|
If you go sorcerer, Twinned Spell is gonna be your friend. Call it fork() for the nerd cred, talk about forkbombing a dude when you blast them twice. Take Dragon origin, whatever type you pick call it Comodo. Off thetop of my head I can't recall of any absolute must-haves for wizards. It won't matter that much, you'd have to be trying a lot harder than "picked warforged" to screw up a wizard build. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Nov 4, 2017 |
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Well, that's an interesting spell Dim light giving advantage is obscene in a game set primarily in tombs
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Fighters, learn how to deepthroat because Clerics now get an hour-long, 5th-level weapon buff that gives an extra 2d8 radiant damage on hit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Fighters, learn how to deepthroat because Clerics now get an hour-long, 5th-level weapon buff that gives an extra 2d8 radiant damage on hit. Is it concentration?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Is it concentration? Yes. It's magic weapon except it makes your weapon do a 2d8 smite on every hit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:mental stats probably need to be broken down into analogues to physical ones (so 3 instead of 2) but that creates such a mess it's never happen. plus it would hurt casters so we can't have that Why do they need to be symmetrical? Forcing three just because the other category has three seems like negative design pressure. It certainly is when I see that pattern at work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Due to 5e bounded accuracy, you don't need your saves to significantly scale up as you level up, the way they did in 3e and 4e. So having separate Fort/Ref/Will stats becomes redundant. I know I'm like a page behind on this comment, but this bolded part is out-and-out bullshit. The fact that you have 2 saves that scale up based on prof, and one (maybe two) that will scale up with ASIs (which may or may not also be one that scales up with prof) you're going to end up with a significant disparity in your save modifier, since half of them will never increase, but yet the DC math certainly will. esquilax posted:By directly linking saves to stats instead they were able to eliminate a subsystem from the game to simplify it. CON/DEX/WIS are still essentially FRW but easier to explain, and now saving throws are essentially the same as skill checks. I think you're missing the forest for the trees, because Saves very clearly are still a separate subsystem from skills, it's just that proficiency interacts with both (among other things.) Also, the glaring similarity gives us poo poo like people constantly erroneously thinking Hex impacts saving throws. esquilax posted:They either had the option of going through the entire system to even out saves across all six stats, or keeping 3 good stats and 3 bad stats and giving each PC proficiency in one stat in either column. They chose the latter. Or, since save profs are determined entirely by your level 1 class, they could have made things like "use CHA for your Will saves" into class features. Or just left it where only CON/DEX/WIS actually matter. But instead they did a half-assed job of trying to spread out save utilization, and giving each class "proficiency in one stat in either column" was just a way to patch their own laziness with even more laziness. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Nov 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I don't understand why saves exist and aren't just skills, they work identically to skills. They should have just put reflexes, will, fortitude in the skill list and given classes proficiency in one of them. It's not like all the skills are equally useful either, it doesn't matter. If save profs were bought with the same char-gen currency as skills, why not just take prof in all 3 saves? The reason saves are gated off as their own subsystem is pretty much the same reason I feel that less-useful skills should be gated off from say, any skills that can be used in combat i.e. Stealth/Perception and Athletics/Acrobatics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Fighters, learn how to deepthroat because Clerics now get an hour-long, 5th-level weapon buff that gives an extra 2d8 radiant damage on hit.  I think Clerics would be just as willing to provide favors to the Fighter, as a Fighter's number of attacks makes this probably the best damage spell in the Cleric arsenal. Polearm master/Crossbow expert-havers would have the chance to add 8d8 damage with this every round as early as level 11. Throw action surge on top of this, and a Fighter/Cleric team could melt some fairly high CR enemies in a single turn. Slippery42 fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Nov 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
I've been thinking about the problem with martial characters having a lack of hard narrative control compared to casters, and why a lot of players are resistant to the idea; I realise that these are almost certainly not new thoughts (in fact, I suspect that they're just a poorly articulated version of GMS theory), but I'd like to run them past people anyway. I think the problem that people have with giving Martial characters hard narrative control is a conflict between Physical Simulation (what D&D tends to try and do) and Narrative Simulation. If you look at D&D through the PhysSim sense, Magic allows specific breaking of the rules of reality, and the spell slots are representative of Effort in the same way that a Thief or Fighter's diced based attempt to Do a Thing is, with the balance being that the mundane method can be tried lots of times. Take a 3rd level Wizard and the Knock spell. They can cast it twice, and get through any door twice. Whereas the mundane characters can attempt to get through as many doors as they want, but might not always make it. From a Narrative sense the wizard's player is saying, "Getting through this door is important enough to spend a resource on." The martial characters have no equivalent way to flag to the GM that getting through that door is really loving important to them too. So let's say we give our fighter an ability called Gatecrasher - for all intents and purposes, it acts as the Knock spell. And we'll say they can use it twice a day. At this point the PhysSim crowd go, "Why? Why can this only be used twice a day, it's not like our fighter is channelling arcane energy." If you say something like, "Well, maybe you bruised your shoulder slamming that last door open", the grog says, "Shouldn't other physical activities be penalised too then?". That's the mindset that needs to be overcome to get the more trad-crowd interested in giving non-casters hard narrative control. Most people probably don't even see that spells are allowing that hard narrative control in the first place. There are even attempts to take away some of the Hard options that non-casting classes get; e.g. the Assassin's ability to spend 25gp and a week to produce a fake ID - some people want the character to roll for it, or to have spent time making local contacts etc, whereas the rules are quite straight forwards - spend 25gp and a week, get ID. You can't justify Gamist or Narrativist rules choices under a Simulationist lens without tying yourself into knots. We need to be clear that we aren't trying to simulate a physical reality, but a narrative one (or maybe as 4th ed did, we're trying to make a balanced game). Next is deciding what we want things to look like - what do we think non-casters should be able to do at certain levels; what can casters do that they can't? Do we care about niche protection? How do we want to balance things? For instance, a high level fighter and a high level wizard can both knock a castle down; the fighter does it by means of an army and siege engines; the wizard throws magic, the fighter throws money and time. One of the dangers IMO is just reskinning spells; that's boring, and pretty easy to spot for someone with even a modicum of system knowledge - going the other way, take AlphaDog's Channeller - it's obviously a Champion fighter with different fluff; the concept is good, but it does an injustice to people wanting to play that sort of character to just rebrand the fighter. Just as it does an injustice to someone wanting a complex martial character to just re-fluff a bunch of spells as 'A small army' or 'I'm really good with a sword' depending on scale. On another note, some thoughts on a couple of the caster classes compared to 2nd Edition. Firstly, Wizards Speciality Wizards couldn't cast spells from their opposition school. Illusion - Necromancy Enchantment - Evocation Conjuration - Divination Abjuration - Alteration. They did get a free spell from their chosen school when levelling up, so I'd say that one of their two level up spells should be from their school. And personally I'd bring back the Chance to learn rule from 2nd too, probably as an Arcana check vs 8 or 10+spell level (Not sure which - 8 brings it in line with casting DCs more or less), with Advantage for school spells. Would need to make some sort of generalist wizard archetype for people who don't want to be dedicated to a single school. Secondly, Clerics In 2nd edition, Clerical spells were split up into spheres, and gods granted minor (3rd level or less) or majour access (all spells) to the spheres depending on their portfolio; for example a generic Sun god would grant their followers access to the following Spheres: Major Access to All, Divination, Healing, Necromantic, Sun. (All is a Sphere that has a few basic spells - Bless, Combine (a spell that lets a group of clerics boost the power of one of them temporarily), Detect Evil, Purify Food and Drink, and Atonement) Minor Access to Charm, Elemental (the priest can only use spells with the words fire, flame, heat, and pyrotechnics in the names), Plant, Protection. Later editions gave priests extra spells for their domains rather than restricting the ones that they had access to; again, I can't see any reason not to give 5e cleric spells the same treatment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Any tips for paying a low charisma character? My Dwarf Cleric has 4 charisma. I'm getting tired of being grumpy and my group is getting tired of me starting fights because of being disagreeable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:Firstly, Wizards It was far more restrictive than that. Except if you chose divination, you had opposition schools. Plural. There's that diagram I think you were thinking of, but there's also a table of requirements that lists the opposition schools for specialists. Abjurarion - Alteration and illusion. Conj/summ - Greater Divination and Invocation. Divination - Conj/summ Ench/charm - Invoc/evoc and Necromancy Illusion - Necromancy, Invoc/evoc, and Abjuration Invoc/Evoc - Ench/charm and Conj/summ Necromancy - Illusion and Ench/Charm Alteration - Abjuration and Necromancy. Rewrite wizards so they have to specialise. Don't use exactly the thing from 2nd ed, but similarly restrict by school. Opposition schools are "can't cast". Any other school you're not specialised in, you get nothing higher than 2nd or maybe 3rd level spells. Get rid of the "chance to learn" thing which was always frustrating, but make it so that when you get a new level of spells, you may choose one spell of that level from your school to learn. All other spells must be found, and are about as rare as magic weapons/armour*. Angrymog posted:Would need to make some sort of generalist wizard archetype for people who don't want to be dedicated to a single school. I posted a homebrew class "Channeler" a few pages ago. If you did an archetype for it that drew from EK instead of Champion, you'd have about what I think a "generalist" caster should be able to do. thehoodie posted:Any tips for paying a low charisma character? My Dwarf Cleric has 4 charisma. I'm getting tired of being grumpy and my group is getting tired of me starting fights because of being disagreeable. Don't roll for stats. But since you did: I'm sure you know unlikeable people - at school work, or maybe (I hope not) home. I'd guess they're neither grumpy all the time nor constantly picking fights. Think about what makes them unlikeable, and try to work some of that in? Maybe you could roleplay someone who's valued for being competent at what they do, but has no patience with others - who'll definitely get the thing done but alienates people by snapping "Not now! Working!" at them. Or even just the guy who's a bit short or standoffish with people because he's busy, and never wants to go for after-work drinks, but can be relied on to get his stuff done on time and in good order. Or a friendly, personable person who'll put their foot in their mouth in an embarrassing (but not fightin' words) way more often than not. Think "clumsy, but with social interactions rather than physical tasks" rather than "angry fight-starting loner". Or someone who just doesn't like (most) other people very much and it shows. It's not that they're saying or doing anything wrong, but when you're talking to them you can tell that they'd rather be doing anything other than talking to anyone. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Nov 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
thehoodie posted:Any tips for paying a low charisma character? My Dwarf Cleric has 4 charisma. I'm getting tired of being grumpy and my group is getting tired of me starting fights because of being disagreeable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
thehoodie posted:Any tips for paying a low charisma character? My Dwarf Cleric has 4 charisma. I'm getting tired of being grumpy and my group is getting tired of me starting fights because of being disagreeable. Be aloof and distant. Someone no one would ever call upon to be any kind of leader or political figure. You don't have to be aggressive, you can just not care. Wiping your mouth on a table cloth, refusing to shake anyone's hands, taking off your boot and asking an NPC if they smell something strange coming from it, then proceed to walk around without your boots to let your feet, "dry out" a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
thehoodie posted:Any tips for paying a low charisma character? My Dwarf Cleric has 4 charisma. I'm getting tired of being grumpy and my group is getting tired of me starting fights because of being disagreeable. completely ignore it as an rp thing since it's causing issues out of character
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
thehoodie posted:Any tips for paying a low charisma character? My Dwarf Cleric has 4 charisma. I'm getting tired of being grumpy and my group is getting tired of me starting fights because of being disagreeable. Imagine yourself at a dinner. A high society dinner. So high society that the queen is at the head of the table. Now imagine things that would make the ladies gasp and the gentlemen pop their monocles. Become those things. You are lack of tact, personified. The avatar of crude. A miserable morass of crass. A troll would find you boorish. You do not do all of this on purpose. It is merely your nature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
You're one of those insanely cheerful people. You make the best of everything. There's a spring in your step and a song in your heart. You say "smile, it can't be that bad!" You tell people to cheer up. You believe that if everyone just made the effort, they could be as smilingly happy as you always feel. You're the "Looks like someone's got a case of the Mondays!" woman. You should know that you grate on nearly everyone's nerves, but you're incapable of seeing that, or apparently anything else unpleasant, irritating, or upsetting.
Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:It was far more restrictive than that. Except if you chose divination, you had opposition schools. Plural. There's that diagram I think you were thinking of, but there's also a table of requirements that lists the opposition schools for specialists. AlphaDog posted:Abjurarion - Alteration and illusion. quote:I posted a homebrew class "Channeler" a few pages ago. If you did an archetype for it that drew from EK instead of Champion, you'd have about what I think a "generalist" caster should be able to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
That's my feeling about 2nd level as the cutoff too. I think 3rd level gives a bit too much variety to still feel like you're actually giving stuff up. Angrymog posted:I'm not a fan of straight reskinnings like that; I feel it does players an injustice mechanically, and it can sometimes be hard to get people to go along with the reskinning rather than just calling things by their original name. The Elemental monk is generally considered bad mechanically, and lazy from a design PoV, because a lot of its abilities are just '... as if the monk had cast spell X' Not gonna argue with that at all. Rather than "everyone should do exactly that", I meant that that's about where I'd see a generalist wizard sitting, rules-wise - beefed up cantrip attacks, restricted spellcasting. e: Maybe the generalist could get better cantrips, a very small list of spells drawn from all schools (even up to max level maybe), and something about being able to cast a much larger selection of spells as rituals (ie, not in combat). Seems like it'd fit right in with "regular" wizards having 2-3 opposed schools. Sure, you can generalise and do "everything", but that means that you mostly need to work from the book. e2: and fewer spells/level/day, perhaps. More edit: If there's pushback against the specialists-only thing (eg, "it's not a wizard without fireball!", you might be able to get around it if you relax restrictions on certain "iconic" spells by letting anyone use them but only allowing the appropriate specialists to use the "at higher levels" part. I'm talking the staple stuff like Fireball here, not "everything that can be cast at higher level". Of course, you could also tighten restrictions with a similar rule - yeah, you get Magic Missle, everyone not in opposition to Evocation does, but unless you're a collateralmancer you don't get to cast it from a slot above level 3. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
thehoodie posted:Any tips for paying a low charisma character? My Dwarf Cleric has 4 charisma. I'm getting tired of being grumpy and my group is getting tired of me starting fights because of being disagreeable. Go to your FLGS and play in an Adventurer's League game. Pick the most annoying player and try to have your character emulate that person. Interrupt people when they are talking, mumble when you have something important to say, yell when you don't, talk about how awesomely powerful you are, and how everyone loves you (blatantly ignoring how they don't). Keep it in character though: the idea is to have your character have low charisma, not you as a player.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
I think the wizard school talk should take into account that the last I saw, 5e's magic school assignments for spells are fairly slapdash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:I think the wizard school talk should take into account that the last I saw, The 1e core rules didn't even have specialist wizards, just the separate Illusionist class, but they still had spell schools. Spells mostly (maybe entirely?) haven't shifted schools since then. The spell list is the biggest single piece of the game, and it's built on top of the version that was built on top of the version that was built on top of etc etc back forever without anyone really putting any thought into why it's like that or how that's going to interact with whatever new subsystem (eg, second ed Divination was a trap option - there weren't many spells and the ones that were there mostly weren't all that great). To do it right, I think you'd have to delete "Schools" entirely and re-do the spell list (and specialist wizards) with a keyword system. That's a shitload of work though. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:To do it right, I think you'd have to delete "Schools" entirely and re-do the spell list (and specialist wizards) with a keyword system. That's a shitload of work though. I prefer declared school types to keyword tracking though, but I also allowed for school variations that had the same end-effect but different sources and methods (and theoretically different ways to counter/disrupt/dodge the spell). Theres no reason mechanically that a conjurer, an invoker, and an elementalist cant bring out a giant ball of fire, but the "actual spells" they are casting are different, and if you use secondary story effects they might be pretty different. This takes a shitload of work to make a comprehensive list out of, but is pretty low-overhead if you just do the spells that apply to the immediate game. If someone is up for the effort, this does allow an easy way to do a "single-school limit" by focusing (design wise) on the school and figuring out how they would have variations on some of the out-of-school spells. That kind of thing also works well in the old 2e "you found a spellbook" and then you have to spend some time to decipher what the hell it all means. Suddenly you have new (not phb) spells with unique twists on the basics, as well as totally new "the magical whatsis of the mighty whoever" spells. Im a fan of limited by school anyway. I also think keeping generalists is a good idea, but trickier to balance. (I guess you could impose a spell level limitation. Like anyone with a teacher can get 5 levels of "general wizardry", but everything after that requires a specialization. Or for that matter maybe all wizards are generalists up until level 5, and then they cant proceed until they gain a specialist teacher or school or patron or grimoire or something.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Imagine yourself at a dinner. Do not listen to this man. If put on the spot you are a social disaster, but don't make every RP situation about your character being uncouth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:don't make every RP situation about your character
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
A low CHA (or any other low stat/skill) shouldn't necessarily inform your behavior, but rather you'll have to roll for what you want to accomplish, and then you might fail anyway from getting a low roll. You might know what you want to do, and you might have the right intention, but you can't pull if off for any number of reasons, up to and including things that are beyond your control.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:I've been thinking about the problem with martial characters having a lack of hard narrative control compared to casters, and why a lot of players are resistant to the idea; I realise that these are almost certainly not new thoughts (in fact, I suspect that they're just a poorly articulated version of GMS theory), but I'd like to run them past people anyway. I think the problem that people have with giving Martial characters hard narrative control is a conflict between Physical Simulation (what D&D tends to try and do) and Narrative Simulation. This is great food for thought while I'm nutting out martial adept homebrew. The list of maneuvers is expanding to include social and exploration elements of the game and GNS theory offers a new spectrum (for me anyway) that's fitting very well, so thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
thehoodie posted:Any tips for paying a low charisma character? My Dwarf Cleric has 4 charisma. I'm getting tired of being grumpy and my group is getting tired of me starting fights because of being disagreeable. This can be really hard to do right, but super low charisma can also be played as being on the spectrum. It's not that you're unlikeable but you're just totally unaware of social norms. Your greeting is a fist bump. For everyone. King? Fist bump. Evil wizard. Fist bump. Dragon? Fist bump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Relentless posted:Your greeting is a fist bump. For everyone. King? Fist bump. Evil wizard. Fist bump. Dragon? Fist bump. my next 'good at social stuff' character is doing this
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Since the discussion's on playing around low attributes, has anyone had to deal with low Con and low HP rolls? I'm brand new to the game, in a campaign where we're made to roll for both stats and HP, and I made the super uninformed decision of putting a 9 in con -- for my Paladin, in a party with no real front line fighters. (The closest thing we have is the rogue.) On top of that, he's rolled a natural 1 for both previous level ups, so he's sitting at 12 hp at level 3. If he makes it to the next level, I guess I'm looking at a few options. - Put at least 1 point in con for that 0 modifier and pray to god he doesn't roll a 1 again. - Take Tough feat, make up a little bit for the lost HP opportunity, continue to pray to god that he doesn't roll a 1 again. - Say gently caress it and take Dragon Wings feat for that sweet at-will flight. (It's not necessarily a given that the DM will allow this, but she said she'd think about it -- I'm not playing a dragonborn, but my kobold dude has some lovely wings that can conceivably be less lovely.) Either way, I've been trying to play smarter and more strategically, but it's tough when the rest of his build is kind of aimed at making the tankiest tank (Protection fighting style, Oath of Crown.) It's also tough when you're playing a narrative-intensive Critical Role style game, because now I'm invested in this dude and would like to give him a fighting chance at not dying horribly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
I'd go with putting that level up point in Con to get rid of the penalty. Get out of the front line - swop to missiles. Longer term, try and persuade your GM to allow taking average HP, or if she's wedded to rolling, suggest to her the HP rule from Stars Without Number - you reroll your HP at each level and take the highest result. That way you're not permanently screwed by a bad roll.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
My GM is really weird about stuff like that, he'll make us roll for stats but does so in a really generous way (5d6 drop 2, can generate two arrays and pick between them) and we also have to roll for HP but he tells us to reroll if we get below average so everyone just gets more HP than normal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
Infinity Gaia posted:My GM is really weird about stuff like that, he'll make us roll for stats but does so in a really generous way (5d6 drop 2, can generate two arrays and pick between them) and we also have to roll for HP but he tells us to reroll if we get below average so everyone just gets more HP than normal. That's actually pretty common. Most DMs who have build up decent experience with rolling can tell it's bad, but they'll sometimes develop some fixation with rolling and come up with bullshit excuses like it creates roleplaying opportunities or reduces sameness or whatever the gently caress, so they end up creating these elaborate dice roll methods that try to give random results while avoiding random results because they're loving morons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
It's hard to swallow because smite damage is melee only and I've otherwise been enjoying the synergy with our rogue "tank" sneak attack + Protection fighting style, but maybe the rogue shouldn't really be on the front lines either. Only problem is our other 3 party members are also squishy -- warlock, wizard, and bard. Bard is only character with less HP than paladin, but Bard happens to be trapped in the body of an otherwise normal cat. I did ask to take the average HP before he got to level 3, but my DM's arguments: - The randomness allows for interesting variability and makes us work creatively within those limitations. - Items exist in the world to permanently boost HP, so I should keep a look-out. I did ask if I could use Inspiration for a bad HP roll, but she argued that HP rolls were too permanent to reroll. But I might bring it up before he hits 4 because welp, worth a shot. Just to clarify, taking the ASI to offset the negative con would be better than Tough? I guess I figured the argument in Tough's favor was that your HP maximum increases by 2 for every level up that follows, but I could also be misunderstanding how the feat works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
gandhichan posted:snip Your character is hosed. A paladin who can't take a hit is all but useless before level 6 and even then all it'll get to do is be a Bless bot with an aura and substandard healing. Just play normally and roll a better character when it inevitably dies. And don't pick the Protection fighting style when you do, it's really bad - Dueling if you use a shield, and Defense otherwise. It might seem neat at a glance but it's actually a really poor use of your reaction, on top of having all the other conditions for its use attached.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:these elaborate dice roll methods that try to give random results while avoiding random results. There's the one where you reroll all your Hit Dice on level-up, so a level 4 Fighter rolls a 4d10, and if it's still lower than your current total, you only gain 1 more max HP. And then there's the HackMaster one where you're supposed to write down the result of the last Hit Die you rolled. If the next result is better than that, you take it, or else you only gain 1 more max HP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Huh. Everyone in our campaign rolled 4d6 drop the lowest six times. They could do it as often as they liked but had to keep one of the sets they rolled and arrange to class. No problems with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:they end up creating these elaborate dice roll methods that try to give random results while avoiding random results because they're loving morons. Ive done both, and the players almost always get more of sense of investment when they roll. That combined with the table excitement of everyone "rolling up characters" makes it worth it, even if its rigged to end up avg-high with some constraints.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
gandhichan posted:Just to clarify, taking the ASI to offset the negative con would be better than Tough? I guess I figured the argument in Tough's favor was that your HP maximum increases by 2 for every level up that follows, but I could also be misunderstanding how the feat works. You get more HP from the feat, but your Con saving throw is still at a penalty, though if you make it to level 6, your Aura of Protection ability will kick in and assuming you have a good Charisma bonus cover for that. I'm not going to suggest getting your guy killed asap and hoping for better luck next time as you probably enjoy playing the dude (and if you weren't hopefully the GM wouldn't be against you just saying, "Hey, can I change character, this one isn't fun." rather than making you jump though the hoop of character death). Would multiclassing into something that works better at range work for you? Could one of the people with a better con score take up the tank role? Could you just ask your GM if you could swop your Con score with another one as you didn't realise what a big impact it would have? In the long run though I'd try and get her to loosen up on the HP rolling method.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 09:29
|
|