|
Basically the game would be a lot better if: + Fighters had unlimited maneuvers + Rogues got a flat damage bonus + Most of the 1/day effects were changed to 1/encounter effects
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
Smash it Smash hit posted:I would rather have that swing than everyone doing equal amount of damage in every circumstance - then what would be the point of the different classes You mean like, "if everyone is special, no one is special"? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
If rogues are supposed to be safe in melee combat, why wouldn't every other martial be safe as well? Their melee role is really weird and I still think rogues and warriors would be better off merged into one class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:A Rogue that hits with their main-hand, plus their off-hand, plus their Sneak Attack is roughly equivalent to a Fighter with a two-hander that hits with all their attacks. If you're a Rogue using your Bonus Action to do TWF regularly, it becomes a LOT harder to convince yourself to take that 2nd level of Rogue. Going Rogue for your first level gives you the most skill proficiencies possible, Thieves' Tools, Expertise, and 1d6 Sneak Attack. I personally fall into the camp that the Rogue archetypes are all pretty bad. It's a dip class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I personally fall into the camp that the Rogue archetypes are all pretty bad. It's a dip class. They are, and it is, but it's largely by virtue of casters eclipsing their role of "guy who does things with Skills". This was a useful role in like, BECMI, but the flexibility and reliability of spells in modern D&D makes it irrelevant. In a vacuum, the rogue appears fine. When you start drawing comparisons, it's pretty bad. Would probably play it over a Fighter, though (meaning the whole class, not just dips).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
I enjoy playing as rogue, and found that by playing as a halfling I effectively got my sneak attack bonus in just about every melee situation, since they get to attack with advantage when attacking while adjacent to a friendly creature of medium size or larger. We typically found ourselves somewhat grouped together in close!range combat (and had a fairly lenient DM, to be fair) so I'd be able to just get close enough, sneak attack someone for my 2 or 3d6 and use cunning action to bail pretty easily. That strategy obviously depends on the situation and how your party winds up laid out, but I never had a problem with lack of sneak attack opportunities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
You only get access to SA without advantage in melee with an enemy of your enemy, not advantage itself. Halflings are still good for being able to use allies to hide to get actual advantage w/ cunning action though, or to cancel out disadvantage which otherwise makes it impossible to get SA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Bluedeanie posted:I enjoy playing as rogue, and found that by playing as a halfling I effectively got my sneak attack bonus in just about every melee situation, since they get to attack with advantage when attacking while adjacent to a friendly creature of medium size or larger. This is not a thing halflings can do. Rogues in general can get sneak attack if there's an ally (or rather, another enemy of the target) next to the target. This does not grant advantage, just sneak attack damage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Bluedeanie posted:We typically found ourselves somewhat grouped together in close!range combat This is also a thing that doesn't happen much in 5e. Ranged characters rule the roost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
I've learned from experience DMing that the "your attacks ignore cover" clauses of the Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper feats are absurdly powerful, especially when most of the party are variant humans just to pick it up, and they also kill the fun a bit by making positioning for ranged combat mindless. Ranged attackers tend to just do more damage with less risk. I've got one player whose playstyle is just "I'm going to stand as far back as possible and hemorrhage ranged attacks at anything within 600 ft. that doesn't have total cover". It's kind of hard to make things challenging for that guy without making combat all about his character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Kobold sappers, right under his feet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:I've got one player whose playstyle is just "I'm going to stand as far back as possible and hemorrhage ranged attacks at anything within 600 ft. that doesn't have total cover". It's kind of hard to make things challenging for that guy without making combat all about his character. My preferred variant is the Street sweeper Warlock: Extended Eldritch Blast + Spell Sniper + Knockback + Magical Darkvision + Darkness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:I've learned from experience DMing that the "your attacks ignore cover" clauses of the Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper feats are absurdly powerful, especially when most of the party are variant humans just to pick it up, and they also kill the fun a bit by making positioning for ranged combat mindless. Ranged attackers tend to just do more damage with less risk. I see your player has been following SA's own Princes of the Apocalypse PbP 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:They are, and it is, but it's largely by virtue of casters eclipsing their role of "guy who does things with Skills". This was a useful role in like, BECMI, but the flexibility and reliability of spells in modern D&D makes it irrelevant. Tomb of horrors loses a shitload of its tension after modern powercreep 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Smash it Smash hit posted:i mean its not ideal but, to me, it offers variance. The rogue is good at getting the drop on someone and doing damage, thats his objective. If he cant do it, then he is less useful. I mean I would rather have that swing than everyone doing equal amount of damage in every circumstance - then what would be the point of the different classes if a fighter and rogue similar damage at each stage or situation of combat. 1) The requirements for doing their thing are a formality. 2) The results of doing their thing are boring. 3) Whether or not they get to try to do their thing is not up to them. If the they can do their sneak attack (not under any conditions, GM not shutting them down) then the Rogue just has to jump through a few verbal hoops to get their damage bonus. Getting or not getting their damage bonus doesn't change their tactics at all, they just do the same thing they would have done otherwise but better/not as well. If they are under conditions or being shut down by the GM, then they can't sneak attack and there's nothing they can do about it. This all adds up to a very boring ability. A very TotM game approach would be if sneak attack was changed from a prescriptive ability (if you're being sneaky you can do a thing) to a descriptive ability (you attack sneakily, and as such can do things). Because you're a rogue you're always assumed to be being a sneaky dick, so whenever you attack choose to add one of a number of sneaky things to your effects (extra damage from a kidney stab, proned from a knee-jab, sand to the eyes etc). Or keep it as bonus-damage-under-circumstances, but give the rogue a whole bunch of ways to trigger these circumstances. Then the Rogue's turn becomes not "can I do my extra damage" to "which of the following neato-on-their-own things will I spend my bonus action on to allow for my extra damage". If the guy is already prone/blinded/on fire you get to stab him twice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Tomb of horrors loses a shitload of its tension after modern powercreep Isn't there a Tomb of Horrors 5e conversion somewhere? I've been running a dumb "detective agency" monster of the week style game for my normal group on Roll20, and it would be fun to pit them against the Tomb of Horrors I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:Isn't there a Tomb of Horrors 5e conversion somewhere? I've been running a dumb "detective agency" monster of the week style game for my normal group on Roll20, and it would be fun to pit them against the Tomb of Horrors I think. Wasn't it run somewhat recently at a convention, and entire parties were wiped out by the sphere of annihilation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
What does it actually take to build a sphere of annihilation? I'm building an adventure based on the fact Elven conquistadors are about to storm the Incan Dwarf embassy in not-Havana and I'm contemplating what sort of ridiculously OP defense mechanisms it could conceivably have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Couldn't you generate one with one of those demi-plane inside a pseudo-plane inside a planar-bubble item combinations?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Has anyone written up a "tier" system for 5e Feats? I assume there's more than one on WOTC or GiantITP forums, but 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Has anyone written up a "tier" system for 5e Feats? I assume there's more than one on WOTC or GiantITP forums, but Some class guides have them, since feats can be very class-dependent. Go find a fighter or wizard or whatever guide and you can find a feat breakdown.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Has anyone written up a "tier" system for 5e Feats? I assume there's more than one on WOTC or GiantITP forums, but Here's one from GITP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:You mean like, "if everyone is special, no one is special"? Even 4E characters had varying levels of DPR in exchange for other features. Some people on this board seem to think that the game can't be balanced unless everybody is literally doing a flat, equal amount of damage every round.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:I've learned from experience DMing that the "your attacks ignore cover" clauses of the Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper feats are absurdly powerful, especially when most of the party are variant humans just to pick it up, and they also kill the fun a bit by making positioning for ranged combat mindless. Ranged attackers tend to just do more damage with less risk. "I don't know," said the DM, "Ignoring pretty much all cover seems pretty good, and you use that tons." "That's from a feat," I said. "... Oh..."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Sailor Viy posted:Even 4E characters had varying levels of DPR in exchange for other features. Some people on this board seem to think that the game can't be balanced unless everybody is literally doing a flat, equal amount of damage every round. Splicer posted:Problems specific to 5e's sneak attack include: Splicer fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Sep 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Splicer posted:In 4e a rogue got their sneak attack when they had combat advantage. The easiest way to do this was flanking. This meant a lot of a rogue's strategies were based around jockeying themselves and the enemies into favourable positions, backed up by a lot of movement based powers and abilities. The rogue ended up dancing around the monsters, luring them all over the room, and setting up neat situations for the other characters. And if that got boring they could also take powers that blinded or proned enemies, which also granted advantage. Sneak attack was used as a carrot to encourage the rogue to Errol Flynn as hard as they could, and the rest of the game gave them the tools to do so. A good sneak attack. To further go along with this, in 5e flanking is an optional rule in the DMG. However, the sneak attack rules give a rogue the chance to sneak attack if someone is "flanking" in everything but name, so it almost works out the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Splicer posted:In 4e a rogue got their sneak attack when they had combat advantage. The easiest way to do this was flanking. This meant a lot of a rogue's strategies were based around You're missing the fact that CA was also a +2 to hit, so the easiest Sneak Attack state also gives you a better chance to actually do your damage; 5e missed this minor detail and as a non-caster you have almost no way to get Advantage™ other than hiding... and that basically only works on ranged weapon attacks. HMMMM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Worth noting also that any rogue worth their sneak attack has a bunch of ways of getting CA that don't require flanking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Or a good controller/leader buddy who can just hand that poo poo out on request.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
captain innocuous posted:However, the sneak attack rules give a rogue the chance to sneak attack if someone is "flanking" in everything but name, so it almost works out the same. The big glaring difference is, the Rogue doesn't need to be in melee. They can just shoot at the thing if a friendly is next to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:You're missing the fact that CA was also a +2 to hit, so the easiest Sneak Attack state also gives you a better chance to actually do your damage; 5e missed this minor detail and as a non-caster you have almost no way to get Advantage™ other than hiding... and that basically only works on ranged weapon attacks. HMMMM. Splicer fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Sep 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
A 1d6 shortbow is just as good as a 1d6 shortsword, just with an additional 75 ft. of effective range. The only reason to get into melee with a rogue is to swing a second weapon in your off-hand to give you a second chance to sneak attack if you missed the first time. Shoving targets prone for advantage would be a great reason to get into melee with a rogue, but that's based on strength, and by RAW you can't make an attack with your off-hand weapon unless you used your action to attack with your main hand, so there goes that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Let anyone use acrobatics for it and call it a trip attack. Let rogues cunning action it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
A shove is an attack though. Just shove with a light melee weapon, that fulfills the prerequisites for using TWF as a bonus action, simple. Rogues can have expertise in athletics even if they probably won't pump strength. If the thing is too big to shove prone, maybe it's big enough to climb onto with acrobatics as in the DMG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Let anyone use acrobatics for it and call it a trip attack. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:A shove is an attack though. Just shove with a light melee weapon, that fulfills the prerequisites for using TWF as a bonus action, simple. That's how it should work, sure. Unfortunately, a shove is a 'special melee attack' that doesn't use your weapons. It doesn't technically qualify as an 'attack', beyond the fact that you can use them in place of attacks during the Attack action. If special melee attacks worked like that, you could grapple or shove as an attack of opportunity (which should probably be allowed too), because the wording for attacks of opportunity states that you "make one melee attack".
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Nah, you can't shove or grapple as your opportunity attack because taking an OA is not taking an Attack Action that you can replace with a special melee attack. It's itself a special attack reaction. You absolutely can shove with a weapon. If a DM told me I couldn't shove with a halberd or whip to leverage its reach, (at least to trip, maybe not to push with the whip) they'd be wrong. e; If you can't shove with reach, then sport jousting probably always kills, even though unless you're cheating or an rear end in a top hat you should be aiming for your opponent's shield with the sole intent of unhorsing them. slydingdoor fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Sep 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Vanguard Warden posted:That's how it should work, sure. Unfortunately, a shove is a 'special melee attack' that doesn't use your weapons. It doesn't technically qualify as an 'attack', beyond the fact that you can use them in place of attacks during the Attack action. If special melee attacks worked like that, you could grapple or shove as an attack of opportunity (which should probably be allowed too), because the wording for attacks of opportunity states that you "make one melee attack". Where does it say this? Not to be an rear end, but it sure ain't in the PHB section called "Shoving a Creature"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Where does it say this? Not to be an rear end, but it sure ain't in the PHB section called "Shoving a Creature" It doesn't say that you do use your weapon, and you can shove with no weapons or free hands (like when you're grappling two creatures at once), so I assumed it didn't. Ask Your DM™ I guess. Vanguard Warden fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Sep 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
Natural Language! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2015 03:14
|
|