|
P.d0t posted:
While I'm loath to hold Pathfinder up as an actual good game I'll point out that at the very least Pathfinder has, within its vast and sprawling reach, martial classes that could, with some squinting, actually not be a complete waste of time and caster classes that don't overtly knock game balance out the window while laughing. This is a stupid argument because neither game is good, they're both bad for many of the same reasons, but right now Next is both A). a bad game and B). not even a very well supported bad game at that. There's nothing to cherry-pick, there's no Next equivalent of Paths of War or whatever, no digital character builder, no good adventures, nothing. Also while I question many of Paizo's hiring decisions (why yes, please employ Sean K. Reynolds and let Ryan Dancey ride your coattails, that's a great idea) at least Lisa Stevens has kept her courting of edition warriors at a degree of separation instead of bringing on the RPGPundit and Zak S as credited consultants. The correct answer between "PF or Next?" is to play something else. Organized play also sounds like a miserable experience from virtually every trip report I've ever seen so that's not a selling point in either case. Like, if you're not interested in curating a game group and really digging down into some elfgaming, you know what a great way to get some casual tabletop gaming in is? Board games. There are tons of fun board games, you can be as casual as you like about'em, lots of game stores do board game nights or you can find board gaming groups through places like Meetup, and a lot of board games are better designed than either Pathfinder or D&D Next.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
goatface posted:You can't really cheat-sheet a full spell list. There's just too much text.  What kind of scrub doesnt scribble out their own spellbook?  Based on my single data point Pathfinder has the worst people ever* and should be avoided at all costs. Like go play pokemon or something if Pathfinder is the choice. *I am not including the die-hard vampire people as people in that statement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
"Between the two most inexplicably popular regressive clusterfucks that represent the current state of D&D, which would you rather be stuck with?" is the most depressing discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Solid Jake posted:"Between the two most inexplicably popular regressive clusterfucks that represent the current state of D&D, which would you rather be stuck with?" is the most depressing discussion. I mean, I find it kind of depressing how many people here are putting in time and effort to try and houserule and homebrew Next into something halfway decent, untangling the encounter building guidelines to try and backsolve the math or "okay, well what if we gave the Fighter this? What about this? Maybe something else?" You can slap all the lipstick on a pig you want but it's not going to make it that much prettier. There are a bazillion D&Ds out there right now, retroclones and neoretroclones and nouveauretroclones and 13th Age and Dungeon World and Strike! and hell, I don't even like a lot of those games personally but I'd still rather play one than trying to hammer someone's halfassed paean to the people who stripped a gear over Damage on a Miss into shape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:
Honestly, I'd pick PF. I could have my players all play one of the many full caster classes. Or I could have them all play mid-tier partial casters. Or I could have them all play poo poo-tier martials. In any of those games, there is enough variety of classes to pick from. Not really so in 5e. What would a mid-tier 5e game look like? 2 Paladins, 2 Monks and a sub-optimal warlock? I wouldn't have to waste a lot of time gaining system mastery in PF to do this because I could just look up a tier list that someone else had compiled. I just did in order to check that I wasn't talking out of my rear end and it took literally 30 seconds. But yeah, I'm in the "neither" camp myself. And I'm sure I don't need to tell you guys what I'd play instead. Edit: Googling "D&D 5e class tiers" just led me into threads that felt like I was reading grogs.txt. Every time I venture off these forums, I'm reminded why I love them so much. You guys are great - never change. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
It's honestly to Pathfinder's benefit, insofar as this is a "benefit," that you can very easily find plenty of exhaustive breakdowns of exactly how Pathfinder's system is hosed, what that means, and how to work around it, which classes are brokenly good and which are stupidly bad, the accumulated encounter building experience of 15+ years of people playing 3.X and its derivatives. No, you shouldn't need to do that for any game, but if your goal is to try and make the best of a bad situation then at least a lot of the busywork has already been done for Pathfinder so, y'know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Don't you have to take a feat in Pathfinder to not take a huge penalty to shoot into melee
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Yes, and it's locked behind another feat. So if you're not playing a human or a fighter, you can't get it at level 1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Red Metal posted:Yes, and it's locked behind another feat. So if you're not playing a human or a fighter, you can't get it at level 1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Honestly, I'd pick PF. I could have my players all play one of the many full caster classes. Or I could have them all play mid-tier partial casters. Or I could have them all play poo poo-tier martials. In any of those games, there is enough variety of classes to pick from. Not really so in 5e. What would a mid-tier 5e game look like? 2 Paladins, 2 Monks and a sub-optimal warlock? So in addition to having a glut of more options, PF is for more researched than 5e. Got it. Like I said, give it another 12 years and 5e will be as researched (and bloated) as PF is now. My point is that this is basically an argument in favour of inertia. I mean, as far as the classes in 5e go, there seems to be consensus (among people who don't have their heads up their asses) as to which ones are poo poo, which ones are OK and which ones are a cut above (with a few kinda straddling the grey spaces in between). It's not as though 5e is some unknowable morass and pathfinder somehow isn't  Like, are people actually weighing the $50 PHB against all the free info there is on the internet for 3.x? Because I can tell you right now, I'm a lot happier about the $50 I spent on 5e than the $0 I spent on 3.x over the years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I mean, as far as the classes in 5e go, there seems to be consensus (among people who don't have their heads up their asses) as to which ones are poo poo, which ones are OK and which ones are a cut above (with a few kinda straddling the grey spaces in between). It's not as though 5e is some unknowable morass and pathfinder somehow isn't
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:So in addition to having a glut of more options, PF is for more researched than 5e. Got it. Actually I suspect it won't be. The D&D team has already been pared down to the bone, to the point where "the guy who was responsible for writing that has jury duty so he can't right now" is literally an excuse being given for why stuff is behind projected schedules. 4E's version of Dragon Magazine started out as a fairly robust supplementary product with a bunch of additional stuff to bring into games, Next's version of Dragon Magazine is a poorly formatted morass of masturbatory advertisements. I guarantee you that you're never going to see a Martial Power book for Next so long as Mearls is catering to the anti Damage on a Miss crowd that gives Fighters et al anything worth considering except by accident. So no, I doubt that Next is going to ever have as much support behind it as Pathfinder currently does, or will continue to in the future. Next's "open development" was frittering two years of time away to produce a thoroughly mediocre game, so far the proposed digital tools that they were going to release have gone up in smoke after a falling out with the company tapped to produce it, Dragon Magazine is basically worthless, the general consensus of the published adventures is that they're garbage, and there's very little hype going on over future releases, no new settings, no "oh man you guys are gonna love this." Next has less "bloat" than Pathfinder only by virtue of having all the signs of limping along on life support, and "well at least this lovely game has less stuff in it" isn't exactly a selling point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
While I'm glad the 90s-style "supplement treadmill" has largely disappeared (and especially glad that it took its cousin "metaplot" along to oblivion), the near total lack of support for Next is kind of shocking, especially given that it's still in its launch phase. The big three core books, roughly one adventure (plus added crunch) book a quarter (and those are largely outsourced), half-baked free online system enhancements, and an online support magazine that's 90% ads - and that's it. The total lack of setting material is kind of amazing. The D&D department's headcount must be in the single digits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The D&D department's headcount must be in the single digits. I can't remember where it was posted, but it was mentioned in an interview article someone did with Mike Mearls where he discusses the state of the current D&D Team and it's something like 8 people actually doing game design stuff if that, along with a handful of non-design related positions. It really does sound very tiny for what's essentially the brand name of elfgames. And I'm still trying to puzzle out how Next is somehow a better game than Pathfinder because it has less stuff. Like, both games are bad. One game being less bloated doesn't somehow make it less bad, not being bloated is only a selling point if the game in question is good compared to the bloated one. Also yes, I would absolutely weigh the abundance of free resources for Pathfinder over a $50 Next PHB because one of those is a lovely game that cost me $50 and one is a lovely game that cost me $0. Is this some weird sunk cost thing at work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Because I can tell you right now, I'm a lot happier about the $50 I spent on 5e than the $0 I spent on 3.x over the years. As someone who has played neither, I'm happy to admit you might be right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Hang on a second, 5e isn't just some lovely game that costs $50. It costs $100 for the DM, and $50 for each PC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:It really does sound very tiny for what's essentially the brand name of elfgames.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
FMguru posted:It does comport with my suspicion that Hasbro's plan is to keep D&D around in maintenance mode. A backwards looking retrograde edition with just a trickle of ongoing support plus reprints of core books from previous editions, combined with zero effort to reach new audiences or market or promote or evolve or develop the property means doing the bare minimum for keeping the game in print and alive in hopes of cashing on its retro-nostalgic nerd brand name somewhere down the line. I suspect it's only backwards looking because of Mearls and if someone with different ideas were in the lead dev chair, the game would be utterly different since it would still be a minor line item on WotC and Hasbro's income with the game only existing to keep the brand warm in case either of them want to try and use it again for something more than elfgames. Surprisingly, they haven't made any moves that would seem to allow them to capitalize off of Game of Thrones. I'd think D&D would have something in it that could be marketable as a fantasy drama, but I guess they don't see it having high prospects or high returns
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
They can't easily break into the current nerd zeitgeist because the game is too complicated to easily learn without someone experienced in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
I'm now really regretting buying the core set for 5E, especially since there's no way I'm ever going to run it, at this point if I run something D&D related it'll probably be an OSR/Retroclone game as those tend to be at least somewhat usable(even the worst OSR games I've seen blow 5E completely out of the water in terms of crunch), in fact for anyone wanting to get into D&D I'd recommend getting Basic Fantasy Roleplaying as it's not only a fantastic system, it's also dirt cheap to get a physical copy(it's free in PDF form), and is very well supported both officially and through fan content(this applies to a lot of other OSR systems also as they tend to all be really cheap to get into and are often well supported by high quality supplementary materiel) Also if I ever get anywhere with my pipe dream of making a RPG of my own, unless it's really low fantasy(like where even 1st level spells would be considered impressive), I'd establish quite clearly that ALL PC Classes are supernatural in some form or another(probably the smartest idea that Earthdawn ever came up with) even if they don't directly use magic, as it solves a lot of potential issues if you use that as your base assumption
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Also if I ever get anywhere with my pipe dream of making a RPG of my own, unless it's really low fantasy(like where even 1st level spells would be considered impressive), I'd establish quite clearly that ALL PC Classes are supernatural in some form or another(probably the smartest idea that Earthdawn ever came up with) even if they don't directly use magic, as it solves a lot of potential issues if you use that as your base assumption I've had the same exact thoughts. Just call everyone with PC classes or powers magical/supernatural in some way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Also if I ever get anywhere with my pipe dream of making a RPG of my own, unless it's really low fantasy(like where even 1st level spells would be considered impressive), I'd establish quite clearly that ALL PC Classes are supernatural in some form or another(probably the smartest idea that Earthdawn ever came up with) even if they don't directly use magic, as it solves a lot of potential issues if you use that as your base assumption D&D used to have a little bit of that "even first-level spells are impressive" thing to it. Do you know how many spells per day a first-level Magic User has in Rules Cyclopedia D&D? One. One spell per day. That's true of AD&D, too. It was supposed to be a big deal when the Magic User had to cast a spell, and it would slowly grow to be more and more prominent as the group leveled up. Think Gandalf, especially the Grey version. Dude doesn't actually cast a whole lot of spells in Lord of the Rings, but when he does it's a big drat deal. I think that's what it was supposed to be like. Like, you'd start the game as a bunch of schmucks who happen to be traveling with some wizard who could be mistaken for a conjurer of cheap tricks, whose spells are rare but cool. And as you all leveled up, you'd turn into Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and Gandalf, all superhuman badasses in your own right. Somehow, "how Gygax intended" has morphed into "everyone plays as some random soldier who gets owned by an orc at Helm's Deep except the wizard is Gandalf."
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
I'll hold up one thing in Pathfinder's favor: while I'm not crazy about the game, the adventure paths actually look interesting. I'm enjoying the Kingmaker game I'm in, and stuff like Skull & Shackles, Iron Gods, Reign of Winter, etc., sound different enough to be fun. I'm aware they need hacking and paring down -- I'm doing the same with my Way of the Wicked game -- but as long as there's a decent skeleton there. By comparison, the 5E adventure paths I've seen so far all sound like bland, generic D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Selachian posted:By comparison, the 5E adventure paths I've seen so far all sound like bland, generic D&D. Xelkelvos posted:I suspect it's only backwards looking because of Mearls and if someone with different ideas were in the lead dev chair, the game would be utterly different since it would still be a minor line item on WotC and Hasbro's income with the game only existing to keep the brand warm in case either of them want to try and use it again for something more than elfgames. quote:Surprisingly, they haven't made any moves that would seem to allow them to capitalize off of Game of Thrones. I'd think D&D would have something in it that could be marketable as a fantasy drama, but I guess they don't see it having high prospects or high returns
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Surprisingly, they haven't made any moves that would seem to allow them to capitalize off of Game of Thrones It's not that surprising. There's nothing really similar between those two things except that they're both set in medieval-ish worlds that have dragons. E: beaten, but it's worth reiterating that D&D isn't, and never really has been, a generic fantasy game. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
The last political-esque setting D&D had was the 4e Neverwinter book. Probably one of the better campaign setting books D&D has ever had. I got 2 good campaigns out of that, and wish we had more books with a tight focus on one city and its politics, instead of 'heres an entire planet'.Selachian posted:I'll hold up one thing in Pathfinder's favor: while I'm not crazy about the game, the adventure paths actually look interesting. I'm enjoying the Kingmaker game I'm in, and stuff like Skull & Shackles, Iron Gods, Reign of Winter, etc., sound different enough to be fun. I'm aware they need hacking and paring down -- I'm doing the same with my Way of the Wicked game -- but as long as there's a decent skeleton there. For all the Pathfinder vs 5E talk, this is the real reason to recommend PF. 5E has almost nothing for adventure content. It just cant compete with stuff like Way of the Wicked. And wotc acts like you can just use pre-5e modules with 5e, while providing no guidelines to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:It's not that surprising. There's nothing really similar between those two things except that they're both set in medieval-ish worlds that have dragons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
ritorix posted:And wotc acts like you can just use pre-5e modules with 5e, while providing no guidelines to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:I'm now really regretting buying the core set for 5E, especially since there's no way I'm ever going to run it, at this point if I run something D&D related it'll probably be an OSR/Retroclone game as those tend to be at least somewhat usable(even the worst OSR games I've seen blow 5E completely out of the water in terms of crunch), in fact for anyone wanting to get into D&D I'd recommend getting Basic Fantasy Roleplaying as it's not only a fantastic system, it's also dirt cheap to get a physical copy(it's free in PDF form), and is very well supported both officially and through fan content(this applies to a lot of other OSR systems also as they tend to all be really cheap to get into and are often well supported by high quality supplementary materiel) Seconding the love for Basic Fantasy as a free clone of Basic D&D that gets rid of a lot of the original's cruft like descending AC. Harrow posted:D&D used to have a little bit of that "even first-level spells are impressive" thing to it. Do you know how many spells per day a first-level Magic User has in Rules Cyclopedia D&D? One. One spell per day. That's true of AD&D, too. It was supposed to be a big deal when the Magic User had to cast a spell, and it would slowly grow to be more and more prominent as the group leveled up. There's a passage from Wizards Presents Races and Classes that has some insight into this: quote:Wizards are fragile but use potent spells to swing entire encounters. It's almost like the design they had in mind was "the Wizard only has the one spell, and they only get to use it once a day, so when they finally use it, it's not the fact that it violates the laws of physics that makes it special, it's also that it guarantees you're going to win the current fight, right then and there, and the decision that the Wizard has to keep in mind is which fight he needs to blow his one spell slot on. If they're cowering the rest of the time and slinging stones at effectively 0 BAB and no relevant stat bonus, that's okay, because the Fighter is going to take care of every other fight that the Wizard deems isn't worth casting Sleep on" Which is actually kind of evocative of certain fantasy genre tropes as far as the interplay between members of an adventuring party (and you can even see how well this works in every D&D game where the single human player controls the entire party), but it breaks down when you have one person controlling just their one Wizard the whole time and one person controlling their one Fighter the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
The problem is aspiring to replicate Lord of the Rings in the first place. In a story characters can have different amounts of narrative agency (or at least narrative frequency) because the aim is to please the reader, not the characters. Sam can be of little or no consequence until the final act because nobody is playing Sam. Nobody sits down at the table and thinks, "Oh man I can't wait to be useless for 9/10 of this game so that I can kinda be the hero at the last minute." Characters fade into the background temporarily when it would be out of character for them to contribute to a given scene, or when they have nothing important to reveal about themselves. Gandalf is a special case. Gandalf actually enjoys godlike power but is bound by certain restrictions with regards to how involved he can be. The story continuously contrives to remove Gandalf from the party so that he doesn't overshadow the other characters. Imagine a game where Pippin, Boromir and Gandalf are all expected to be equal participants in most scenes. Nobody contrives to remove Gandalf and Pippin's relative uselessness isn't hidden behind the narrative tropes of 'lovable fool' or 'hero in the final hour.' It's a nightmare! (You could even argue it's DnD.) It's insane to try to port the same logic that makes a book work into an RPG. It's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Harrow posted:D&D used to have a little bit of that "even first-level spells are impressive" thing to it. Do you know how many spells per day a first-level Magic User has in Rules Cyclopedia D&D? One. One spell per day. That's true of AD&D, too. It was supposed to be a big deal when the Magic User had to cast a spell, and it would slowly grow to be more and more prominent as the group leveled up. For people looking for more settings stuff, or politics stuff, or basically anything, look back through the 2e era material and you will probably find something related to what you were thinking about. The amount of disparate material that was put out back then was impressive. For that matter you could play Rome, or Norway, or Ireland if that was your thing. (I didnt get these, but some people loved them.) http://www.amazon.com/The-Glory-Rome-Sourcebook-Historical/dp/1560766735 http://www.amazon.com/Campaign-Sourcebook-Advanced-Historical-Reference/dp/1560763744 http://www.amazon.com/Vikings-Campaign-Sourcebook-Advanced-Dungeons/dp/1560761288 Wanna play a real paladin? http://www.amazon.com/Charlemagnes-Paladins-Campaign-Sourcebook-Roleplaying/dp/1560763930
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Funny enough that wizard archtype was plenty alive and well in 4e. Wizard at-wills were vaugely ignoreable and wizard encounters were mostly decent, but wizard dailies shattered everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Funny enough that wizard archtype was plenty alive and well in 4e. Wizard at-wills were vaugely ignoreable and wizard encounters were mostly decent, but wizard dailies shattered everything. As much as I like 4e, this is stretching to praise it, mostly because it's not true at all. They didn't typically deal huge damage to one target because Wizards are controllers, but they had some great at wills. It's just besides essentials, characters at wills don't end encounters. And Wizards got a loving daze for a turn at level 1 for an encounter power. Their dailies' powers aren't off set by the fact that they're generally weaker, because they're not at all. They're one of the best controllers. What the dailies are balanced by is that most of them aren't friendly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I've had the same exact thoughts. Just call everyone with PC classes or powers magical/supernatural in some way. Harrow posted:D&D used to have a little bit of that "even first-level spells are impressive" thing to it. Do you know how many spells per day a first-level Magic User has in Rules Cyclopedia D&D? One. One spell per day. That's true of AD&D, too. It was supposed to be a big deal when the Magic User had to cast a spell, and it would slowly grow to be more and more prominent as the group leveled up. yeah you have a point there, although I definitely prefer 4e's approach that has everyone on more even footing(only reason I don't run it myself is that 4e both takes way too much time to run, and involves way more math than I want to have to deal with)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:yeah you have a point there, although I definitely prefer 4e's approach that has everyone on more even footing(only reason I don't run it myself is that 4e both takes way too much time to run, and involves way more math than I want to have to deal with) I think it's easier to balance in the 4e way--you don't have to worry too much about deciding whether limited uses on an ability balance out what that ability can do when everyone's using the same paradigm there. While old D&D and AD&D worked fairly well, these day's I'd take "everyone's balanced all the time" every time. That's why I like Dungeon World (everyone has lots of narrative power) and 13th Age so much, when it comes to that "dungeon fantasy" genre of RPG.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
djw175 posted:As much as I like 4e, this is stretching to praise it, mostly because it's not true at all. They didn't typically deal huge damage to one target because Wizards are controllers, but they had some great at wills. It's just besides essentials, characters at wills don't end encounters. And Wizards got a loving daze for a turn at level 1 for an encounter power. Their dailies' powers aren't off set by the fact that they're generally weaker, because they're not at all. They're one of the best controllers. What the dailies are balanced by is that most of them aren't friendly. I think the main difference is when you compare then to Invokers and Psions. There's no martial controller and druids were a weird mish-mash class, but you get a real big contrast to the other two. Psions have the same problem all power point classes have: they're mechanically encouraged to keep a cheap and good low level at-will and rarely if ever upgrade up. This means the psion encounter becomes the psion at-will; in essence, the Psion DOES get a very powerful at-will that lets them destroy enemy attack rolls. The Invoker on the other hand has dailies nowhere near the wizard, but has far more incredible encounter powers. You get a pretty interesting trio. The psion is a workhorse that will always target a 3x3 square and reduce it's attack power to rubble for most of the encounter, but has pretty weak dailies comparatively. The Invoker at-wills are decent enough, but will suddenly shift the tide of battle with their awesome encounter powers, and can very easily combine either both blaster and controller or leader and controller with judicious hybriding. The wizard generally doesn't want to focus on blasting, their at-wills are decent enough, their encounter powers are good but pale compared to the Invoker, but their dailies are absurd and can completely alter the game; they probably don't want to hybrid, but only because they don't want some other class' powers. Wait sorry I mean they all play the same all classes are the same in glorious communist 4e they're all just dumb mmo bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
There's technically a martial controller in the essentials Hunter, it's just a weird mish mash class that (like everything else essentials) uses nothing but RBAs and at will toggles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:yeah pretty much, here's what I imagine a level 9 Barbarian(or maybe Fighter) would be like; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBBVPSsFCUc Ah, an anime that shares Dynasty Warriors' disdain for horses. What's D&D5e supposed to be anyway? It doesn't seem like it's going for just a Dungeon Fantasy/Dungeondelving or Fantasy Tactical Battle simulation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:There's technically a martial controller in the essentials Hunter, it's just a weird mish mash class that (like everything else essentials) uses nothing but RBAs and at will toggles. Strictly speaking the Hunter is Martial/Primal. I should know, I wrote the CharOp handbook.  Also, can only technically be called a controller, given that a straight archer ranger is a more functional controller for much of the life of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
The Seeker also exists, but is bad (and primal). They're trying to design an updated version of chess, while insisting that it conform to the rules of Warhammer because that's what the people who shout a lot on the internet play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 00:57
|
|
