|
Subjunctive posted:So Protection from Evil and Good is both a 3rd level Paladin (Devotion) spells and a 1st level Cleric spell? How does that work for multiclassing?
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
Splicer posted:Are we talking in general or the nightmare scenario that is 5e's existing multiclass dynamic? Multiclassing has been a clusterfuck in every edition. Even when they split dual and multi-classing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:So what level is PfE&G, and when does a Paladin get it? 1 (just like it is now, strangely enough, because PfE&G ain't that good!) and, therefore, 1st level. Weird, I know, how much simpler and more intuitive that is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
Funnily enough this isn't a new thing, 3.5 had spells with different class levels listed right under the spell name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:1 (just like it is now, strangely enough, because PfE&G ain't that good!) and, therefore, 1st level. Weird, I know, how much simpler and more intuitive that is. So you would change the Paladin to get spells at first level? I wasn't sure how deep the renovation would have to go. Splicer posted:Are we talking in general or the nightmare scenario that is 5e's existing multiclass dynamic? Take your pick, really. CaPensiPraxis posted:Funnily enough this isn't a new thing, 3.5 had spells with different class levels listed right under the spell name. Right, but people said that this explicitly wasn't such a system. E: I'm not trying to say that it can't work, just trying to understand exactly what people are proposing and how it would slot simply into 5e. Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:So you would change the Paladin to get spells at first level? I wasn't sure how deep the renovation would have to go. In order for it to make sense, yeah, that'd be necessary. Certainly makes more sense than having to wait until second level to get any spells at all. And obviously it doesn't just apply to Paladins. There's a reason why when folks - even in this thread - point out how confusing and dumb the current system is, the go to is always something along the lines of "I'm a second level Wizard. How many second level spells do I get?" because needing to wait for arbitrary numbers that exist Because Tradition is pretty dang bad. It's even been tried before, in the Book of Experimental Might. I dunno how well its version worked in practice, since I haven't used it before, but it's certainly more player friendly than the various different incarnations we have right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Take your pick, really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:In order for it to make sense, yeah, that'd be necessary. Certainly makes more sense than having to wait until second level to get any spells at all. And obviously it doesn't just apply to Paladins. There's a reason why when folks - even in this thread - point out how confusing and dumb the current system is, the go to is always something along the lines of "I'm a second level Wizard. How many second level spells do I get?" because needing to wait for arbitrary numbers that exist Because Tradition is pretty dang bad. So you would either give classes spells every level or have the oddity of having 1st level spells and 3rd level spells, but not 2nd level spells?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Yeah the same way we have the oddity of 4th level and 8th level ASIs without 7th level ASIs. It's bizarre to have multiple things that have "levels" at different scale. Use a different word if you have to at the very least. I'd certainly prefer they just give the spell the level that you are required to be to cast it, but if they had to keep the current system, it'd be strictly less confusing if they called them "third tier spells" instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
I mean they could have spells with requirements at every level if you wanted. It's kind of a bummer to have boring levelups that don't give you new powers. Of course martial classes are mostly those so maybe fix them first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
I think having a separate level/tier list for spells makes more intuitive sense than there being nine spell levels which are numbered 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17. It also runs into a problem when classes learn spells at a different rate, unless you want spell lists to be overly confusing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Let's also ditch that absolutely lovely alphabetical ordering of spells and go back to the sane level grouping in the PHB.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
I'd pay an extra 5 dollars to have my PHB spells list the loving classes that can cast them instead of having to flip back every time I see a spell I like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
There’s no perfect way to list spells. Alphabetically is better for quick reference during play. By level is better for character creation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
cargohills posted:I think having a separate level/tier list for spells makes more intuitive sense than there being nine spell levels which are numbered 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17. It also runs into a problem when classes learn spells at a different rate, unless you want spell lists to be overly confusing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
Xae posted:So you would either give classes spells every level That's exactly how it worked in The Book of Experimental Might
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
whydirt posted:There’s no perfect way to list spells. Alphabetically is better for quick reference during play. By level is better for character creation. At least have it like 3E, the first few pages of the Spells chapter list them by class/level with a quick description of the effect, and the rest of the chapter is an alphabetical listing with the in-depth details and concrete rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
whydirt posted:There’s no perfect way to list spells. Alphabetically is better for quick reference during play. By level is better for character creation. Create an alphabetical index that’s hyperlinked to the by level list.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Every other feature is keyed off of class level. It doesn't strike me as particularly wacky and confusing for fighter archetypes get powers at level 3, 7, 10, 15 and 18, why is it different for spells? Odd numbers don't scare me. Spells are always listed separately while class feature fit into the class description. Fighters aren't having to reference dozens of pages at the back of the book for what their class features do. And class features generally aren't shared - if they are they'll write it down twice, instead of telling you to refer to another section. (Generally.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:Create an alphabetical index that’s hyperlinked to the by level list. With PDF you can have indexes of whatever you want: class, level, school, save type, cast time, etc. They’re cheap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Jeez you nerds just get that unofficial spellbook app.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
The spells section of the 5e book is significantly worse than 3.P. Not having a short description in the spell lists or which classes can cast it on the spell block just seems like an oversight to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Is there any concensus on revised ranger vs. original ranger? I'm thinking of playing one in a new campaign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Original is poop. Revised is better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Original is poop. Revised is better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Jeez you nerds just get that unofficial spellbook app. Being able to sort by level and filter by class - and then click through to see a description! - is very handy. Would recommend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Truth Quark posted:Is there any concensus on revised ranger vs. original ranger? I'm thinking of playing one in a new campaign. Revised Ranger is cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Truth Quark posted:Is there any concensus on revised ranger vs. original ranger? I'm thinking of playing one in a new campaign. If you can, always use the UA revision. No contest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Actually I just saw on D&D Beyond that they posted an article just a few days ago that says the Beast Master Ranger isn't broken, you're just playing it wrong. One recommendation is to use a pet like a flying snake instead of birds. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/155-is-the-beast-master-broken Note that this article doesn't go into a ranger having to use its action to command its beast to do things. I have yet to actually play a ranger past level 2, but from all I have read on this matter, I say this: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
HJE-Cobra posted:Note that this article doesn't go into a ranger having to use its action to command its beast to do things. Yeah, the issue is definitely people picking the suggested CR 0 animals instead of the OP as gently caress CR 1/4 options 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Elysiume posted:The spells section of the 5e book is significantly worse than 3.P. Not having a short description in the spell lists or which classes can cast it on the spell block just seems like an oversight to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
HJE-Cobra posted:Actually I just saw on D&D Beyond that they posted an article just a few days ago that says the Beast Master Ranger isn't broken, you're just playing it wrong. One recommendation is to use a pet like a flying snake instead of birds. Yeah 3 pages ago we had monsterenvy talking about how solid this article is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Yeah 3 pages ago we had monsterenvy talking about how solid this article is. The basis of which was "The original Ranger doesn't have only literally this one ability." Which is... technically correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
PHB Ranger Beast Master is alright if you loving perfectly set them up. And even then they're just "alright". Comparatively basically every other class you kind of have to try to make somebody mediocre. The article is just not going to sell anybody on the class. "Oh ok so my beast master is good if I only use a flying snake? Oh and do this specific build? So basically I can't actually customize my character and be combat effective? Cool. Cool cool cool." Like fighter you can be ranged, two handed melee, two weapon melee and sword and shield melee. You can even go dex or str and unless you basically intentionally gently caress your stat priority you are going to be good at your job. I cannot see the article changing anybody's mind because it doesn't address the core issue of wanting to be somewhat combat relevant while also having the flavor of a cool pet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
This is my favorite part of that article:quote:If you’ve ever seen Critical Role, try to imagine Vex’ahlia without her bear Trinket. I only listened so far because gently caress actually trying to keep up with an unedited 4 hour weekly show, but I recall early on Vex'ahlia actually got MORE useful in the first arc when she just straight up ditched Trinket for an episode or two. Like left him in a cave. The stupid bear only stopped being a liability when Mercer gave her that Summoning Necklace thing. Not to mention the fact that Mercer was explicitly letting the player buff her companion by crafting special armor and letting her train him to do tackle maneuvers and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Having listened to every episode of CR, yeah, uh, that bear is a terrible example. At best it was a liability that was used for some roleplay stuff. And even then it was ignored for the most part. Part of it is that they didn't realise going in how shite the PHB Beast Master was but it became apparent very quickly and it even clearly irritated other people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
I’m just saying that if you have a choice of pets between a bird and a flying snake you should take the flying snake. Because at the end of the day the flying snake is going to eat the bird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
I get loving the fluff of a Ranger and his companion. But the implementation was bad. The CR folks realized this and started buffing the hell out of Beastmaster. Even with the buffs the companion wasn't good and was idle or a detriment more than an asset in most encounters. Some people like to love a bad option and claim it is "actually" super, super good because it gives them snowflake status.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
There was a two hour long YouTube interview between some guy I have never heard of, Matt Mercer, Matt Colville and Mike Mearls about DnD and Mercer directly states that the PHB BM is just not very good and he did have to buff it in order to make it feasible. My job allows me to essentially listen to podcasts and work so I threw it on as something to listen to. I can't remember Mike Mearls' response to be honest. However everybody (here) seems to poo poo on him pretty hard but he has always seemed open to criticism and takes everything in stride and explains the reasoning behind it. Matt Colville called him out specifically as to why classes don't have a "this is an easy class to play" like some online video games do. Mearls said "hey we did but from all the feedback we got it was basically that people who liked that class felt insulted that it was deemed 'easy' and others took it as a challenge to play 'harder' classes." So, with that in mind they dropped it. Actually now that I think about it I don't believe Mearls responded to the BM criticism other than a chuckle of agreement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
Razorwired posted:This is my favorite part of that article: And even with all that, Trinket was most of the time just an extra HP buffer to eat up an attack or two before going down. Not that that doesn't have it's uses, but...she would have been a lot better off playing as Hunter (and realistically in combat she played like a Hunter would, just without any of the useful abilities she would have had). You could literally combine all of the PHB Beastmaster abilities into the core Ranger and it wouldn't be overpowered, that's how weak an option it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:26
|
|
