|
Arivia posted:You can’t seem to actually read the posts you are responding to. You continually run your mouth about things you don’t know, or assume you do without literally any support. For a post like that one, you act like a schoolmarm regurgitating semi-related facts that do not actually contribute anything to the conversation at hand. You can’t post like an actual human for some reason, and it’s really frustrating that you won’t just shut up and learn from other people when you so obviously need to. You have demonstrated a repeated inability to have and hold your own in an adult conversation. MonsterEnvy isn’t the one who needs to leave bro. You, the rear end in a top hat gently caress who is neither funny nor interesting should just. Stop. Posting.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:No? Was this on twitter or something? it's always on twitter, because clarifying rules and setting errata on a social media site that's awful for archiving is just good practice https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1023352291837935616 https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=from%3Ajeremyecrawford%20ranger&src=typd I mean if you want to nitpick, he's not explicitly saying that the class is "fine", he's just saying that the UA Ranger isn't official, and whatever changes they make to the PHB Ranger are either going to be in the form of a different archetype, or has to be done via errata, the latter of which hasn't happened yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
Reddit (I know, I know). https://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/9p0je8/dd_one_of_the_lead_designers_of_the_game/ As the design philosophy of 5e is Mearls and Crawford basically admitting they can't write rules and fobbing it off on the consumer for the low low price of $150, I'm not really sure why people were expecting a fix.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
Eh, the ranger in our last party was a killing machine. He definitely didn't look broken to the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
Was he any of the sub-classes from Xanathar's, or the Hunter sub-class from the PHB? If so, those are more or less fine but the base class is just really... super DM dependent and boy that is not a good thing for a game many people get into via public play at game shops/events where you're hopping all over the place. More Content: My little Goblin Paladin has turned into a whirling dervish of death. Narrowly staying alive in a session that had two Level 13's, and the difficulty bumped up to compensate, he came out of it with a Flametongue Scimitar. After a few more sessions he's also acquired a +1 Cloak of Elvenkind, a +1 Sentinel Shield and a gem embedded into the hilt of the scimitar which provides up to an additional 3rd level spell slot. I'm basically a Rogue without the class abilities at this point, and given my stats I've made heavy considerations to take a feat that'll bump my STR up one at 12, and then after 13 take the rest of my levels as Swashbuckler Rogue. +9 to my initiative, an additional 4d6 sneak attack damage on my first hit per turn. Plus Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. Arthil fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
Fruity20 posted:One thing I read about why people still play 3.5, folks like different things. One thing I noticed about 3.5 is the multitude of classes to play as which is carried over to pathfinder. In 5e, we like have some classes and subclasses (i think 12? correct me if i'm wrong on this one). Some classes are either useful in certain areas while others are better in a roleplaying way then rollplaying (blood hunter is a example of this). Good for game play and good for role play are not like two weights on either side of a seesaw or something. If something is bad, that doesn't mean it's good for RP. It just means it's bad. A poo poo subclass is just a dumb mistake the writers made. They weren't like "Wow this Blood Hunter is almost TOO FUN to play, we better make the rules awful!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
nelson posted:Eh, the ranger in our last party was a killing machine. He definitely didn't look broken to the rest of us. We got a Hunter Ranger in our current party that is doing well too. The issue is really the Beast Master, who is underwhelming compared to the other Ranger classes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Good for game play and good for role play are not like two weights on either side of a seesaw or something. If something is bad, that doesn't mean it's good for RP. It just means it's bad. A poo poo subclass is just a dumb mistake the writers made. They weren't like "Wow this Blood Hunter is almost TOO FUN to play, we better make the rules awful!" Bah! A true roleplayer® sees a horribly broken and unplayable character as a challenge! Now excuse me while I go do 40d8 mega damage with my glitter boy armor while our party's Rogue Scholar reads a text in another language up to 48% of the time!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
Arthil posted:My little Goblin Paladin Swashbuckler Rogue. I've always liked the idea of a Paladin Rogue. Very quietly whispering "smite evil" before the explosion
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:I've always liked the idea of a Paladin Rogue. Very quietly whispering "smite evil" before the explosion We had one for a while, he worked pretty well. Burst Smites on Sneak attacks can do quite a lot of damage. He sadly fell into the Elemental Plane of fire, and we are assuming he is pickpocking and preaching about Torm to Efreet in the City of Brass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Good for game play and good for role play are not like two weights on either side of a seesaw or something. If something is bad, that doesn't mean it's good for RP. It just means it's bad. A poo poo subclass is just a dumb mistake the writers made. They weren't like "Wow this Blood Hunter is almost TOO FUN to play, we better make the rules awful!" I love Matt Mercer and think the Blood Hunter is such a cool concept but it really is underpowered. I have a Lycanthrope Blood Hunter in my CoS game and I want to tweak the class a bit but I haven't sat down and thought out how I want to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:I've always liked the idea of a Paladin Rogue. Very quietly whispering "smite evil" before the explosion It's been absolutely fantastic even as just a Level 6 Paladin. I went Vengeance, so even before smites I'm smacking fools around with 4d4, and with advantage if necessary. I've one-shot more than a few things, and it's only gonna get better from here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You can’t seem to actually read the posts you are responding to. You continually run your mouth about things you don’t know, or assume you do without literally any support. For a post like that one, you act like a schoolmarm regurgitating semi-related facts that do not actually contribute anything to the conversation at hand. You can’t post like an actual human for some reason, and it’s really frustrating that you won’t just shut up and learn from other people when you so obviously need to. You have demonstrated a repeated inability to have and hold your own in an adult conversation. Fart pnoise
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Good for game play and good for role play are not like two weights on either side of a seesaw or something. If something is bad, that doesn't mean it's good for RP. It just means it's bad. A poo poo subclass is just a dumb mistake the writers made. They weren't like "Wow this Blood Hunter is almost TOO FUN to play, we better make the rules awful!" I feel like the whole "dogshit at mechanics, therefore good at RP" thing comes from a mentality where if you don't have abilities that just let you Do Things, that it therefore forces you to Make Stuff Up that will let you do things that other classes can simply read off their character sheet in order to accomplish, and that that is somehow a more "narrative" way of engaging with the game. Like, a Battlemaster can use Trip Attack to knock someone down and get Advantage, but a Champion doesn't have anything like that ... so a Champion instead has to, I don't know, pick something out from the DM's room description that could potentially allow them to try and knock someone down and get Advantage that way ... and that makes the Champion "better for roleplaying" because they then have more "interact with the universe" rather than just declaring the use of the Trip Attack. Except it doesn't really work like that, because if there's a certain mechanical standard that the Trip Attack has to meet, then by all accounts the Champion's RP-attempt to knock someone down also has to meet that standard. Or if the standard is just the basic resolution system of the game (in this case, an ability check vs a DC), then the Champion still isn't particularly better than the Battlemaster if the Battlemaster can just do the same thing anyway (and without using their Superiority Dice!) Or maybe you don't have to do an apples-to-apples comparison, because the Battlemaster doesn't exist at your table, so making the Champion "better" by giving them auto-successes at knocking people down is no skin off anyone's nose ... but that requires a sort of Good DMing Praxis that can't and shouldn't be assumed going from table-to-table, and certainly isn't taught just by the books themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
You (any character) can knock people down with a shove attack which uses the athletic skill. As long as you follow the rule mechanics you can call it a trip for RP purposes if you want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
nelson posted:You (any character) can knock people down with a shove attack which uses the athletic skill. As long as you follow the rule mechanics you can call it a trip for RP purposes if you want. gradenko_2000 posted:Or if the standard is just the basic resolution system of the game (in this case, an ability check vs a DC), then the Champion still isn't particularly better than the Battlemaster if the Battlemaster can just do the same thing anyway (and without using their Superiority Dice!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
 This thread is officially a No Bullshit Tolerance Zone I will be straight-up banning anyone who gets into a stupid personal argument in this thread. This level of frustration and anger may have made sense several years ago, when 5e was first launching and poo poo was fresh and new. It's been years. I don't feel like gassing this thread because I suspect it's a lot of the same people having the same arguments for years and years and years. This also applies to snippy little white-noise posts such as: Epi Lepi posted:MonsterEnvy isn’t the one who needs to leave bro. You, the rear end in a top hat gently caress who is neither funny nor interesting should just. Stop. Posting. Control Volume posted:[downing a third shot while talking to a tabletop diorama of a bar scene] something awful is the site that made fun of 9/11 and destroyed those motherfuckers on ebaums world, back then they would have eaten motherfuckers like that for breakfast Piell posted:Kids, kids, settle down: I hate both of you equally. MonsterEnvy is real dumb and Arivia is a real jackass KingKalamari posted:For one post. Farg posted:Fart pnoise From now on, this sort of thing will get you banned immediately in this thread. It's fine to discuss controversies in the hobby, it's important to a lot of people. Heck, it's important to me! I love tabletop gaming and RPGs and I also have strong opinions about this. Talk about the ranger thing or Reddit or tweets or whatever, it's fine. Of course there's drama in the hobby, and that's whatever, but it doesn't need to be constant petty sniping. It doesn't matter if you like 5e or don't like it, this thread is for everyone. But we've been seeing this same poo poo in this forum since I started reading TG in 2012, and it certainly isn't new. Right now, almost all of it is centered on this thread. I am going to start banning people, and I will also gas this thread if it keeps happening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
However, you are still free to talk about how much Zak S sucks, and how he's a real pile of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
This thing has been garbage since 4h and if you disagree it's because you're a giant loser who just wants to lord over other, more giant, losers. I'm from the internet so you know I can't be wrong. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:hen the Champion still isn't particularly better than the Battlemaster if the Battlemaster can just do the same thing anyway (and without using their Superiority Dice!) Do they need to be?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:21
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Do they need to be? More subclasses being balanced together to a standard so you're not gimped mechanically should be a primary goal, yes. I say this as someone playing a Barbarian that didn't take Bear resistance. Wolf totem felt better than Beat even though Bear is better mechanically, if you don't have several melee. It's just me and the Fighter and we're cultist killing bros.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:More subclasses being balanced together to a standard so you're not gimped mechanically should be a primary goal, yes. Honestly there's some decent stuff in Champion... in the latter half of the sub-class. I know full well my getting a Level 20 character fairly quickly is not the norm, and that most people don't even see above 10. It's a big problem with the class design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Do they need to be? Should the Champion have some kind of clearly-defined mechanical niche that would make it recommendable for certain roles vis-a-vis the Battlemaster? Yes. It currently does not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Should the Champion have some kind of clearly-defined mechanical niche that would make it recommendable for certain roles vis-a-vis the Battlemaster? Yes. I mean better at pushing things over. Like in the ideal world, I think the Champion should have the best consistent damage in the game, and be the best at cleaving through weak enemies. While the Battlemaster should be the one with the more specialized combat abilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Honestly there's some decent stuff in Champion... in the latter half of the sub-class. I know full well my getting a Level 20 character fairly quickly is not the norm, and that most people don't even see above 10. It's a big problem with the class design. It's not just 5e, though the few games I've played that released recently have really helped with early levels. Shadow of the Demon Lord is very lethal and low levels being a little weaker fits the design, Edge of the Empire (and I assume Genesys) start you off decent and ramp up fast, and 4e really went to town on the idea of making low levels feel strong. Maybe not so much at launch with the MM1 math but definitely MM3 on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I mean better at pushing things over. Like in the ideal world, I think the Champion should have the best consistent damage in the game, and be the best at cleaving through weak enemies. While the Battlemaster should be the one with the more specialized combat abilities. Okay maybe it was a mistake to bring up "tripping" so specifically, but you seem to grasp the idea that the Champion is rather expected to have better average damage than the Battlemaster, given that the Battlemaster's abilities more controllable and more targetable and can be used to inflict combat conditions. The problem is that the Champion doesn't meet this standard, and so serves no purpose aside from its existence being justified in the form of "well it's more roleplay-ish to not have any rules to define what you're capable of", which is what I was talking about as something that doesn't work, either, because whatever you can conceive of your Champion as doing, which you would then have to petition your DM to let you do, is something that either the Battlemaster could do just as well anyway, and/or is something that you can't reliably count upon because it's all just a conversation with the DM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I mean better at pushing things over. Like in the ideal world, I think the Champion should have the best consistent damage in the game, and be the best at cleaving through weak enemies. While the Battlemaster should be the one with the more specialized combat abilities. This sounds like you're saying that the Battlemaster should have a bunch of abilities that are consistently worse at killing enemies than the Champion's I Attack. Even if that were true, why would it be good?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
A couple times, I've mulled over homebrew classes. Both times, I immediately thought of ways said classes could thematically make sense using any of the ability scores. Death to ability scores! I'm really curious what sacred cows they're going to revive for a theoretical 6e, to immediately beat to death.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:46
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:
Finally. but in the relieved sense not the sarcastic one
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Okay maybe it was a mistake to bring up "tripping" so specifically, but you seem to grasp the idea that the Champion is rather expected to have better average damage than the Battlemaster, given that the Battlemaster's abilities more controllable and more targetable and can be used to inflict combat conditions. AlphaDog posted:This sounds like you're saying that the Battlemaster should have a bunch of abilities that are consistently worse at killing enemies than the Champion's I Attack. To elaborate. I think the Battlemaster should be able to inflict conditions and other effects with it's attacks. And have higher burst damage then the Champion. But be inferior to it when it comes to consistent damage. Along with the whole causing different effects depending on ability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Agreed. Well it serves one purpose, being the most basic class in the game. As anyone playing it is not required to do anything really other then attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:This is bad Yeah, I agree with that. It's why I think the champion could use some changing up. It's just kind of boring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 08:09
|
|
|
I'm disappointed that it really seems like they will never, ever put out complete reworks of classes/mechanics that aren't forever buried behind Unearthed Arcana. It doesn't matter in the end for private games, but for stuff like AL and my own cities setup you don't get to use race/class options that aren't official. Hell a couple of people had to be convinced pretty hard that Tortles were Official Wizards of the Coast Content and not just well done homebrew on the DMsGuild. Having seen classes get entire reworks in another game, which shadow sometimes looms over this thread, and even having those reworks be rolled into the core rulebook only makes it that much more disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
Arthil posted:I'm disappointed that it really seems like they will never, ever put out complete reworks of classes/mechanics that aren't forever buried behind Unearthed Arcana. It doesn't matter in the end for private games, but for stuff like AL and my own cities setup you don't get to use race/class options that aren't official. Hell a couple of people had to be convinced pretty hard that Tortles were Official Wizards of the Coast Content and not just well done homebrew on the DMsGuild. Yeah I was sad when Crawford announced that the Revised Ranger would not be made official. Likely ether 5.5 or 6e need to come out before we get a major change to the core. And neither of those are likely to happen soon. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:To elaborate. I think the Battlemaster should be able to inflict conditions and other effects with it's attacks. And have higher burst damage then the Champion. But be inferior to it when it comes to consistent damage. Along with the whole causing different effects depending on ability. What does this burst vs consistent damage look like in a 5 round fight? Like, if CH pulls 10 dpr does BM do nothing for 4 rounds and do 45 damage in the one round that it actually hits? Or should the BM be doing say 20 damage on 2/5 rounds, or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 10:22
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:What does this burst vs consistent damage look like in a 5 round fight? Like, if CH pulls 10 dpr does BM do nothing for 4 rounds and do 45 damage in the one round that it actually hits? Or should the BM be doing say 20 damage on 2/5 rounds, or what? Something like CH 20 DPR all 5, BM 15 DPR except for rounds 3 and 5 were he bursts up for 30 on both and also applies an extra effect like a stun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 10:37
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Something like CH 20 DPR all 5, BM 15 DPR except for rounds 3 and 5 were he bursts up for 30 on both and also applies an extra effect like a stun. This is what you think is good: The champion does 100 damage, while the battlemaster does 105 damage and 2 stuns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 11:07
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:This is what you think is good: Yes the Battlemaster would do more damage in total, because he is spending resources. However say the next fight happens and the Battle Master does not want to spend his resources, His damage lowers to 75, but the Champion stays at 100. This is the difference between burst and consistent damage. Burst deals more damage in total, but is limited by resources, while Consistent damage is what it stays consistent. This is not how it currently works in the game is my issue. Remember this is purely hypothetical and made up examples, none of this is in game. Along with me having largely picked random numbers. (The damage numbers would have worked just as well with BM 3, Champion 6, BM Burst 9. Or really anything like BM lower then Champion when not bursting, but higher in total when bursting.) MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 11:30
|
|
|
E: Double post
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 11:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
You didn't mention resources, but if you were to extend the scenario out over the BM's refresh, how does that work out? In short, when you're talking about burst vs consistent, who does more damage in total over a short rest? Over a long rest? Also, could you please learn the difference between then and than? It makes your posts much harder to read than they could be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 11:56
|
|