|
Okay again thinking about ways to improve the Champion archetype of the Fighter, and while I like the idea pd0t, I believe it was, had about Fighters/Rogues/Barbarians/Rangers grabbing two archetypes from a specific list of classes when they grab their archetype, I have another idea. This came from looking at the Gladiator, thinking man a fighter would like some of that, and trying to extrapolate and add it to the stuff Champion already gets. Also maybe add some other stuff just to fit the same kind of ideas. So the Gladiator automatically deals an extra die of damage, would probably want to do that as the equivalent of a crit increase, like 2[W] from 4e turning a 2d6 weapon into a 4d6 instead of turning a 2d6 weapon into a 3d6 weapon. I am thinking of adding that to the Expanded Crit features. So an extra "weapon die" at 3rd level, and then another at 15th level, turning it into 3[W]. This would be in addition to the actual expanded crit range, and would make the expanded crit range all the better. The Gladiator gets +10 Athletics, which looks like Str mod +Athletics Proficiency +proficiency again, so basically it seems the Gladiator gets Expertise in Athletics. Was tempted to add this to the 7th level Remarkable Athlete feature, which is like worse than the 3rd level Thief ability that is similar. But that didn't seem badass enough. So instead of Expertise in Athletics lets go Expertise in Strength. Period. Gain proficiency and Expertise in Athletics, and all other Strength Checks, also gain Expertise in Strength Saves, and Expertise in Strength based Attacks. Those last two don't normally have anyway of getting Expertise, but this would help setting them apart as really good at that kind of stuff. Still get the rest of the Remarkable Athlete stuff, for whatever good that does, and probably give them the ability to pick a new skill if they had Athletics already. This would also help fix the thing where a high strength Bard or Rogue is better than a Fighter, or Barbarian, at Grappling and Shoving. Stuff I am thinking about maybe adding, but not sure and not sure what level I would add them if I did: The Gladiator has Multiattack that lets them get 3 melee attacks or 2 ranged attacks, was tempted to give them an extra attack if all their attacks for the round are melee, but not sure what level I would give them that, if I was to give them that at all. Could be at the 10th level feature, but then Fighters get a 3rd attack at 11th level already. One of the Gladiator's attack options in melee is a Shield Bash. Lets them attack with a shield, for 1d4 base damage, 2d4 with the Gladiator's feature, and force a DC 15 Strength saving throw on a medium or smaller creature hit or be knocked prone. This would be a pretty cool feature, though it would lead them toward a shield and spear/one handed weapon build, while the extra die on weapons feature would lead them toward big two handed weapons. The Gladiator also gets a special Reaction called Parry that uses a Reaction to add 3, so probably proficiency, to its AC against one attack by a creature it can see. This feature does require the gladiator be wielding a weapon. This would be another nice feature that would be nice to add in to the Champion at some point, but not sure when. Any ideas?
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Stuff I am thinking about maybe adding, but not sure and not sure what level I would add them if I did: If you wanted to add an attack earlier for the Fighter, maybe tie it to Fighting Styles, but at like level 7 or something:
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Three-weapon fighting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Th Polearm Mastery befuddlement wouldn't have been a problem had they kept a keyword system. You know, the thing that clarified between "Reach" and "Threatening Reach" in a previous edition I forget the name of as well as Mearls apparently. "Reach" was the number of squares (5 Foot increments) you could actively attack with a weapon. "Threatening Reach" was the range at which opportunity attacks were provoked. In reality they probably should have always been the same thing, though, just because it's easier to keep track of, but it was always possible to have a Reach of 10 feet and only a Threatening Reach of 5. That said, I felt the rules were pretty cut and dry in this instance, and I'm yet again amazed at Mearls's inability to understand his own rules: Polearm Mastery: "While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach" Normally, attacks are provoked when the enemy LEAVES your reach. This feat allows enemies to provoke by ENTERING as well as leaving. That is the actual benefit to this feat concerning opportunity attacks. Reach: "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it" The wording is active. "When you attack with it" means it only increases your reach when you are actively attacking with the weapon. I take this to mean this doesn't increase the range at which enemies provoke. If Mearls wanted it to actually mean what he thinks it means (Increasing threat range) "When you attack with it" would not be a part of this sentence. Crawford's interpretation, in my eyes, is the correct one. What is Mearls smoking, and can I have some already?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:Th Polearm Mastery befuddlement wouldn't have been a problem had they kept a keyword system. You know, the thing that clarified between "Reach" and "Threatening Reach" in a previous edition I forget the name of as well as Mearls apparently. "Reach" was the number of squares (5 Foot increments) you could actively attack with a weapon. "Threatening Reach" was the range at which opportunity attacks were provoked. In reality they probably should have always been the same thing, though, just because it's easier to keep track of, but it was always possible to have a Reach of 10 feet and only a Threatening Reach of 5.  You're Opportunity-Attacking, which is obviously a subset of 'attacking', so it applies!Wait, that's the wrong smilie. What's the one where the stick is bent backwards?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Three-weapon fighting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Is the much ballyhoo'd concentration mechanic just a lovely Sustain: Minor that doesn't benefit from full rules integration?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
moths posted:Is the much ballyhoo'd concentration mechanic just a lovely Sustain: Minor that doesn't benefit from full rules integration? It's more like "Sustain: No Action" but you can only have one Concentration-keyworded thing going at a time. And if you take damage, you have to make a CON save or lose the effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Maybe it will change, depending on how the splatbooks pan out, but at the moment it's a really good mechanic to prevent endlessly stacking buffs. Are there other ways to achieve a similar effect? Yeah, sure, but it's still a good feature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:As for how reach works with opportunity attacks, Mearls says it all happens at 10 feet here and here, but Crawford disagrees here. War Caster interaction is additionally mentioned here. These quotes from Mearls are worthless. quote:@AirPower25Q. If I have reach (10 ft), do I only get an opportunity attack if enemy moves to 15 ft? yes, you attack when they leave your reach You've always been able to get the opportunity attack for someone leaving your reach. The problem is we don't know what our reach is for the purposes of Opportunity Attacks. If you're a Large monster with a natural reach of 10', keep slamming dudes at 10' all day, but we're Medium creatures relying on weapons with the Reach property here, and the Reach property implies you only have the longer reach some of the time. quote:@ETallitnicsGood evening! Concerning weapons with the Reach property: Opportunity Attacks are provoked at 5′ or 10′ or both? #Thanks 10 feet This answer is vague, but it's in part because the question itself is non-specific. It's not clear from the answer whether it's being triggered when moving from five feet to ten or from ten feet to fifteen, because all Mearls says is 10 feet and that number is in the exact middle of the goddamn problem. At least the way the question is framed means the answer says you can't double-dip on opportunity attack ranges. quote:@PlaguescarredI notice people have different interpretation, does polearm increase reach always or only when attacking with it? The reach property applies only when you attack with a weapon. Any use beyond that is up to the DM. This is a correct RAW reading of the rules. It also doesn't clarify whether or not you get the opportunity attack with Polearm Master when someone moves from 15' to 10' away, because you can still argue that as long as you have a melee attack that can hit at that range, it's in your reach. But if you haven't attacked he's not in your reach so the Opportunity Attack is never triggered to thereby extend your reach.  If your Reach property applies when you are not actively attacking, it also begs the question of why the property was written to specify when you attack with the weapon. Presumably the property was written in that fashion to curtail reach abuse, but if so why haven't they acknowledged it and said yeah, it doesn't work? Getting the Opportunity Attack on enemies coming closer is still pretty good, it's not like you'll be seeing many OAs otherwise. quote:@henryhiggins47if I have the war caster feat and a reach weapon can I use a spell instead of the weapon if they move to 15 ft? The intent is that any OA triggered because you're wielding a polearm is then made with that polearm. RAI is not RAW, Mearls. You haven't answered the question: is it rules legal or not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
The issue with that last tweet is that it's pretty much a kneejerk reaction to a particular glaivelock build doing the rounds that used polearm master, war caster and repelling blast to knock back anyone that tried to approach. Playtesting!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:I know it's a joke, but why the gently caress not? Pistol, Pistol, Tomahawk is reasonable to me. So is tomahawk, tomahawk, pistol. D&D fighters are aggressively boring. Pistol, pistol, pistol, pistol, pistol, pistol, cutlass. With burning fuses in my beard  . Seriously though, not including pistols as "a very small pike that you can only use once" is a lost opportunity. Range 20 feet, 1d12 damage, then drop it and engage with your cutlass (or rapier) / dagger combo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
I know the idea of 'why aren't there critical hits in 5e' pops up now and then, and people point to the old 2e d100 table as well as the combat&tactics ones, which allow for crits vs both enemies and pcs. I played this weekend using the old c&t (and spells&magic) rules and got killed in the first round of combat (by two fireballs, second one I critically failed the save, then had pretty much the worst possible roll on location/severity) as a level 13ish character (I roll notoriously poorly). Yeouch. Thus I still wholeheartedly support PCs getting critted because it's very interesting. mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
Im starting a 5e game, all the players and DM are new to the system. Looking at a Human Barbarian and I have had decision paralysis for a few weeks. The DM is letting us get a free feat, plus a bonus feat for being human. We come from a Pathfinder background. Ive a few ideas to work from, but again, to many ideas. First Idea Heavy Tanking Take heavy armor and heavy armor expert. Get DR 3 plus half damage when raging. Use a shield and weapon. Pull my dex to 8 or 10 and boost mental stats. Str 18 to start Dual Wield Take Dual wield and tavern brawler. Be able to walk into a room and beat folks with a bag of potatoes and a chair. Shield Aegis Take Resilient with Dex, and Shield Expert. Gain Advantage to dex saves, and evasion, in addition to shield bonuses to dex saves. Grappler Tavern Brawler and Grappler Great Weapon/Polearm Use a halberd and put the hurt on at reach. All look appealing, does anyone have any other ideas on what would be effective and i should look at?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Harthacnut posted:The issue with that last tweet is that it's pretty much a kneejerk reaction to a particular glaivelock build doing the rounds that used polearm master, war caster and repelling blast to knock back anyone that tried to approach. Playtesting! The thing is that even if that build is popular, I can't see it being an enormous issue because you only get one reaction per round. It's a neat trick but is 'defeated' by just not entering range with the warlock and pelting them from afar. Or approaching them with more than one enemy at once. Normally I'm in favour of patching broken builds, and I actually agree with the Polearm Master/War Caster clarification, but if a player really wants to spend two feats, a weapon choice, an invocation and possibly even a pact choice on "one person per turn can't come close to me" then I think they're welcome to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
winterwerefox posted:Im starting a 5e game, all the players and DM are new to the system. Looking at a Human Barbarian and I have had decision paralysis for a few weeks. The DM is letting us get a free feat, plus a bonus feat for being human. Increase a stat by +4 with those two feat choices you got.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
You only get the DR and other benefits while raging if you're not in heavy armour, so your first idea is somewhat off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
winterwerefox posted:Heavy Tanking If you want to be a tank, I'd consider Sentinel to be very important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
winterwerefox posted:Im starting a 5e game, all the players and DM are new to the system. Looking at a Human Barbarian and I have had decision paralysis for a few weeks. The DM is letting us get a free feat, plus a bonus feat for being human. We come from a Pathfinder background. Ive a few ideas to work from, but again, to many ideas. Doesn't work. You lose a lot of features in heavy armor, including the resistance to damage while raging. quote:Dual Wield Works as far as I can see, not mechanically strong perhaps, but flavorful and actually works. quote:Shield Aegis Well I have no idea where you are even getting some of this stuff. Nothing there gives you advantage to Dex Saves. Nor is there an actual Evasion. Shield Expert will let you spend a Reaction to gain a pseudo evasion when targeted by a Dex Save. It also grants Shield bonus to Dex saves, but only on ones that target you and only you. Again nothing gives advantage on Dex Saves. Resilient will give you Proficiency in Dex Saves, which is nice but not the same as Advantage. quote:Grappler I uh ... what? I have no idea how you think this works? Tavern Brawler can let you grapple when you hit with an improvised weapon, but you are talking about using actual weapons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:I uh ... what? I have no idea how you think this works? Tavern Brawler can let you grapple when you hit with an improvised weapon, but you are talking about using actual weapons. A really long stick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Doesn't work. You lose a lot of features in heavy armor, including the resistance to damage while raging. Barbarian naturally gain advantage on dex saves with Danger Sense. At level 2. I believe, unless that has changed. I didn't realize that I'd lose my rage abilities in heavy armor, so that is out. The last bit were two separate ideas. A polearm warrior, or a grappling warrior. I didn't state that clearly. So.. Dual Wield Brawler, Polearm warrior, Grappler, Shield Fighter. Or just boost stats. e: wrong name for an ability winterwerefox fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
If you want to tank on a barbarian, wear nothing but a shield and try to max out your Dex and Con. Unarmored barbarians get 10 + Dex + Con mod + shield, which eventually lets you outclass everyone else's AC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Okay yeah at 2nd level you get Danger Sense. You are going to probably want Dex for your AC, since heavy armor is bad for Barbarians and Barbarian AC unarmored is Con+Dex. So getting Proficiency in Dex Saves, and yeah Advantage from your class, surprisingly don't see any mention of losing Danger Sense while in heavy armor, would be pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:If you want to tank on a barbarian, wear nothing but a shield and try to max out your Dex and Con. Unarmored barbarians get 10 + Dex + Con mod + shield, which eventually lets you outclass everyone else's AC. You end up silly MAD though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
goatface posted:You end up silly MAD though. After Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, which are ridiculous, not even this is a problem. With bear barbarian you are basically twice as hard to kill as the next toughest class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Is there a general consensus on what elements of the system are garbage or otherwise need fixing? I've played a couple of sessions using these rules as a thief dude and other than very early game lethality I haven't noticed a whole lot, but I haven't run into any higher level stuff and don't have a firm basis to compare stuff to since the last D&D I actually played was like second edition or some cobbled together poo poo. If it's all covered in some recent post I'm sorry, looked through the last few pages and found a few things here and there but just wanted to know what sort of kinks might need to be fixed or houseruled or just known since I'm hoping to run a game of my own soon. Thanks guys!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Stanley Goodspeed posted:Is there a general consensus on what elements of the system are garbage or otherwise need fixing? I've played a couple of sessions using these rules as a thief dude and other than very early game lethality I haven't noticed a whole lot, but I haven't run into any higher level stuff and don't have a firm basis to compare stuff to since the last D&D I actually played was like second edition or some cobbled together poo poo. Realistically the game is about finding overpowered damage combos so that your party can rocket tag enemies, because monsters tend to be damage-heavy and die quickly. This is the old 3E dynamic and it is severe if you are randomly rolling hit points, which you should never do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Stanley Goodspeed posted:Is there a general consensus on what elements of the system are garbage or otherwise need fixing? I've played a couple of sessions using these rules as a thief dude and other than very early game lethality I haven't noticed a whole lot, but I haven't run into any higher level stuff and don't have a firm basis to compare stuff to since the last D&D I actually played was like second edition or some cobbled together poo poo. Otherwise I don't know that I'd worry too much about it since the balance of the game is all over the place. If you're feeling ambitious I guess you could glance through gradenko_2000's post history, since he's got some interesting house rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
You're just a player, you don't have to worry about balance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Stanley Goodspeed posted:Is there a general consensus on what elements of the system are garbage or otherwise need fixing? I've played a couple of sessions using these rules as a thief dude and other than very early game lethality I haven't noticed a whole lot, but I haven't run into any higher level stuff and don't have a firm basis to compare stuff to since the last D&D I actually played was like second edition or some cobbled together poo poo. Fixing every problem in 5e still leaves you with a system that could maybe do high-lethality, low-plot hex crawls almost as well as 1e or 2e.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Thanks guys, good information to know, still getting my own feet wet playing the system and I know a lot of the flaws don't creep out until higher levels and such. I'll take a look at the house rules you mentioned ImpactVector!greatn posted:You're just a player, you don't have to worry about balance. As I mentioned, I'm planning to run my own game soon but would like to get a perspective from outside my own limited group since it will be with a different audience. They'll all be relative new so I doubt there will be extensive min/maxing going on but I'd also like to be able to steer them away from mechanically terrible choices. On the other I would also like to know if there are any common pitfalls for DMs used to older editions who end up having to magic away the threat from encounters because things turned out unexpectedly powerful or etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
I think the main pitfall for any DM is trying to houserule everything before they even start. Just start with the base of what the rules are, and change as necessary from experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Stanley Goodspeed posted:Is there a general consensus on what elements of the system are garbage or otherwise need fixing? I made this post on the subject; read to about the end of that page-ish. OneThousandMonkeys posted:After Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, which are ridiculous, not even this is a problem. With bear barbarian you are basically twice as hard to kill as the next toughest class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
greatn posted:The first time I read that I read Pokemon master. And I loving want that book. This comes pretty close. (not really but it's still better than D&D 5e)
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Fixing every problem in 5e still leaves you with a system that could maybe do high-lethality, low-plot hex crawls almost as well as 1e or 2e. Yeah, I fail to see how 2e (especially if you 'fix' it as well) is inferior to 5e, and 2e's decades old at this point. I still can't get over how insane those crit tables are after using them last weekend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
THAC0
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yeah, I fail to see how 2e (especially if you 'fix' it as well) is inferior to 5e, and 2e's decades old at this point. I still can't get over how insane those crit tables are after using them last weekend. Honestly, 2E and 5E basically need the same fixes: More fun things for fighters/rogues/paladins/rangers to do(and, personally, when I houserule, I like to give mages an early-game boost, too), though I suspect that when it comes to raw numbers, 2E is closer to being well-balanced, but 5E has an advantage in having a more unified system. No mix of roll-unders, roll-overs, some high numbers being good, other high numbers being bad and the occasional d100 roll. I mean, as a seasoned 2E player, those things don't faze me, but I can see how they might be a dealbreaker for someone trying to get into the game, and that they're certainly not a strength.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
5e has a bunch of similarities with Player's Option 2e AD&D as far as I can tell. 2e's corebooks are hard for me to read, but I've used the Monstrous Manual a ton for OSR because the numbers work out OK for most pre-d20 D&D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
I have no idea if anyone cares/if I missed the memo several pages ago, but my store just got the Princes of The Apocalypse and the benefits of being a manager is that I get to take poo poo home early. Does anyone care or want to know about contents? Is it already easily available? Do people give a poo poo about this adventure at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 04:13
|
|
