacked, and when you do there's pretty much nothing left but the martials still going strong. By day 3 having people almost dead and deciding between resting and letting the bad guys get away/destroy some other town/etc vs pushing on and risking a party wipe. It's great. Thing is, this kind of thing is completely modelled using healing surges/recoveries instead of HP. Your characters can have full HP for every fight, making the balancing of each encounter easier, while you have recoveries as an expendable, grind-down-ablle resourcce. If you absolutely must press on or the rampaging Orc armada will blow up Dwarfinberg, but your Tank has only one surge left, everyone else has none and only your wizard has a single daily left, they are still run ragged, even if they are sitting at max hitpoints.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Also this argument presupposes that your typical D&D party will always be hustling under some sort of Jack Bauer style time constraints instead of going down into a hole to kill monsters because that's where the money is. Even assuming that argument is true, I have a hard time believing that most D&D players are going to care about another village full of nameless NPCs biting the dust versus losing their character in an easily avoidable party wipe situation. Instilling a genuine sense of danger and urgency isn't a thing you can just turn on or off like a tap, when it works it definitely works but it's a thing you need to cultivate and it doesn't last infinitely. Most of the time in D&D when it's a choice between resting or pushing on with the spellcasters tapped and risking a party wipe the players are going to choose to rest every single time because why wouldn't they?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Casters just end up with too much poo poo. Too many low level spells they never loving use anyway because they refuse to move on if they've spent many of their big ones. They should have found a way to reduce the number of spells a player can choose between, just so they don't spend all their time reading the PHB or flipping through spell cards rather than paying attention to what's actually going on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Most of the time in D&D when it's a choice between resting or pushing on with the spellcasters tapped and risking a party wipe the players are going to choose to rest every single time because why wouldn't they? A million times this. "Dead heroes get no actions" and all that. Particularly in a game like D&D, where nothing mechanically interesting happens due to "I sacrificed my PC so the villagers could live" and compounded by char-gen and levelling being a crunchy, complicated mess... risking death just isn't fun or interesting. Like, I actually loathe the thought of having to make a new character. Going off on a tangent from this, the desire for faster/shorter combats should be to allow more gametime for interesting roleplay and interaction. Unfortunately, we end up with a PHB that is short on advice for such things, and almost completely devoid of any mechanical incentives for doing so. We get 1/3rd of a book of Character Options, 1/3rd for Combat, and 1/3rd for Spells, roughly. I think the problem comes from the assumption that spells do everything, including roleplaying for you. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
A feat would make a basic Warlord happen much more easily than an entire class. Tactical Warlord (feat) If you already have Bardic Inspiration dice, you get one more. If you don't already have Bardic Inspiration dice, you get one, which refreshes after a long rest. When an ally spends your Bardic Inspiration die, he can also spend a number of hit dice up to half of his level and regain hit points accordingly. If you have no remaining Bardic Inspiration dice, you can use an action to award one to an ally per the normal Bardic Inspiration rules. If you do, you can also take your normal action, except this action can't be used to Attack, Cast a Spell, or Use a Magic Item.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Also this argument presupposes that your typical D&D party will always be hustling under some sort of Jack Bauer style time constraints instead of going down into a hole to kill monsters because that's where the money is. Even assuming that argument is true, I have a hard time believing that most D&D players are going to care about another village full of nameless NPCs biting the dust versus losing their character in an easily avoidable party wipe situation. Instilling a genuine sense of danger and urgency isn't a thing you can just turn on or off like a tap, when it works it definitely works but it's a thing you need to cultivate and it doesn't last infinitely. Most of the time in D&D when it's a choice between resting or pushing on with the spellcasters tapped and risking a party wipe the players are going to choose to rest every single time because why wouldn't they? Honestly it's probably due in my group to the campaign known only as the "bad campaign" from over a decade ago. We ignored time constraints and by the time we tracked down the magic artifact of invulnerability, the enemy necromancer villain had retrieved it and shortly thereafter overran the entirety of fantasy europe with skeletons. My group often plays characters that act as local protectors of the people and will push the envelope to help them rather than run. Heck, the most recent campaign had multiple playing sessions revolving around rescuing civilians and getting them through hostile territory while also using most of the priest's spells to create enough food and water for them. Healing surges can work in a similar pacing mechanism, no real issue there. The importance is playing fantasy 24 where you don't get days off to rest up, because all of this is based on ancient dungeon crawls where leaving the dungeon could result in remaining monsters refortifying for your return or simply leaving with the treasure. And one of the best ways to balance mages was the memorization time. We had a mage use a ton of high level spells first day of a huge battle and he couldn't participate at all in the next two days due to that. mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:We had a mage use a ton of high level spells first day of a huge battle and he couldn't participate at all in the next two days due to that. See that doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Instilling a genuine sense of danger and urgency isn't a thing you can just turn on or off like a tap, when it works it definitely works but it's a thing you need to cultivate and it doesn't last infinitely. Most of the time in D&D when it's a choice between resting or pushing on with the spellcasters tapped and risking a party wipe the players are going to choose to rest every single time because why wouldn't they? Laphroaig posted:DM's call. Seriously though, it's trivially easy and system independent to build time pressure into an adventure to encourage pushing on past the point where it's absolutely safe to do so. Maybe if the party doesn't save to town full of nameless npc's they don't get a reward or if they don't go deeper into the dungeon the inhabitants will finish loading up the loot on barges on a river to the underdark or the monsters, having fought the pc's a couple of times and lost will just say gently caress it and clear out of Dodge, taking their treasure with them. If you don't want to use "getting loot" as a motivating factor, I'm sure you can imagine some scenario where the player's ability to achieve their chosen goal/derive a reward from it is negatively impacted by delaying or deferring action of some sort. All of which would be applicable in a 4e game if the party was full up on HP but out of healing surges and low on dailies, as Prison Warden noted. I mean, it's not like everyone's D&D adventures are just a series of set piece encounters that remain static until the pcs come within line of sight of them. Just the majority of modules written by hacks, which yes, force you to do the author's job by fixing them. lovely adventure writing and lovely game design are deeply intertwined, but they're not exactly the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:See that doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun to me. He had his fun unloading all his spells and being the star of the show for 4 minutes in game 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
I'll float an opinion that I'm sure some people will probably disagree strongly with, but the GM going "you guys ignored time constraints so the evil necromancer gets an artifact of invulnerability and WINS FOREVER, serves you right" sounds like a pretty lovely way to handle things. If the players are ignoring time constraints, maybe, just maybe, it's because they're having more fun doing so than they would if they were running pell-mell after whatever brass ring the GM is envisioning, so going "skeletons fall, everyone dies" strikes me as kind of petty and shortsighted. If people are ignoring your Big Looming Threat, maybe that's a sign that you should be switching gears to focus more on things that are actually engaging them than going "and then the bad guy won, the end." I'm sure I'm lacking a great deal of context so I'm not trying to judge anyone involved as a "bad player/GM" or anything, but the thing about all these ticking timebomb scenarios is that there is no actual ticking timebomb, it's entirely a fictional construct of the GM who has the ultimate power to make up whatever the gently caress they want and down the far end of the road that starts with bad guys obtaining artifacts of invulnerability because the players took too much time as determined by some arbitrary metric lies the GM who decides that there are no dungeons worth delving or adventures worth having because someone else has already done all of it off screen, but there is an opportunity in mustard smuggling that just opened up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I'll float an opinion that I'm sure some people will probably disagree strongly with, but the GM going "you guys ignored time constraints so the evil necromancer gets an artifact of invulnerability and WINS FOREVER, serves you right" sounds like a pretty lovely way to handle things. If the players are ignoring time constraints, maybe, just maybe, it's because they're having more fun doing so than they would [etc.] It's a matter of DMing styles. I, as a DM, come up with stuff I want to have happen at certain places, but they're always waiting for the PCs to show up and start things in motion/turn the tide for one side or another. I came up with all this material, why cancel it out when/if the players gently caress around someplace else? Now, the other side to that is you reskin/reshuffle that material into some other place, but depending on the circumstance, it might not always work or make sense. The example is "the interesting room with the interesting trap/monster/loot/whatever that the PCs miss because [whatever.]" The other method (and I played with a DM who did this) is to make up options for the PCs to choose between, but choosing shuts out other possible things from happening (or wasting too much time in one place instead of another). Which is weird, because as the DM it still requires you to come up with all that material and then throw it away as the switches are flipped by the party. That just struck me as a lot of work for less payoff.  But yeah, taking cues from the players is good DMing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
The part that annoys me more than anything else is the players and GM could solve all this rubbish if they just communicated with each other and explained what they wanted. Mustard smuggling simulation could be fun but if im not told about it and im told its a d&d game then im going to be pissed off when that becomes the plot. A huge amount of your games problems are going to be solved if everyone discusses what they want out of the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
I think maybe my last post came off a bit more confrontational than I intended. Sorry; If the DM and Players have reached a consensus on the style of campaign they want to play and that style includes the understanding and agreement that time will be tracked with some rigor and that choosing to delay taking action on something will mean something happens or doesn't happen; then "Hey guys, we talked about this, every day you spend doing side quests around in Dwarfsburg makes you stronger, but it also means the Necromancer raises another 10 skeletons." is fine. Some groups enjoy the challenge of "given these resources and this time limit, how can we do the thing we want to do." Sort of like board games where you want to do everything every turn but only have a limited selection of actions. Arbitrarily inserting a villain working in a hidden location, dropping a single throwaway rumor that something weird is going on far away from the starting location of the campaign during the very first session and then having them show up at the head of an unstoppable zombie horde 18 sessions into a campaign focused on intrigue at court is bullshit move. Although it'd still work if the focus stayed on intrigue at court, but now with the added element of "we must all set aside our differences, temporarily, to confront the enemy at the gate." But it's all an arbitrary fictional construct, every single last bit of it, from what the DM describes to what the players say their characters are doing to whether or not the passage of time in game matters or if mustard is expensive. Talking about what kind of game you want to be playing, then sticking to that agreement unless there's a consensus about changing things up, has been the crucial part of every successful game I've ever run/played in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Because of endless wandering monsters, even while dungeon crawling, there were time constraints. Barring Rope Trick shenanigans, an unlimited want of Cure Light Wounds would only get so far before another encounter triggers
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Like I said, I don't have the whole picture of this game with skeletons overrunning Europe so I'm refraining from judging it as some terrible failure or whatever. To me, it's kind of weird to imagine playing an RPG where the GM might just go "well you ran out of time so BAD END" because, well, what then? "Good game everyone, guess that world is hosed, oh well now roll up some characters for the next campaign."
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Time constraints aren't really there to punish players, although they do. The point is to add tension to what is otherwise a fairly unperilous scenario. If your players can just rest at any time at their leisure then they will. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with this but sometimes it's fun to be under the gun as a player. Obviously you could just throw risiculous challenges at the party too but at some points that just doesn't work. 3rd and 5th ed will chump your poo poo with spells and in 4th ed my fairly unoptimized party could consistently handle challenges 8 levels above us by throwing enough poo poo at it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
The Arbitrary Ticking Clock of Unknowable Urgency is an attempt to solve bad game design by making the gameplay more obnoxious, in the same vein as material component fuckery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Glorified Scrivener posted:If the DM and Players have reached a consensus on the style of campaign they want to play Forums-poster Paolomania's Some Heartbreaker has rules basically built around the players and GM agreeing on the style of campaign. It's a good read.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Solid Jake posted:The Arbitrary Ticking Clock of Unknowable Urgency is an attempt to solve bad game design by making the gameplay more obnoxious, in the same vein as material component fuckery. And if it's not Arbitrary or Unknowable is it still obnoxious? Sincere question that I'm happy to take to the Chat or the GM Advice thread instead of derailing this one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Given the discussion, I actually began thinking about what a "5e Warlord" might look like. Basically, you take the 4e warlord, copy its abilities wholesale (in particular, use an action in melee to let an ally attack with a bonus (probably advantage), use an action at range to let an ally attack, no bonuses, and some short rest abilities to let two or more allies attack as an action, or to let an ally attack with a big bonus, or move-and-attack, or whatever), losing the dailies if you really must, and making its healing a bonus action instead of a minor, that does most of it. Capstone it with 'in initiative order, all PCs take a turn' as an action. Enabling is the 4e icon for me that 5e barely scratches the surface of, make a class that does nothing but, and does it well. A man can dream, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Glorified Scrivener posted:And if it's not Arbitrary or Unknowable is it still obnoxious? Sincere question that I'm happy to take to the Chat or the GM Advice thread instead of derailing this one. Like if someone runs up to the party yelling "Bandits just took my daughter, please hurry and murder them and take their stuff!" then it can be reasonably inferred by the players that there isn't time for an 8 hour rest. But then again, if your DM springs that scenario on you when you're heavily wounded and out of spells just to make you choose between killing your characters by losing a fight to bandits or to let the guy's daughter die, then he's probably a dick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
The thing about players hustling under time constraints is that players will often do this sort of thing to themselves if they're engaged with the game. If you kidnap or imperil an NPC that the players actually like a lot then they'll probably feel a sense of urgency even if you, the GM, have no plans or desire to kill that NPC. Likewise if you really, genuinely mean it when you say that the Dark Lord Steve is going to wipe out the village of Whogivesafuck if the players don't fight for three days and three nights without a long rest you're basically relying on them doing so because it's expected of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:
Wait, what? I think you're either wrong about "unoptimized" or "8 levels above us." At level 10 you're looking at, what, +15 to hit AC? And MM3 monster AC is level +14, so a monster 8 levels above you is AC 32. Your fairly unoptimized party is consistently handling encounters where you need to roll a 17+ to hit AC?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
homullus posted:Wait, what? I think you're either wrong about "unoptimized" or "8 levels above us." At level 10 you're looking at, what, +15 to hit AC? And MM3 monster AC is level +14, so a monster 8 levels above you is AC 32. Your fairly unoptimized party is consistently handling encounters where you need to roll a 17+ to hit AC?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
MM1 maths has higher defences; they went down for MM3+ because people felt soldiers being consistently unhittable but unthreatening sacks of HP was boring as gently caress.. I'd assume the 'well above level' challenge probably includes a bigger budget of at-level monsters rather than a normal higher-level budget of higher level monsters. Or, you know, massive exaggeration, as is this thread's wont, on all sides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Solid Jake posted:Like if someone runs up to the party yelling "Bandits just took my daughter, please hurry and murder them and take their stuff!" then it can be reasonably inferred by the players that there isn't time for an 8 hour rest. This isn't directed at you, it's just a thing that comes up really often and I don't fully understand it. The implication here is that if they need to take a rest and don't get to, the DM is being a dick. Which I agree with. But it means that you'd only ever give them a time constraint when it doesn't stop them from resting. Then why do you want rest-requiring mechanics at all? Or more to the point, why do you want rest requiring mechanics that mean you have to take 8 hours (or even 1 hour) to refresh your poo poo? If it's balance then it shouldn't matter how long you rest, as long as everyone's taking the same minute (or week) to refresh. If it's realism, then that's super loving dumb. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
gently caress knows. The idea that everything must happen in a tearing hurry is problematic comes about solely because not happening in a tearing hurry means that the sole mechanic that is supposed to balance spellcasters (i.e. they only get their rocks off a limited number of times per day, but the mundanes keep going longer) fails when the spellcasters can get their rocks off, then kip and get them off again. If rests and recharges were better designed and balanced, it wouldn't MATTER whether you had 3 hours or 3 months between now and Certain Doom™, because you wouldn't have to worry that one or the other side was getting screwed over by the rush or lack thereof.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Basically, you take the 4e warlord, copy its abilities wholesale (in particular, use an action in melee to let an ally attack with a bonus (probably advantage), use an action at range to let an ally attack, no bonuses, and some short rest abilities to let two or more allies attack as an action, or to let an ally attack with a big bonus, or move-and-attack, or whatever), losing the dailies if you really must, and making its healing a bonus action instead of a minor, that does most of it. Capstone it with 'in initiative order, all PCs take a turn' as an action. Enabling is the 4e icon for me that 5e barely scratches the surface of, make a class that does nothing but, and does it well. A level 3 fighter can do all this poo poo though, it's just a pain because you have to get to level 3 to do it and apparently people don't like the idea that he can only use the abilities 4 times without stopping for an hour. I mean nothing is stopping you from all creating characters at level 3 as thats where you get some cool stuff across all the classes if you really think level 1 characters are poo poo. I mean if you take the Commander's Strike manoeuvre as an example, it lets me attack someone, then an ally as a bonus action can attack and add your bonus dice to the damage roll. Assuming the other attack hits they get to do their damage+D8. That's probably fairly similar to some low level damage spells. As your level increases the bonus dice increases in power and you get more of them of course. I mean yeah the class may not be as good, but you literally can play someone that helps his or her allies as a fighter. The build I posted earlier gives you the option during combat to: 1) Give the entire party some temporary hitpoints before a fight 2) Defend an ally with your shield giving their opponent a disadvantage to attack them 3) Allow an ally to move after you've attacked, possibly setting them up to run away/get out of range/hide before attacking 4) Give someone temporary hit points during combat I think the biggest problem is just that you can do all that at level 3 and then there's no more "ally boosting" abilities to get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:59
|
|
