|
I was sketching out a Better Battle Master that would spend its bonus action to observe the enemy and gather exploit points. You'd then declare what you were spending some on before making an attack roll, and deal the additional effects on a hit or the number of spent points in chip damage on a miss. They wouldn't be for bonus damage, more controller-y and defender-y effects. Marking, hindering, conditions and the like. It would work better at higher levels where you could spend a turn or two just collecting a bunch of points before burning the lot tagging riders on your multiple attacks. First attack has a few points tagged on to make them easier for you to hit, if it hits the next is packed with riders to reduce their offence and make them easier targets for your allies etc. Something like that anyway
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
I would just the observe action a bonus action and have it limited to once per round. Higher class levels increase the number of points you get per use.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
My pet idea for fighters was that they should be able to insta-kill anything with half their hit dice (or fewer) if they hit them. Someone with 8 levels of fighter hits a 4HD monster? Boom, it's dead, don't bother rolling damage, no save, it's gibbed, roll a die and see if you get a free continuation attack on someone standing nearby. Only fighters can do this. If you want be good with a weapon and do other things, play a barbarian or a ranger or a paladin. If you just want to straight up kill fools by hitting them, play a fighter.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
goatface posted:I was sketching out a Better Battle Master that would spend its bonus action to observe the enemy and gather exploit points. You'd then declare what you were spending some on before making an attack roll, and deal the additional effects on a hit or the number of spent points in chip damage on a miss. They wouldn't be for bonus damage, more controller-y and defender-y effects. Marking, hindering, conditions and the like. That sounds a lot like Iron Heroes. Which isn't meant as a slam, by the way. IH was unpolished and dragged down by its reliance on the 3e ruleset but many of its ideas were pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:That sounds a lot like Iron Heroes. Which isn't meant as a slam, by the way. IH was unpolished and dragged down by its reliance on the 3e ruleset but many of its ideas were pretty decent. It was also made by one Mike Mearls so, y'know, figure that one out. FMguru posted:My pet idea for fighters was that they should be able to insta-kill anything with half their hit dice (or fewer) if they hit them. Someone with 8 levels of fighter hits a 4HD monster? Boom, it's dead, don't bother rolling damage, no save, it's gibbed, roll a die and see if you get a free continuation attack on someone standing nearby. Only fighters can do this. If you want be good with a weapon and do other things, play a barbarian or a ranger or a paladin. If you just want to straight up kill fools by hitting them, play a fighter. I've seen a lot of proposed solutions like this, some serious and some sarcastic, and the problem is that even if you give Fighters the ability to do a hojillion damage per attack and have infinity plus one hitpoints, it doesn't change the fundamental fact that a class whose sole province is "does basic attacks" is still pretty loving dull and still incapable of doing more than "swing sword at man." A Next Fighter is limited in his ability to bodyguard weaker party members, relying on an extremely hamstrung list of options and the good grace of the GM, has exceptionally limited ability to solve problems outside of combat even if they were the kings of combat, and certainly don't have anything like spellcasters to give them temporary narrative control over the game in some fashion. The problem with D&D Fighters isn't solely mechanical, it's partly philosophical, and as long as the people calling the shots are stuck in the sort of mindset that sees no problem with "the Fighter is supposed to be best at fighting" and "but you can swing a sword all day" you're never going to see any sort of meaningful improvement.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Jenny Angel posted:I'm actually really curious about this, if you or someone else can go into more detail about it. Were there earlier iterations of the Next/5E Fighter that were more interesting, and if so, how did those get pared down into what we ended up with? What kind of rationales were given as far as stripping away those useful abilities? Aug 2012 - Fighter gets Combat Superiority and Superiority Dice at level 1. All Fighters get Deadly Strike (bonus damage) and Parry (damage reduction) maneuvers, additional maneuvers available are dictated by Fighting Style feature (also level 1). Dice recharge at the start of every turn. Starts with 1d6, goes to 1d8 at level 3 and 2d8 at level 5. Oct 2012 - Levels 6-10 added. Expertise Dice start at d4 instead of d6, but only for level 1. 1d6 at level 2, 2d6 at level 4, 2d8 at level 8, 3d10 at level 10. Parry dropped from default maneuvers. Maneuvers themselves were moved to their own section as the list was being shared by Rogues. Extra Attack added at level 6. Nov 2012 - Monk Maneuvers added. Dec 2012 - Levels 11-20 added. Expertise dice renamed Martial Damage Dice. Deadly Strike folded into base functionality. Dice progression tweaked. Extra Attack removed. Martial Damage Bonus added providing flat +5/10/15/20 damage bonuses at levels 7/11/14/17. Combat Surge added, up to 4x/day at level 20. Parry reworked into a default, and clunky, non-maneuver maneuver. Combat Surge doubles the effect of any Martial Damage Dice spent during the bonus action. Clerics given Martial Damage Dice. Fighting Styles no longer dictate what Maneuvers you get and when you get them, are really just suggested packages. Jan 2013 - Barbarian added, Fighter unchanged. March 2013 - Major Fighter overhaul. Martial Damage Dice removed from Fighter, Cleric, Barbarian, and Rogue (meaning no more shared Maneuvers list). Deadly Strike replaces the flat damage bonus; let's you multiply the damage dice for an attack (i.e. 2[w] becomes 4[w], as opposed to doubling the result). Martial Damage dice replaced with Expertise dice. Now recharge on short rest, no longer advance past d6. Maneuver list divided into exclusive categories or turned into Feats. Bonus Martial Feats added at several levels. Power of the maneuvers themselves generally unchanged (i.e. Deadly Strike, now named Deep Wound, still only adds 1d6 to the attack); this is a sizeable nerf. Multiattack added, lets you attack multiple targets in a round; exclusive choice between ranged and melee styles. Combat Surge unchanged. April 2013 - Unchanged June 2013 - Short Rest changed from 10 minutes to 1 hour. Aug 2013 - Major overhaul. Second Wind (1/2 max HP) 1/day at level 1. Combat Surge renamed Action Surge, reduced to level 2, capped at 2x/day. Multiple attacks show up as per release. Martial Paths added. Defy Death (save vs. 0 hp) added. Indomitable (advantage on all saves) added. Fighter's Supremacy (auto-kill anything w/ <20hp) added. Expertise/Superiority Dice remain, but their progression is based on path chosen. Path dictates all maneuvers, rather than choosing, but net more total than previous. Path of the Warrior does not use Expertise Dice and is basically the Champion path from release; gets Devastating Critical that changes effect based on damage type. Gladiator uses d6 Superiority dice and crit things so good nearby enemies need to make a saving throw or be frightened; if the crit kills then the save has disadvantage. I'm highlighting it because it's not as good a feature as it sounds, but it's way cooler than anything that made it to release. Knight path is a defender who attracts 1d10 5th level followers at level 19. At level 10 Knight gets a charm-based taunt with a lot of caveats. Sept 2013 - Fighting Style added as per release. Second Wind changed to 1d6+fighter level THP/short rest. Knight path deleted. Gladiator path deleted. Weaponmaster path added, is mostly the Gladiator, except flavourless. Fighter's Supremacy replaced with a fourth attack. Oct 2013 - Unchanged March/April 2014 (private playtest) - Defy Death deleted. Indomitable changed to a re-roll 1/2/3 times per rest. Paths renamed Archetypes. Path of the Warrior renamed Champion, placed first in sequence as the new default. Devastating Critical removed, replaced with Remarkable Athlete allowing the Fighter to jump a maximum of five feet further than a Barbarian, Paladin, or Cleric. Weaponmaster overhauled into Battle Master. Functionally identical to release. Eldrich Knight added. Functionally identical to release. Aug 2014 - Release version. Second Wind changed to 1d10+fighter level HP/short rest. Basically Maneuvers went from being a bread and butter feature of the class, a resource that they would balance turn by turn in favour of movement, damage, or defence, into an every-few-encounters resource, except the scope and potency of the maneuvers themselves was never improved to account for their much less frequent use, compounded by the change to resting rules which made Short Rests much harder to come by. Interesting applications of maneuvers, or even just flavourful abilities like the Gladiator's Grim Spectacle, are removed. Moving all maneuvers into a giant pool strips out the something-to-look-forward-to experience, as anyone playing a Battle Master can just grab the best ones right off the bat. The ability of the Fighter to impose themselves on monsters, by redirecting, penalizing, or diminishing attacks, was also systematically removed or watered down. The Knight's imposition ability is a great example: the knight could use their reaction to impose disadvantage on an incoming attack. If the target was an ally then the DM could redirect the attack to the knight to avoid the disadvantage, but this would give the knight their reaction back, allowing the knight to, potentially, soak several attacks per round. This was deleted with the Path of the Knight. LFK fucked around with this message at 22:16 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
The hilarious fact that like 90% of all these various flaws in fighters all came from 3e isn't lost on me incidentally. Consider the 2e fighter. For starters, the 2e fighter has access to full plate mail (which, if we convert THAC0 to a positive dice modifier, grants 9 AC). Thieves only get access to studded leather which is +3 AC, wizards get access to nothing and can pretty much never wear armor but can cast the Armor Spell on themselves to gain +4. Unlike the editions that came after, 2e is built around the d20 - it has the actual flat that 5e brags about but never actually delivers. That means for the most part that enemy THAC0 is limited to +20 at the most - which in turn means that warriors have a 25-30% greater chance to be missed in battle. "But Cirno, heavy-" Nope. There is no distinction between armor types. You add your dexterity bonus regardless of what your armor is. Fighters will literally always have better armor then everyone else. Ah, except clerics, who also get the same armor proficiencies, as do rangers and paladins. So what do fighters get over them? Weapon proficiency. And weapon proficiency means a hell of a lot more in 2e, where HP is lower. Clerics also lacked the increased number of attacks and could never get them regardless of spell. Consider the three classic warrior weapons - the normal sword, the greatsword, and the longbow. Clerics can't use any of those; they've got the morningstar and the sling. The longsword is 1d8/1d12 vs the morningstar's 2d4/1d6+1. The greatsword is 1d10/3d6 vs the cleric having NO two handed weapon. The longbow is 1d8/1d8 with strength bonuses, vs the sling's 1d4+1/1d6+1, with the longbow firing two arrows per round and the sling firing one. The reason for two damage types is that weapons did different damage against larger enemies which I put second (so scope that greatsword vs a dragon). So fighters are already ahead, but let's make this unfair. The fighter has now specialized - something only a single class fighter and no others in core 2e can do, and has their warrior-only attack bonuses. This is a rather simple adjustment; +1 attack, +2 damage, and faster rate of attack. Remember the +1 attack is a big deal as it DOES represent a flat out 5% greater chance to hit with the flat d20 math. In addition, between levels 1-6, the fighter now has 3/2 attacks; it hits once the first round, twice the second. At 7-12 it becomes a flat two attacks every round, and 5/2 after level 12. Bows follow the normal fighter attack bonuses (so it becomes 5/2 at level 7, and full on 3 attacks per round at level 13) but gain +2 attack if the enemy is within 30 feet and can fire before initiative is rolled if the arrow is ready. Now let's actually get unfair. Those of you who played Baldur's Gate are going "But Cirno, anyone can specialize, and what about weapon mastery?" This was introduced in the Player's Option series of books, which were...mixed. It was 2e's UA, and had not exactly the best quality control. But let's look at the changes to weapons there. Now, unlike Baldur's Gate, not just anyone can specialize - it's still fighters only, and you can spend points for proficiency in armor, and shields, or additionally specialize in a fighting style. Furthermore, characters can spend an additional proficiency slot to learn a weapon they'd normally be unable to get. So clerics can start to make leeway back, right? Well, no. Clerics start with two slots; fighters four, and fighters gain them faster. Warrior classes can also give up any bonus languages they'd get through higher intelligence and instead convert them to more weapon slots, to sorta reward fighters with high intelligence who didn't care about more languages (and only warriors could). Fighters also got weapon mastery. This is Baldur's Gate 1 mastery, not the wussified version you got in Baldur's Gate 2. But first lets look at the other options. Armor proficiency halves how heavy that type of armor is; kinda boring. Shield proficiency dramatically improves AC (bucklers get +1, small shields get +2, medium +3, body shields +3 and +1 more vs missile attacks) , but shields only work for a number of attacks and never against foes who snuck up behind you or are flanking you. Specializing in weapon+shield lets you use your shield to do a special shield attack 1/round without losing your shield bonus, one handed weapons are BG-style with +1/+2 AC depending on points spent, two handed weapon style increases weapon speed so you move faster in initiative, two weapon style reduces the penalty to using two weapons, and ranged specialization lets you move and still attack with full rate of fire and get +1 AC vs enemies. But let's get to the real meat. Weapon mastery. Let's bring up that comparison again. The cleric does 2d4/1d6+1 with morningstar and 1d4+1/1d6+1 with the sling. They always attack once on their turn. The fighter with the longsword grand mastery and specialization has +4 to attack, has one level of increased speed, crits on 16 instead of 18 so long as they have a margin of success of 5+, gain a full +2 attacks per round (on top of the fighter bonus of +.5 every 6 levels), and does 1d10+5/1d20+5 damage. The longbow fighter has +3 to hit at point blank range (30 feet) and +2 at all other ranges, get a full additional range category to shoot even farther, fire an additional 1.5 times (on top of the fighter bonus and the bow already firing 2 times per round) and does 1d10/1d10 damage, +2 at point blank. But the real son of a bitch is the two handed fighter. +4 attack, increased speed, crits on 16, +2 attacks per round, and does 1d20+5/3d8+5 damage. All monsters use d8's as hit dice. A red dragon in it's prime has 15 hit dice. The fighter is chewing through a fourth of the dragon's health every round. The cleric is barely tapping it. Which reminds me: HP. Again, HP is lower across the board. Warriors (fighters, paladins, and rangers) roll a d10+con to gain their HP bonus (until level 10 where it becomes a flat number...except the fighter's flat number is still bigger). A wizard uses a d4, rogues d6, clerics d8. Con bonuses are +1 at 15, +2 at 16, and then for warriors only, +3, +4, and +5 for 17, 18, and 19. Even without the constitution modifier the wizard is going to have more then double the wizard's HP, and if the warrior has high constitution, they can easily triple it and double their HP over the cleric. So like, yeah. 2e fighters didn't have many if any bells and whistles outside of combat, but they were unquestionably the gods of combat. And yeah, it was totally possible for a wizard to dump their spells and outdamage the fighter for one or two fights, but "I can go all day" actually does mean more when your AC is high enough to evade most attacks and your HP high enough to soak those that miss you, and your standard attack is probably going to be a kill every hit. EDIT: And not to put too fine a point on it but with Skills and Powers fighters got a bunch of narrative abilities too. Like you can clearly see fighters being awful in AD&D core, getting better in UA, getting better in 2e, getting real good in S&P, and then being gutpunched by 3e. 3e wasn't for D&D fans - it was for AD&D 1e fans, which isn't surprising with AD&D being the loving cement shoes drowning this hobby. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 22:50 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
LFK posted:Basically Maneuvers went from being a bread and butter feature of the class, a resource that they would balance turn by turn in favour of movement, damage, or defence, into an every-few-encounters resource, except the scope and potency of the maneuvers themselves was never improved to account for their much less frequent use, compounded by the change to resting rules which made Short Rests much harder to come by. Interesting applications of maneuvers, or even just flavourful abilities like the Gladiator's Grim Spectacle, are removed. Moving all maneuvers into a giant pool strips out the something-to-look-forward-to experience, as anyone playing a Battle Master can just grab the best ones right off the bat. The ability of the Fighter to impose themselves on monsters, by redirecting, penalizing, or diminishing attacks, was also systematically removed or watered down. The Knight's imposition ability is a great example: the knight could use their reaction to impose disadvantage on an incoming attack. If the target was an ally then the DM could redirect the attack to the knight to avoid the disadvantage, but this would give the knight their reaction back, allowing the knight to, potentially, soak several attacks per round. This was deleted with the Path of the Knight. June 2013 is when Mearls literally stated "people didn't properly appreciate how good Maneuvers were so now they're only for some battles" when he changed the rest length. The rest length was literally changed directly in response to people enjoying the fighter abilities too much.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Just a minor note - the style specializations were in the Complete Book of Fighters, loooong before the black options books. Unless my memory has gone (more) haywire.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Nice breakdown Cirno. (Although you left out the part where Warrior saving throws are so good that they become effectively impervious to any save-or-else ability later on.) Now, let me add something to that. There is also a matter Kai Tave brought up earlier, which is that basic attacks all day is pretty dull. And that's all Fighters are good at. Right? Right?! No. In terms of skills the closest analogue in 2e is the Non-Weapon Proficiency slots. And guess what, Fighters are pretty decent at those. In fact, they're better than Rogues. That's right, Fighters are better at skills than Rogues. This is because previously the Rogues (Thief and Bard) had unique Thief-skills, like sneaking and picking locks and all. But these are not generic skills anybody could learn, they are class-specific abilities. For some reason 3e decided that these class abilities now had to be part of a generic skill system, but attacking and spellcasting would stay their own unique mechanic. And ever since it was "traditional" for the Rogue to be a skill-monkey. Except they weren't and it isn't. Oh and the Fighter gets literally a couple of army platoons as one of his class features. You want something to do? You want some agency with which to influence the game's plot? How's dozens of soldiers sound? Think you can do anything with that? You know what the 3e equivalent is of that? Leadership feat. Something you have to pay for, is equal amongst all classes, and doesn't give anything nearly as cool as what the Fighter used to get. This was the one area with which 5e could've won me over. I would've been willing to forgive a lot of poo poo if the Fighter really had his own thing going on. In 4e it was being a juggernaut who single-handedly dictates the course of battle. In 2e it was being a military lord. In 5e it turned out to be... he gets to attack a bit more often than others. At high levels.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
It's been pretty clear that for all their talk of "it's 3e meets 2e, but elements of 4e!" that there's little to no actual 2e or 4e involved. It's a re-do of 3e.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Playing a 2e Thief was the worst thing ever, though. I've been there. You're only really necessary for dealing with traps and scouting and have almost nothing to do in combat. 2e Thief is like 3e Fighter.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Playing a 2e Thief was the worst thing ever, though. I've been there. You're only really necessary for dealing with traps and scouting and have almost nothing to do in combat. 2e Thief is like 3e Fighter. If you allow them to take sneak attacks in place of literal-backstabs, and allow them to do so with any weapon they can wield, it starts to change things. If you move their attack progression to the fighter table (just the THAC0, not the other massive list of fighter abilities) suddenly "rogue" seems like a decent class with some unique add-ons that works, and works differently from everyone else.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:2e thieves definitely needed the most help. You could actually do this with the Swashbuckler kit from Complete Thief. I got my first DM to let me switch to a Swashbuckler, giving me a Fighter's Thac0 with my rapier so I could at least try to contribute in a fight and he was old school enough to have traps everywhere, so I was at least necessary on one front. The best thing that ever happened was when our dwarf fighter, who hated my thief on principle of 'gently caress thieves', refused to let me check for traps, got blown the gently caress up, got up because of his massive saves (fighters had the best saves, too) and HP, trundled to the other end of the corridor, and with me going 'NO STOP YOU IDIOT!' immediately, confidently declared they obviously wouldn't trap BOTH DOORS. He survived and learned nothing, but it was funny as hell.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:You know what the 3e equivalent is of that? Leadership feat. Something you have to pay for, is equal amongst all classes, and doesn't give anything nearly as cool as what the Fighter used to get. Hey now, you could use Leadership to pick up a spellcaster. That's way better than a bunch of guys with swords. Night10194 posted:Playing a 2e Thief was the worst thing ever, though. I've been there. You're only really necessary for dealing with traps and scouting and have almost nothing to do in combat. 2e Thief is like 3e Fighter. Matthew Colville is a guy I disagree with on a lot of subjects...he was one of those people who used to complain about how 4E gave you "too many weird races and what if your players all pick mantis people and crystalmen and poo poo" but then refused to consider the prospect of telling his players not to pick certain stuff, for example...but he used to opine that the creation of the Thief/Rogue as a distinct class was the beginning of the problems that D&D Fighters would go on to face in later editions and I have to admit that I think he's pretty much right about that.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
The funny thing about thieves is that they were the worst single class, but the best multiclass. Thief/wizard and thief/fighter were both great if you didn't have access to kits, and frankly even with kits thief/wizard is still super good.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
The best part of 2E thieves is bards use their XP tables and level up really fast.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
I finally thumbed through the DMG for this trainwreck and what the everloving gently caress is going on with the items and non-level one starting wealth??
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Magic items are now "optional". The scaling mathematics suggests otherwise, but they still claim it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:non-level one starting wealth??
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Did pre-3rd Edition D&D have wealth-by-level rules, even?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Also, magic items aren't meant to be things you buy and sell any more because they're rare and special. You loot them from dungeons and barter them instead. There's a bit of an issue at that point, because there's a vibrant economy around and you probably could sell an unwanted item for cash monies, but then you would have massive amounts of wealth and nothing interesting (to the average murder hobo) to spend it on because magic items are rare and special. Also they went with a stupid crafting time based on GP value system that makes no loving sense again.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
goatface posted:There's a bit of an issue at that point, because there's a vibrant economy around and you probably could sell an unwanted item for cash monies, but then you would have massive amounts of wealth and nothing interesting (to the average murder hobo) to spend it on because magic items are rare and special.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
LFK posted:So what do the PCs do with all the cash? Same thing all idle rich do: party.   
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
LFK posted:I don't see this part as an inherently bad thing, all in all. Can you sell off that magical junk? Sure, you can find a buyer for just about anything if you're willing to be flexible on the price. They're just rarely for sale, or what is for sale is something you probably don't need once you can afford it. So what do the PCs do with all the cash? Same thing all idle rich do: party. gently caress that, I am here to maximize my murder points and crush all contenders. Get that hippy poo poo out of my D&D and back to LotR where it belongs!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The funny thing about thieves is that they were the worst single class, but the best multiclass. Thief/wizard and thief/fighter were both great if you didn't have access to kits, and frankly even with kits thief/wizard is still super good. Thief/mage is so very, very good. You'll be about a level behind a single class mage, but in exchange, you get more HP and THAC0 and a bunch more utility.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
LFK posted:So what do the PCs do with all the cash? Hire a bunch of mercenaries with crossbows to further make the party's fighter obsolete?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Moved to grognards thread.
Mordiceius fucked around with this message at 03:48 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Saw this in another thread and it kind of made me depressed: That's nice but this actually isn't the edition wars thread. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
.
Mordiceius fucked around with this message at 03:47 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:Hire a bunch of mercenaries with crossbows to further make the party's fighter obsolete? You're just framing it wrong: the Fighter's not obsolete, he's working smarter, not harder, by hiring disposable chumps to do his job for him.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:Hire a bunch of mercenaries with crossbows to further make the party's fighter obsolete? And then when they're dead, the Wizard can recycle their skeletons.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:And then when they're dead, the Wizard can recycle their skeletons. Good ol' Skeleton-backed economy. Next's one shining moment of unquestioned superiority.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Obviously they're going to use it to build castles and manors and stuff, because the DMG's rules for those are so good.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Obviously they're going to use it to build castles and manors and stuff, because the DMG's rules for those are so good. Why are there even rules for that. Why do PCs care? Why don't you just outright GET a fortress with followers after a certain level??
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Why are there even rules for that. Why do PCs care? Why don't you just outright GET a fortress with followers after a certain level?? 1. They already had something written up in a 3.5 splatbook somewhere, so it was all a matter of Ctrl-C-Ctrl-V. A ton of 5e's copy is just lifted mostly verbatim from older editions. 2. As Cirno said, despite all its claims to be an edition that everyone will like, 5e doesn't actually look back towards pre-3.5 D&D very much, including the part about automatically earning a Domain once you hit Name level.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Did pre-3rd Edition D&D have wealth-by-level rules, even?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
LFK posted:Here's a rundown of broad/interesting changes This is actually why in my house rules write up I put Maneuvers back on every single non-caster class, and then made Fighters the undisputed masters of using them. Doesn't entirely reverse the damage, but, at least its something... gradenko_2000 posted:1. They already had something written up in a 3.5 splatbook somewhere, so it was all a matter of Ctrl-C-Ctrl-V. A ton of 5e's copy is just lifted mostly verbatim from older editions. Its the edition that pleases no one except 3e grogs and people who have never played a TTRPG before.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Its the edition that pleases no one except 3e grogs and people who have never played a TTRPG before. I like some ideas in 5e, but yeah. Like if you slapped the whole milieu of Proficiency and Advantage onto a game with 4e powers instead of the 3.5 spell list, it could be amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
So yeah that look back on the Fighter was nice, wouldn't mind seeing one for the Monk who at one point lost maneuvers . . . and gained NOTHING in return, while the Fighter at that point at least got something. Monk had a lot of changes, nearly as many as Fighter. Also wouldn't mind someone going through with changes for Spellcasters, especially the Warlock and Sorcerer who showed up in an early playtest, back when there were only 5 levels, then disappeared until the super secret private playtest where they were hugely changed, never getting actual playtest with these changes, before final release.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 06:42
|
|