|
Bluedeanie posted:Beastmaster is pretty bad too. Beastmaster is probably the worst and least functional spec in the game so far.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
On the flipside, Paladins, who were quite ranger-like in 3e, are actually mostly pretty cool and well-designed in 5e. An Oath of the Ancients Paladin make a quite acceptable nature-themed warrior, and you can Ask Your GM to see if they'll even let you take the Two-Weapon Fighting style if you really want it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
It's not like the designers didn't have roughly a decade of inspiration to draw from with regards to how "player+pet" mechanics are supposed to work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
TBF 4e's answer to "Player+pet" was 'loving don't." due to the way the action economy was balanced. And that's basically the problem. They only way to balance the ranger is to let it be overpowered when it can bring both itself and its pet to bear on a target, because that's not going to happen all the time and when it doesn't the ranger is going to be worse than if he had taken one of the other ranger options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
It's weird how Rangers just don't really get anything good. Favored Enemy could easily add their Wisdom modifier to damage. They could be given an ability that gives them free surprise rounds. It's crazy that it takes your actual attack action to make your pet attack. With that kind of drawback, the rangers shouldn't have to take an archetype to get a pet!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
The alternative I had in mind was that you could probably manipulate the numbers enough that Ranger+pet attacking a single target works out to roughly the same DPR as a Fighter by himself, similar to how a WoW Hunter needs his pet to be hitting the boss for max DPS (and granting of course that there's now a pet-less Hunter build for when pets aren't desired for whatever reason). I mean, they made it work as far as a Warlock's Eldritch Blast is roughly the same as a martial's auto-attack, and in fact gets its fourth attack earlier than a Fighter does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Make the pet attack when the ranger attacks, period. What's the worst that happens, it ends up better than the fighter in terms of attacks?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Abstract the pet. You have a pet. An animal companion. A cool dog or ocelot or something that is your buddy. At the start of any given round, decide if your pet is going to do one of these things that scale with your level: Protect you (AC bonus). Aid you (attack/damage bonus). Give you a bonus/extra/in-additon low damage range attack within 30' or something Do a roleplaying thing that doesn't need no goddamn rules. Also once per Pets don't take damage and can't be killed unless you also make up a rule about killing/breaking other people's class features, the details of which would be up to the individual DM. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
I don't think you need to even do anything that screwy with it. Make your companion fight as your bonus action instead of your attack action. Roll for its hp when you level just like you roll for yours. If you want to get really crazy, set up a chart where its AC and damage output scale by a set fraction every 3-5 levels or so, or just let the Ranger adopt a monster of a higher CR at certain interval levels. This coupled with the wisdom mod added to attack roles against favored enemies that was just suggested and Ranger is significantly improved without completely changing its role, like the new ranger guidelines they just put out that make Rangers weird MonkRogues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Yeah, it strikes me as odd that the Favoured Enemy/Terrain stuff is just bonuses to skill checks, and not to combat. Like, 5e sets baselines in terms of attack bonus, so apparently no class can have a situational +math to their attack, above and beyond that? (unless it's from Archery Fighting Style, of course  )
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Bluedeanie posted:Beastmaster is pretty bad too. You get an animal companion with a DC of 1/4 or less, but you can only order it to do attacks as your action, so by the time you get to like level 4 you're already beyond a point where you'd ever want to use your animal companion because your own attack is more valuable and you're way less vulnerable against the monsters you're fighting at that point than your Giant Honey Badger or whatever. That's a mess. There is no way any of the playtest DMS let that go RAW. Reznor fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Abstract the pet. I admit Im one of those people that gets annoyed at the "pet players" who want to spend a lot of time talking about what their dog is doing, and their bird is doing and their horse is doing, moreso when Im GMing and they want me to spend half the session running a parallel game for their pretend pets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:This is the least intrusive thing to do when theres a group of players that dont have two characters to run. I think the obvious answer here is to make the entire party have pets so you can have the occasional Legion of Super-Pets B-side adventure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:This is the least intrusive thing to do when theres a group of players that dont have two characters to run. Yes - the pet shouldn't mechanically be an individual character any more than the wizard's spells or the thief's abilities are an individual character.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
Roadie posted:I think the obvious answer here is to make the entire party have pets so you can have the occasional Legion of Super-Pets B-side adventure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:TBF 4e's answer to "Player+pet" was 'loving don't." due to the way the action economy was balanced. And that's basically the problem. They only way to balance the ranger is to let it be overpowered when it can bring both itself and its pet to bear on a target, because that's not going to happen all the time and when it doesn't the ranger is going to be worse than if he had taken one of the other ranger options. a harpy posted:It's weird how Rangers just don't really get anything good. Favored Enemy could easily add their Wisdom modifier to damage. gently caress rangers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
The only right and just thing to do with a pet is have it get killed
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:There was also the sentinel druid I guess but I've never seen it played and have no idea how its companion works. Not well. Instead of encounter powers, Sentinels can do a basic attack and also make their pet do a basic attack. They never get any decent leader dailies, either. It was Mike Mearls' first step in throwing out everything sensible from 4e. At least you can hybrid Shaman/Sentinel, with Fey Beast Tamer and druid summoning dailies to have an entire party just for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
At our game rangers pets just get to attack along with the player. It's not game breaking or anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
So dndclassics.com isn't its own separate site anymore: that URL just redirects you into dmsguild.com. Rabble rabble change is bad because I couldn't give a poo poo about 3rd-party stuff for 5th Edition unless I'm getting it word-of-mouth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
So what I'm hearing is don't make my next PC a Ranger - make them a Druid?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Anything without nine levels of spells is starting with a serious handicap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:So what I'm hearing is don't make my next PC a Ranger - make them a Druid? I am playing an incredibly homebrewed ranger equivalent that fixes a lot of problems, so if your DM is ok with you doing so, that's an option to consider. Otherwise Ranger is not completely useless (so long as you avoid Beastmaster), but know that whatever flavor of Ranger you want to build, there is another class build that can do those key things you want to focus on better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Followed by Goldpieces, Fireball, You're Only Raised Twice, and Dungeons Are Forever. For me, the franchise didn't really tank until "Crit and Let Die". "The Orc with the Golden Club" wasn't bad though…
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
The rebooted franchise was okay, but it took a serious downturn with Featherfall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/2016-february-surveyquote:However, the really interesting piece comes down to the overall reaction to prestige classes. Please God no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:For me, the franchise didn't really tank until "Crit and Let Die". "The Orc with the Golden Club" wasn't bad though… I thought "A View to a Crit" was So Bad It's Good myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
All I'm saying is, Flaming Sphere is a better pet than a rangers pet. If the pretty could move and attack as your bonus action, that would be cool. Especially if they had other buffs/abilities they got as they leveled up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
So we continue our journey to '3.5, but lazier'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
"90% of you used prestige classes"  Who the gently caress actually got to a point in a campaign where they could prestige? All my campaigns always seem to end right before (or after, in one case) my PC could prestige.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:"90% of you used prestige classes" So you stopped all your 3.5 campaigns before like level 6? Andrast fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
The only base classes that didn't want to prestige as soon as possible were wizards and druids and most times even they could find something that they wanted, most people had their prestige class picked out since level 1 so they could plan their feats accordingly. I've never not been in a 3.5 game where someone was in a prestige class at some point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:"90% of you used prestige classes" 1st level 3.5 is for idiots and morons, 4-6th is the best starting level IMO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Power Player posted:Please God no. "Of those of you who played third edition D&D..." Reading between the lines here: Those of you who didn't play third edition D&D can go Edit: the D&D team's answers become so much better if you just replace all instances of "ask your DM" with "go gently caress yourself".
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Andrast posted:So you stopped all your 3.5 campaigns stopped before like level 6? It seems to be a common phenomenon that 3.5 games last about 5 levels before everyone re-rolls/plays something else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
What's interesting is that they consider Prestige Classes as a feature in and of itself, rather than the concept of "increased class abilities within a specialization" as whole, which has gone through several different forms, such as the Paladin / Avenger in RC, the High Level Campaigns splatbook in AD&D 2e, and Paragon and Epic classes in 4e. Can I invoke the phrase "cargo cult design" here as correct usage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
"We had a system that gave way, WAY more power to PCs, yet required inordinate amounts of planning and was generally super irritating to use while being so good it was mandatory - and yet you didn't all love it??? What gives, players?"gradenko_2000 posted:What's interesting is that they consider Prestige Classes as a feature in and of itself, rather than the concept of "increased class abilities within a specialization" as whole, which has gone through several different forms, such as the Paladin / Avenger in RC, the High Level Campaigns splatbook in AD&D 2e, and Paragon and Epic classes in 4e. This is the very epitome of cargo cult design. They dunno why PrCs were used or what they were meant to do, only that third edition had 'em, so by god we need them too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What's interesting is that they consider Prestige Classes as a feature in and of itself, rather than the concept of "increased class abilities within a specialization" as whole, which has gone through several different forms, such as the Paladin / Avenger in RC, the High Level Campaigns splatbook in AD&D 2e, and Paragon and Epic classes in 4e. Those aren't the same things, though. Some prestige classes were basically just specializations, yes, but plenty of others went on complete tangents to base classes (warshaper, cabinet trickster, etc), a fair number were about mashing together the traits of multiple classes (arcane hierophant, eldritch disciple, etc), and some did just plain wacky stuff with the mechanics that wouldn't have fit a base class at all (war hulk, survivor). Prestige classes sprawl over a lot more territory than "specialization within existing classes". ProfessorCirno posted:"We had a system that gave way, WAY more power to PCs, yet required inordinate amounts of planning and was generally super irritating to use while being so good it was mandatory - and yet you didn't all love it??? What gives, players?" As somebody who enjoyed the minigame of 3.5 character building, I totally loved having all the weird-shaped Lego pieces that were the many, many prestige classes and trying to make unique stuff out of combining them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Going back over it all, and the latest survey for these 'kits'... Is it just me, or isn't this just basically already archetypes 5th has, more or less? Sword is a more gimmicky valor bard, cavalier basically takes the mounted combat feat and triples down on it, while doing little to solve the fact that mounted combat is a joke (or that off a mount get hosed), and the scout is pretty much your standard fighter/ranger/rogue mishmash. Fool admittedly is a bit different, but a good level 3 ability doesn't really cover for the 14th level one being a total case of paying a resource to do better and THEN get hosed at random whim. Like, I keep asking this and wondering, but, this is even more egregious than usual. What was the point of making this, when the whole gimmick of the original archetypes was to basically be what these kits were?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
Roadie posted:As somebody who enjoyed the minigame of 3.5 character building, I totally loved having all the weird-shaped Lego pieces that were the many, many prestige classes and trying to make unique stuff out of combining them. Same here, but it makes the barrier to entry for creating a new character that much higher. It also creates huge disparities in optimization between someone who makes a fighter by taking fighter 20 'cause they want to hit stuff vs. someone who makes a chaingun tripper or an ubercharger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 22:46
|
|
