|
Arthil posted:Thanks for the people actually providing examples. I was also mainly curious what systems the examples would be from too. I should point out often the reason people are so passionate about the fighter is that they also like playing these classes and want them to do well and have seen them do well in other games. I'm a huge star wars fan as I've point out and playing in a star wars game means I need my jedi and my smuggler to both meaningfully contribute to problem solving and driving the narrative. Have a look here if you want to see how star wars does it, look for "Signature Ability" for big class features : http://beggingforxp.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/StarWars-EotE-TalentTree-color-v8.pdf
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/976946674181394432 This might have been obvious to most folks already, but it does mean that, among other things the Survivor ability of the Champion (and Brute) Fighter will ensure that they'll always start each fight with at least half-maximum HP. And this is distinct from abilities that are defined as being triggered by initiative, such as Relentless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 11:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/976946674181394432 Is this from a new book or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
RC Cola posted:Is this from a new book or something? what is? Champion Fighters have the Survivor ability, and they're in the PHB. The Brute Fighter is from an Unearthed Arcana article, and they're supposed to be kinda-sorta a second-stab at the Champion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 12:31
|
|
|
examples of things level 10 martial-types can do in shadow of the demon lord: -make 3 separate attacks per round, or make a single attack that does 3x damage -take half damage all the time forever -become extremely beefy and inhumanly strong -enter a stance that makes them almost impossible to take down -command their allies to make free attacks with bonuses -instakill weak enemies just for being close to them -deny enemies the ability to move freely or escape them -become literally immovable -like 3 different ways to be a 4e avenger -always deal max damage -inflict all kinds of status effects -invent the revolver and shoot people with it -become a pinball of death that gets stronger the more hurt they are -use a shield like captain america -never be surprised and see invisible beings this is just from the master paths. you'll also have plenty of powers from your novice and expert paths too. also because sotdl is a game that was designed good, these powers are not available to all martial-types, just like how magic is split up into brutally-siloed categories with access restricted so that casters are limited in the variety of spells they can choose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
Unfortunately for D&D, there's 40 years of implicit assumptions that have been built upon each other to reach a rickety current edition. You can't answer 'what should high level fighters be able to do' without first figuring out what the hell a fighter is. Or an adventurer. Or a class, or even a level in a class. Or if an NPC orc is a fighter/adventurer, or can be one, or if an NPC human or dwarf or elf can be one and what that means. There's too many old decisions permeating everywhere that have been twisted and warped into whatever exists now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
JBP posted:I don't understand the question, a measure of progress? I'm just saying that roughly the same time a wizard can use a level 9 spell or is considered all powerful (so 15-20), a fighter could access a similar creative outcome of their choosing to emulate mythic feats like the ones mentioned last page. JBP posted:Yeah I know and that is a fair comment, but also as people have said it's a guy with physical skills versus a guy commanding cosmic power. if a level is basically equal to a unit of power or advancement then the guy with skills should be equally as cosmically powerful if he has equal levels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
I think it's probably easier and more sensible for a non-mythical themed game to pull wizards down rather then push fighters up, imho. I mean, at its core D&D is about a group of people with specific skills going into Dungeons to fight Dragons. At some point in the process spellcasters kinda got way more power than they need for those purposes, while other classes mostly didn't. If a spellcasters spell levels capped out at around 4th or maaaaybe 5th level in terms of power I think things would be a lot more sensible. Of course, wizards still have more Absolute Declarative Power than fighters, but the need for such is only an issue if your DM is a dick anyways, and it's honestly (and I admit this is a personal opinion) way more fun to have to come up with some sort of elaborate disguise scheme that simply having a caster use Disguise Self, or having to infiltrate under cover of night in a tense sneaking mission than simply casting Invisibility. I think culling some of the more potent defensive spells from spellcasters and giving frontlines more significant means of 'tanking' would also go a long way towards expanding party cohesion. Yes, the wizard can throw a big bad fireball, but he'd die to stiff breeze so he'd need Beef McArmor to keep the heat off him. I think another problem with spells vs physical people is it's just a lot easier to come up with a bunch of magical spells that do interesting stuff than it is to come up with reasonable and balanced ways for non-magical people to be able to do the same. Yes, yes, 'just let everyone be casters then!" but that's not really solving the inherent problem of Fighters so much as it is sort of painting over it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Serf posted:examples of things level 10 martial-types can do in shadow of the demon lord: I should really look into this game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Infinity Gaia posted:I think it's probably easier and more sensible for a non-mythical themed game to pull wizards down rather then push fighters up, imho. I mean, at its core D&D is about a group of people with specific skills going into Dungeons to fight Dragons. At some point in the process spellcasters kinda got way more power than they need for those purposes, while other classes mostly didn't. If a spellcasters spell levels capped out at around 4th or maaaaybe 5th level in terms of power I think things would be a lot more sensible. Of course, wizards still have more Absolute Declarative Power than fighters, but the need for such is only an issue if your DM is a dick anyways, and it's honestly (and I admit this is a personal opinion) way more fun to have to come up with some sort of elaborate disguise scheme that simply having a caster use Disguise Self, or having to infiltrate under cover of night in a tense sneaking mission than simply casting Invisibility. Wizards are too good, fighters are incredibly bad. (Non multiclass) Warlocks should be a baseline for balance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
I mean they solved most of the problems in 4e, and even 3.x had the Tome of Battle which did tons to make martial characters have more interesting in-combat options. Then they threw it all away because "it felt wrong". At a certain point it's simply that the designers don't really want the Fighter to be as good as a Wizard. Which is stupid as all gently caress, but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Well a fireball can explode in the air as well. If this a question about area covered. Here is what the DMG has to say about that. So I used Fireball as a comparison, but it was actually about the other spell. Specifically the spell creates a 20ft radius sphere of blackness that anyone completely inside is blinded while inside, and anyone only partially, just take the damage portion. The question is, does this sphere HAVE to be above ground for the spell? Or can it be buried in the ground? The spell discusses that damage is done by tentacles from a extraplanar location. With a 20 ft. radius, that means the ground it intersects with to completely cover someone is going to be much smaller if it's above the ground, ( Estimated maybe 10ft of 'completely covering' squares on the ground ) Vs. if it's allowed to be effectively a dome ( With the other half buried in the ground ) which will give you 40ft of almost completely covered squares. Is that a better description?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
If what you're asking is "can the center point of the spell be on the ground and not 20' in the air", then the answer is yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/976946674181394432 Before we short rest I always Second Wind. Never even thought poo poo like this was in contention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
  Warlords edit: Realtalk I just want martials to be more able to just declare things as true the way casters do. Like there's a lot of spells that would work just as well as an ability a martial character has. Things like Jump and Knock and such. Why can't a fighter just say "I jump really fuckin' far" or a rogue say "I open the lock gently caress you". Even the rarer stuff like instant death spells that say "if a thing has less than X HP, it's dead". It's already an effect explicitly for just casually executing weak enemies, so why can't a fighter, without rolling damage say "Oh you're a chump, I chop your head off gently caress off". Some martials already do get a little bit of that, like monks, for all their own issues, get to just do stuff like just run up walls or across water without a check and get a save-or-die ability eventually. Glagha fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Wizards are too good, fighters are incredibly bad. (Non multiclass) Warlocks should be a baseline for balance. Multiclassing was a mistake. 2e handled it correctly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Glagha posted:so why can't a fighter, without rolling damage say "Oh you're a chump, I chop your head off gently caress off". Fighters had this, as well as Damage on a Miss. Grognards complained so loudly and vociferously (and so much in alignment with Mike "shouting arms back on" Mearls) that it was changed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:Fighters had this, as well as Damage on a Miss. I know, I played 4e. I still weep openly as I run my fingers over the warlord page in my PHB.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
One of the main problems is that there's never been an attempt to actually decide what design space spells should have. Never. No edition, outside MAYBE 4e, has ever actually tried to ask the question "what should spells do?" And because of this, spells do...everything. Even entirely forgettable poo poo. Even basic level 1 poo poo! Like, who's the best athelete at level 1? Surely the fighter or barbarian, right? Nope! Jump. Expeditious retreat. Longstrider. Featherfall. It's a spellcaster! Who's the best spy? The rogue? Nope! Disguise self. Illusory script. Sleep. Speak with animals. Silent Image. It's a spellcaster! This is not high level powerful stuff. These are all level 1 spells - and yet they all completely clips the class meant to be good at this poo poo. And why? Why does Jump or Longstrider exist in the first place? Why does the rogue get nothing that matches Illusory script or sleep? Ever? These are level ONE spells! And sure, the argument that can be made is "ok but these spells honstly kinda suck." Yeah! because completely overshadowing your mundane counterpart at the thing they're supposed to be good at isn't even the strongest option!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Glagha posted:
This is especially big when having an adversarial DM. Ive only ever played in that style, and being able to declare stuff via reading a spell description is huge vs arguing about what martials can/can't do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Hey after 15 or so jumps the fighter gets to take his place as "the guy who doesn't get as tired"....assuming your DM doesn't give you exhaustion for all that jumping.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
I dunno Battle Master feels alright to me. We have a variety in my party, ranging from Barbarian, Monk, Wizard, Druid, etc. You can shut down a spellcaster pretty hard with a disarm then kicking away their focus, whatever it is. Not to mention being able to toss out fear is pretty solid. Plus all your abilities are short rest. Indomitable basically sucks and you should get more uses out of it. I think there should be an in-game ability where if you hit with an attack and the enemy's HP is within the maximum damage you roll they just drop to 0HP instead of having to roll. Effetively making you good at clearing up trash and not needlessly wasting swings on poo poo that is barely clinging on to life. The most DPS we have in our group is a sharpshooter UA fighter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Indomitable should let you add the second roll to the first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Xae posted:Indomitable should let you add the second roll to the first. Something like that. Or add proficiency to the reroll and double proficiency if you already have it with the amount of times you can use it. It's basically a super lovely version of the lucky feat as is. It would be nice if other classes were made with Fighter in mind to multi-class into. I mean, you can get a second fighting style with Paladin or Ranger but with CHA being a dump stat why bother with Paladin. Ranger (unrevised) isn't very good either so not much point there. Rogue expertise and an extra skill is nice but then you have to limit yourself to finesse weapons (even though you can still use STR as your modifier for those attacks) get the most modest bonus ever of sneak attack. Barbarian would be loving amazing to dip into but you can't rage in heavy armour. Which is idiotic because you can Rage in half plate. Which you can bring up to 17AC if you have 14 DEX. So basically you can't Rage because of literally 1 AC. Yeah you can house rule about Raging in heavy armour if you have 18 or 20 strength but then that's a needless argument with your DM over what amounts to a 5% difference in being hit. doctor 7 fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:Something like that. Or add proficiency to the reroll and double proficiency if you already have it with the amount of times you can use it. It's basically a super lovely version of the lucky feat as is. To be fair Luck is an utterly broken Feat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Xae posted:To be fair Luck is an utterly broken Feat. Right? But at the same time it works so perfectly with what it is trying to do. I cannot wait to take Luck in a couple of levels. The ability to roll at disadvantage, then decide after that, you want to roll again, then choose which of those three you can use is amazing. Or alternatively, have an enemy roll against you with advantage then do the same thing is going to be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
The decision to take the feat Linguist happens at the same time as the decision to take the feat Luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
The Gate posted:If what you're asking is "can the center point of the spell be on the ground and not 20' in the air", then the answer is yes. Pretty much! Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
The Gate posted:If what you're asking is "can the center point of the spell be on the ground and not 20' in the air", then the answer is yes. Drowning Rabbit posted:Pretty much! Thanks. If the minimum height of the origin was so that the edge of the effect just brushed the ground, most spherical AoEs would be surprisingly useless at doing what they're supposed to do. Not to mention weirdly difficult to adjudicate. Example: If a (20' radius) fireball explodes 20' above the ground, and I'm standing 10' back from the point directly under the origin, and I'm 6'2" tall, does it hit me? What about if I'm 3'9"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Cos=1/2 implies Sin=root 3 over 2, so 17 and change feet down from the horizontal plane. Which is to say it would be dumb to have to taper like that for actual play.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
Nephzinho posted:Anyone know if there's a way to steer the randomness of the donjon generator? I like using the random as a template for dungeons sometimes, but need to just make a long ravine and would like to have it match stylistically with the other maps. Trying to set it to small cavernous and its just not working. (I don’ think anyone answered this.) I don’t know of any way to do this with donjon. You could try Dave’s mapper though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
BECMI fighters had at will save-or-dies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Question on handling some specific checks: Quote-asking this one more time since I didn't get any suggestions. It feels like the best solution. Every other one so far has been something that either gives away that something sees them or requires shitloads of extra rolls that may never get used, slowing the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
You could use a dice rolling program on your cellphone to generate a stealth roll they won't realize is happening since they won't hear any dice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Quote-asking this one more time since I didn't get any suggestions. It feels like the best solution. Every other one so far has been something that either gives away that something sees them or requires shitloads of extra rolls that may never get used, slowing the game. If they don't know they're sneaking past something, then they're not sneaking. If something is looking for them and they're not sneaking, it finds them, because they're not trying not to be found. If they are trying to sneak and something isn't looking for them, use the thing's passive perception as the DC for their stealth. And if you have something they aren't aware of that is trying to find them while they're sneaking... decide the DC on your own, or roll up a bunch of Perception checks pre-game and use them when they're needed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
a) challenge them to be good roleplayers by openly rolling for something they don't know about and tell them they have to ignore it if they question it b) do fake rolls all throughout every session to obfuscate when the real rolls happen. i'm a fan of this one
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:Quote-asking this one more time since I didn't get any suggestions. It feels like the best solution. Every other one so far has been something that either gives away that something sees them or requires shitloads of extra rolls that may never get used, slowing the game. If the players don't know that they're sneaking past something, but they did tell you that they want to sneak, and perhaps they already snuck past something before that they were aware of, to me the appropriate response would be to apply a circumstantial penalty to their Stealth check. You could do something like a -2 at least, but if you're playing 5e completely by the book, then it would warrant Disadvantage. For group stealth checks, I've done either: * at least half the party must pass * the party nominates a single person to make the stealth check
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
I don't think having them roll at the beginning of any declared sneak attempt gives away the game too much. Or else rolling when there's specifically some set piece that they would be aware of and try to ummm reaffirm their sneakiness, i.e. sneaking past a large door that they've just come across on the side of a building. Even if someone rolls terribly there are multiple reasons they might not have been heard, or why they don't immediately hear enemy reaction -- there's nobody there, the guard botched their own perception roll, the guards heard them but are now stealthily planning their own ambush, etc. I feel like this also allows for the cinematic "I stepped on a loud stick and now I'm waiting to be discovered" tense moment. Can I ask what the normal scenario where you only have them roll when they might be spotted is? I assume it's something like, they have perfect knowledge of where the enemy is and only need to roll specifically when they are about to do something that would alert them, like sneak past the open room they are all congregating in. Still this seems to me to preclude having some hidden lookout in the trees or whatever, since like you said they would know someone is observing as soon as you called for the roll. I think ambiguity is the better option here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Considering starting a new campaign. I like the at-the-table part of DMing but man I can't stand (and am really bad at) all the preperation and campaign design part. I was thinking about buying a module and running it through my own improvisation filter, anybody have any opinions on which modules are good and cool? I'm posting here but I don't really care about which system I play so go nuts if you have some favorite module you tried. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
Agent355 posted:Considering starting a new campaign. I like the at-the-table part of DMing but man I can't stand (and am really bad at) all the preperation and campaign design part. I was thinking about buying a module and running it through my own improvisation filter, anybody have any opinions on which modules are good and cool? I'm posting here but I don't really care about which system I play so go nuts if you have some favorite module you tried. Thanks. Getting hold of a 5E module is probably easiest, so I'd recommend Storm King's Thunder. From what I've read it's a very solid adventure, and requires less prep than something like Tombs of Annihilation/Curse of Strahd/Tales From the Yawning Portal. I've been playing in a Yawning Portal campaign. The DM says it's pretty great prep-wise since all the adventures are self-contained and well designed, but you would need to homebrew how each adventure flows into the next. Blooming Brilliant fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Mar 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2018 15:46
|
|
