|
neonchameleon posted:Meanwhile the 2e PHB broke the classes down into four groups (Warrior, Wizard, Priest, Rogue). The Rogue classes were Thief and Bard. Yeah, you can kind of see the concept starting to form. Like, those weren't really roles yet, they were more like 'which of the four sets of rules does your class primarily use', but once you've started sorting into categories then thinking about what those categories are actually for becomes a next step.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
The concept of 'role' is pretty organic really and you'll see some kind of version of it in almost any game, though not always tank, healer, etc. Like if you're going to give people different tools, they're going to look at those tools and ask themselves what they're supposed to do with them. And once you accept the idea that any given set of tools should be roughly equivalent to any other set of tools, you're already like 75% there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
Isn't one of the problems with 5e that some classes get a lot fewer options than others anyway, not that classes aren't focused enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 08:24
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Isn't one of the problems with 5e that some classes get a lot fewer options than others anyway, not that classes aren't focused enough? Idk if it's technically a problem if it's a purposeful design feature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
I'm willing to invoke death of the author here
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 08:38
|
|
|
Alright thread, I'm about to DM my first 5e game having done 2e and 3.5 years and years ago. I'm out of practice but I'm sure it will be fine. I've got a session planned in a couple of weeks for some friends. Some of the players are total newbies, most have played a bit here and there but none have played 5e before. I've got the rulebooks, I'm all prepped up and (nearly) ready to rock. But I have some questions that you might be able to help with. 1) Party balance. Does it matter? I figured it's more fun to let each of them build a character he wants to play to maximise enjoyment, and I've ended up with a Paladin, a Rogue, a Bard, a Druid and a Monk. No real magic damage and a lot of support, but will that be fine. Also, one of the guys (the druid) doesn't like his character and wants to play a bard, but the one who is already a bard has put a lot of time and work into his character and doesn't want to not be a bard. Would having two bards be weird? I'm not too worried about combat balance, because I can just make combats a little easier to accommodate, but I'm just wondering how a balance like that would go for other reasons. 2) I'm torn about which adventure to run. Years ago I always used to make my own campaigns in my own world and it was lots of fun but lots of work. I'm looking for something easier because I'm pretty busy and don't have a lot of time in the next two weeks. I thought about running a premade campaign and looked at Curse of Strahd but it looks pretty complex and I think that since most of my players are newish to the game, something more traditional Swords'N'Sworcery would be better. I was thinking Lost Mines, which everyone recommends, but how would that go compared to a single-night adventure (like a tutorial?) of something I made up, following this guys advice here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTD2RZz6mlo. I love the idea of doing something myself that can lead into other things. Or is Lost Mines so good that it is still recommended over anything I can come up with, given limited time. Also, all the characters came up with backstories involving Forgetten Realms, so the campaign sort of has to start there. Which should I do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
Forum Joe posted:Alright thread, I'm about to DM my first 5e game having done 2e and 3.5 years and years ago. I'm out of practice but I'm sure it will be fine. I've got a session planned in a couple of weeks for some friends. Some of the players are total newbies, most have played a bit here and there but none have played 5e before. I've got the rulebooks, I'm all prepped up and (nearly) ready to rock. But I have some questions that you might be able to help with. Some people argue that bards are the best caster class so i dont think you should have that much issue having two bards honestly. Maybe direct them to go down different bard colleges for a bit of difference. Lost Mines is pretty decent and really good for newbies but it can get a bit samey with the amount of goblins youre gonna be a killing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 12:25
|
|
|
Forum Joe posted:Alright thread, I'm about to DM my first 5e game having done 2e and 3.5 years and years ago. I'm out of practice but I'm sure it will be fine. I've got a session planned in a couple of weeks for some friends. Some of the players are total newbies, most have played a bit here and there but none have played 5e before. I've got the rulebooks, I'm all prepped up and (nearly) ready to rock. But I have some questions that you might be able to help with. Curse of Strahd is very sandboxy. If your party isn't into how dark it is just downplay those elements a little. It'll take them from level 1-9. It gave my group something to do for the year we were there
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
Forum Joe posted:Alright thread, I'm about to DM my first 5e game having done 2e and 3.5 years and years ago. The five-room dungeon's a pretty safe method for rolling your own, which you may already be familiar with: a fight, a puzzle, a twist, another fight, a crack at the treasure. A sample platter, in this case. Fight monsters, solve problems, get in character. Party compositions are pretty flexible in 5e, I'd say. Just make sure everyone has something to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
Alright gang. Is there a decent effortpost about all the available classes and archetypes, rating them within their archetypes? I've got the Rogue one, I know Fighter, what else is good and not good? Rangers are just a mess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Rangers are just a mess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
Revised Ranger/Hunter ain't so bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
The newer XGTE Ranger classes are a lot better. Monster Slayer is okay, Horizon is a good, and Gloom is fantastic. The extra spells are very nice. Horizon works best with melee that doesn't use it's bonus action (SnB or non-reach great weapons). Gloom is good at everything and makes a solid first 5 (or 7 for an extra save prof) levels. Those two are worth sticking with for their spells and abilities mostly, though every Ranger is best stopping at 5 with extra attack and then going into something else. Rogue is the obvious fit if you're not going strength based melee, especially for Gloomstalker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Alright gang. Is there a decent effortpost about all the available classes and archetypes, rating them within their archetypes? I've got the Rogue one, I know Fighter, what else is good and not good? Rangers are just a mess. Guess I can make a quick one. Barbarian: Melee-exclusive class. It possesses high HP and Damage Resistance, but its attack/damage bonuses rely on leaving itself vulnerable to attack, negating the 'tough guy' benefits and making it, all-in-all, a worse Fighter that operates on restrictive Long Rest mechanics. However, very front-loaded, so other melee classes take time to catch up. - Archetypes - Totem Warrior: probably the best archetype, as Bear Totem confers resistance to all damage types (except Psychic), while Wolf Totem grants advantage to melee allies. Both are very good abilities. Also grants a small dose of spellcasting. Zealot: extra damage and save rerolls. The "free Revivify" ability is cute. The level 14th ability is frankly amazing, but games rarely reach those levels. Ancestral Guardian: "defender" mechanics. Actually fairly competent in the right party composition. The rest: all garbage. Berserker is uniquely bad. Bard: Full caster with a versatile spell list that includes buff, debuffs, utility, and healing, and filled to the brim with other abilities on top of that. Damage is pretty poor until the late (10th) levels, however, but it's exceptional at everything else. Literally steals exclusive spells from other classes. - Archetypes - Lore: Bard+, the best archetype. Cutting Words is an excellent additional function for Bardic Inspiration, also gets more skills, and an additional set of Magical Secrets. Valor: Terribly designed - the Bard spell list is uniquely bad at supporting one's own martial prowess, so attempting to partake in it is just a recipe for bad experiences. However, grants medium armor and shield proficiency, taking care of the Bard's low AC problem without class dipping or using a feat. That's all it's good for, but it's not a bad thing to take if you have trouble with getting attacked. Swords: Better at melee combat than Valor, but the same thoughts above apply. Only useful as multi-class fodder. The rest: they're okay, but worse than Lore. Whisper's Psychic Blades is extremely meh and shouldn't be used. Cleric: Full caster, off-tank, face wrecker. Healing, utility, buffs, lots of damage, some nice Domain abilities and borrowed spells. 2nd best Caster overall, but unlike most casters which get exponentially better past 10th level, Cleric actually peaks there. - Domains - Life: Cleric+, making it one of the best domains. Heavy Armor is good, their Channel Divinity is good, their Domain list takes most of the Cleric staples so they can diversify their prepared spells, and there's a couple fun things that can be done with Disciple of Life, but overall the archetype just works exactly as a Cleric should without any weirdness. Tempest: best blaster cleric. Also the best melee cleric. Pretty fun mechanics overall, but going in-depth on it would take too much time. Arcana: pretty alright. Magic Missile is a good damage source (though Clerics can't spam it as much as Wizards and Sorcerers), but the rest of the domain list is underwhelming. Wizard Cantrips + Potent Spellcasting however, make this one of the best melee Clerics. Also, if the game gets late enough, their 17th level ability is basically Magical Secrets+. The rest: they all lean into different things, and are overall okay except Trickery, however the base Cleric chassis is strong on its own so Domains don't really impact performance much. Druid: Cleric but worse. Tries to justify its existence by having the ability to turn into animals. - Archetypes - Dreams: built-in Healing Word is always a good thing. That's all it has. Land: more spells! And arcane recovery like a wizard! It's okay, if the right circles are taken. Moon: if you want to outshine unoptimized melee martials, this is the archetype for you. Shepherd: technically good, but summoning is cancer and should seldom if ever be used. Spores: this is such a hodgepodge of various weak abilities I can't even Fighter: *The* martial class. Very good at dealing HP damage, and reasonably survivable, but little else. - Archetypes - Battle Master: the reliable offensive archetype, melee or ranged, it doesn't care - gets the job done. The various maneuvers might seem cool, but 95% of the time you're better off turning misses into hits with Precision. Eldritch Knight: take Fighter and add a little spellcasting, giving it dramatically more agency as a result. The main spells to look at here are Shield, Absorb Elements, and potentially Shadow Blade, which gets rather obscene at level 11. Cavalier: "defender" mechanics. They're decent. Much more fun to play than Ancestral Guardian by virtue of having buttons to press plus more feats available to gently caress around with. The rest: Champion and Purple Dragon Knight are garbage. Arcane Archer and Samurai are okay but... Battle Master is better, really. Monk: Some weird martial thing that is all over the place, both figuratively and literally. Stunning Strike is pretty good. Moves really fast. Damage is okay early but falls off quickly. Very equipment restricted, and Short Rest reliant. - Archetypes - Shadow: has spellcasting, so that's really good. Shadow Teleport is neat. Long Death: lmao that level 11 ability christ Kensei: slightly better damage and/or AC. Gets the chance to use those magic weapons you find that the party would throw away or sell because they don't fit their builds. The rest: Drunken Master is pointless (just play Open Hand instead) and 4 Elements is utter poo poo. The rest are okay. Paladin: Melee-exclusive, half-caster, all-awesome. One of the best classes in the game. Strong damage dealing, very resilient, rich in mechanics both passive and active. - Archetypes - Vengeance: excellent spell list (HASTE!), a strong Channel Divinity option, and the rest shine in the right setup (ie PAM/Sentinel). Ancients: decent spell list, poor Channel Divinity options, but the rest of its abilities are great. The rest: I'll just cut it short and say everything is good except Crown and Redemption. Ranger: Martial class filled with ribbon abilities. Half-caster, but only really has 3~4 good spells (not that it can take many anyway). Overall functional, but practically stops scaling after level 8. - Archetypes - Hunter: it's okay, it works. Gloom Stalker: now this, you can do tons of fun poo poo with this. A 'power-creeped' archetype; an attempt to band-aid ranger without actually releasing Revised. Horizon Walker: like above, but it's mechanics are all over the place and a little wonky. The spell list is really nice, at least. Monster Slayer: play Gloom Stalker or Horizon Walker instead Beast Master: lol just ask the DM for a pet Rogue: Hybrid DPR and mundane utility class. Everyone plays it melee, but it actually works best at range, and in the right party comp (Haste!) it can be an exceptional damage dealer. However, a ranged Rogue is also extremely boring to play. Honestly, this is just not a very good class, because declarative narrative power is good, but skill checks are the weakest form of it. - Archetypes - Arcane Trickster: the best by virtue of having spellcasting. Find Familiar. Swashbuckler: fixes some of the issues of trying to use a Rogue in melee, but still involves the issues of using a Rogue in melee. The rest: they're all bad, but Assassin is uniquely terrible in ways that require their own effort post to explain. Sorcerer: The combat support caster. Much maligned for being a bad full caster, since its known spells are so restricted, but their unique abilities make for mechanically interesting play. It's really all about Twinned Spell plus your choice between Subtle, Quickened, and Empowered. - Archetypes - Draconic: Sorcerer+. Makes you tougher, pick Fire and it makes your staple Fire Bolt and Fireball do more damage. Automatic flight at 14th. Divine Soul: access to the Cleric spell list, but remains severely restricted by low number of spells known. Still, the Cleric list has a number of very good damage/support options. Shadow: Darkness gimmick vs enemies without blindsight. The rest: Storm is bad and Wild is literally worse than having no archetype. Warlock: This has been much discussed and requires its own effort post to explain in detail, but Warlock is an uniquely badly designed class in a system that's filled with bad design decisions. It can be quite strong, and competently fill in niches in the party composition in ways no other single character can, but if you don't know going in that this is basically a martial class that shoots magic instead of arrows, then you're in for a rough experience. - Pacts - Tome: it's the best, really. Extra cantrips, access to ritual magic with an invocation. Chain: Imps are cool (pact imps do not give you magic resistance!), but you get 90% of the functionality here from Tome+Rituals. Blade: trap option. - Patrons - Hexblade: power creep~ In an attempt to make bladelocks functional, ended up creating a buffed-up archetype that makes for even better multiclass fodder than Warlock already was before, and that works just as well with Eldritch Blasting. In fact, it's better off Eldritch Blasting than doing melee. Celestial: built-in Healing Word is always a good thing. That's all it has. Fiend: it's alright. AoE blasting and other good combat options. The rest: they're all okay, but Hexblade is just so strong. Wizard: The overall third best caster? Exponential power growth, subject to available money/spell scrolls. Bards are pretty up there, but high level Wizards are straight up busted. - Schools - Good: Abjuration, Divination, Evocation, War Magic Technically good but please don't: Necromancy Okay: Transmutation Bad: Conjuration, Illusion Bladesinging: want your Wizard to be a monstruous AC tank without any multiclassing required? And thanks to Shadow Blade, this is actually a very competent martial character, while retaining the full spectrum of Wizard utility/casting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Few notes to add to that: if you want to be a sword or valor bard, you should seriously consider bladesinger wizard instead. Unless the inspiration dice mechanic is something you absolutely need, bladesinger does the whole "career-with-a-side-of-melee" much better. Redemption Paladin is actually pretty good, but consider who you're playing with and if the DM is gonna be an rear end in a top hat about you killing people. The class as written takes time to mention that paladins aren't idiots and understand that you're not gonna convince a demon that it should "be good". Nor does it require you to never kill anyone even in self defense. It does want you to try and talk down things that can be reasoned with, and to spare the lives of those you can if at all possible. If that's gonna be a big narrative clash with your fellow players or the setting just don't play it. Rogues are pretty solid, but definitely make sure you're not gonna be the only martial character. They really want another melee person or two around, even if they're ranged, for easy sneak attacks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
I should've prefaced that my assessments above are based entirely around mechanical merits; Oath of Redemption has bad mechanics compared to the other Oaths, regardless of however you wish to play the fluffy bits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I should've prefaced that my assessments above are based entirely around mechanical merits; Oath of Redemption has bad mechanics compared to the other Oaths, regardless of however you wish to play the fluffy bits. I actually don't think it is weak at all? It gets hold person, counterspell, sleep, hypnotic pattern and hold monster as class spells. Probably one of the strongest subclass lists. The channel divinity makes you either a super negotiator or causes a boss to take a bunch of damage from it's biggest attack, which are both situational but pretty good when they apply. Definitely weaker than Vengeance but not useless. The aura lets you save allies from damage as a reaction which can easily be what keeps a caster from failing a concentration check. Late levels you get HP regen every round and the capstone is pretty strong as well. It doesn't have crazy raw damage like Vengeance with GWM, but it's a solid tank and support, which can still deal good damage because it's a Paladin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Paladins are half casters. Sleep shows up at the level where it's already become redundant, and Hold Person and Hypnotic Pattern rely on your DCs. Wall of Force is great, but it's level 17th. Rebuke the Violent competes with Aura of Guardian for your reaction and also relies on your DCs. Also, "biggest attack"? And nevermind that Aura of the Guardian is itself is poor; damage transference abilities like that just aren't good on a Paladin. You're already at the front, eating damage and keeping Concentration up on your buffs/debuffs, so it's simply not healthy to redirect more damage to you without any sort of mitigation. It kind of makes sense with Protective Spirit, but that doesn't come online until 15th.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
That’s a great start. I feel like it’s worth noting that some subclasses (assassin and illusionist wizard come to mind) can vary wildly in their power depending on the DM. Your assessment of the mechanics as written is spot on but I’ve seen them implemented in very different ways at different tables. Other subclasses are much more cut and dry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
If I wanted to make a monster summoning necromancer type in 5E and I have access to the PHB and Xanathar's and I'm level 10... what would I do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:That’s a great start. I feel like it’s worth noting that some subclasses (assassin and illusionist wizard come to mind) can vary wildly in their power depending on the DM. Your assessment of the mechanics as written is spot on but I’ve seen them implemented in very different ways at different tables. Other subclasses are much more cut and dry. Assassin is special because it's an archetype diseased down to its core concept - their abilities are almost entirely reliant on DM fiat to work at all and, even if they were functional, encourage a style of play that inherently runs counter to the co-op nature of D&D. The DM spending 30 minutes of a 3 hour session fellating the Rogue as he goes off on his little solo adventure isn't fun for the rest of the group.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Paladins are half casters. Sleep shows up at the level where it's already become redundant, and Hold Person and Hypnotic Pattern rely on your DCs. Wall of Force is great, but it's level 17th. Uh, sleep isn't useless at level 3. Biggest attack means exactly that. You choose when to use your channel divinity, so wait until the monster does a big thing. Breath weapons, etc. Reaction to save an ally from getting knocked down or losing a spell is absolutely worth it when it matters. You won't use it every round, but taking a hit when it matters is strong. Paladin DC's tend to be high because stacking CHA gets you fantastic returns unlike a lot of classes secondary stats. Paladin doesn't need to be pushing out many buffs, and you can get to auto-pass on DC 10 concentration checks pretty easily after level 6 if you build that way. I guess we just disagree on what constitutes good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
The Gate posted:Uh, sleep isn't useless at level 3. Biggest attack means exactly that. You choose when to use your channel divinity, so wait until the monster does a big thing. Breath weapons, etc. Reaction to save an ally from getting knocked down or losing a spell is absolutely worth it when it matters. You won't use it every round, but taking a hit when it matters is strong. Paladin DC's tend to be high because stacking CHA gets you fantastic returns unlike a lot of classes secondary stats. Paladin doesn't need to be pushing out many buffs, and you can get to auto-pass on DC 10 concentration checks pretty easily after level 6 if you build that way. Only works on attacks. As in, rolling a d20 plus modifier and checking vs AC. Sion posted:If I wanted to make a monster summoning necromancer type in 5E and I have access to the PHB and Xanathar's and I'm level 10... what would I do? Wait for level 11 so your Planar Binding lasts 10 days. Then cast a 4th level Magic Circle, 5th level Conjure Elemental, and 6th level Planar Binding. Alternatively, put the Planar Binding on a Glyph of Warding, then cast a 6th level Summon Greater Demon to get a Draegloth and have it walk over the Glyph to bind it. And when you get to 14th you can try to convince your party to go on an adventure to bind a Mummy Lord with your Command Undead feature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The DM spending 30 minutes of a 3 hour session fellating the Rogue as he goes off on his little solo adventure isn't fun for the rest of the group. I've made that mistake before. In my first campaign I DMed there was a thief-y Wizard who wanted to run heists on nobles. No one else in the group really cared, and it was pretty obvious they didn't care, which was a bit of a shame because I thought they were fun to set up. A couple side heists later the player retired the character and made something more in-line with the flow of the group.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Wait for level 11 so your Planar Binding lasts 10 days. Alas, we start at level 1 and things cap out at level 10 because no one likes running for higher than level 10s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
Sion posted:Alas, we start at level 1 and things cap out at level 10 because no one likes running for higher than level 10s. ...I do... Eagerly awaiting a year from now when my current group which will absolutely stay together should be somewhere around level 11 or 12 because it's totally going to happen this time My last group made it to 12 and then exploded into a ball of bland drama, which was a shame. It's fun coming up with increasingly bananas situations to test characters as they start to break free from the balance algorithms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The DM spending 30 minutes of a 3 hour session fellating the Rogue as he goes off on his little solo adventure isn't fun for the rest of the group. Oh yeah, having sat through that poo poo I agree it sucks rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
RC Cola posted:Curse of Strahd is very sandboxy. If your party isn't into how dark it is just downplay those elements a little. It'll take them from level 1-9. It gave my group something to do for the year we were there What's great about Curse of Strahd is it's pretty easy to run it as spooky in the Halloween or Castlevania sort of way if you aren't down with the oppressive tone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:What's great about Curse of Strahd is it's pretty easy to run it as spooky in the Halloween or Castlevania sort of way if you aren't down with the oppressive tone. Yeah but I'll say this, not for you but for everyone else who doesnt already know, you need to talk to everyone and be extremely upfront on what the tone and style of game is or else you're more than likely to end up in someone being frustrated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Sorcerer: this write up is ignorable, voted one
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 05:45
|
|
|
One of the things that can be challenging for a DM to deal with is that Strahd asks you, the DM, to use an overleveled NPC to gently caress with the party whenever you want to. If you do not do this, it's actually not that bad, but if you do do this, there are only a couple of areas that are going to be tricky. What I've done with it in the past is basically follow the module up until like, the third adventure and then just loving wing it using the maps as a guide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
I've got a one-shot tomorrow. Is there any kind of barbarian grappler build that will be worth a drat at level 5 rather than 6? I feel like the multiclass shenanigans don't pay off when I don't have multiattack because it's offset a level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:this write up is ignorable, voted one That thing you like? It’s bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Some people argue that bards are the best caster class so i dont think you should have that much issue having two bards honestly. Maybe direct them to go down different bard colleges for a bit of difference. Honestly played in a short game with 5 bards of different colleges, and it was the most fun 5e experience I've ever had. The sheer amount of control and power each character had was amazing. None of us felt overshadowed, and it allowed us to branch out and get more than just the best spells at each level, since we could cover each other picking up one or two suboptimal ones. And we could all contribute to skill checks pretty equally, meaning no one hogged every social encounter. We only played from 3 to 8, but it was a great journey. Whispers bard was like having a better rogue Glamour bard was mostly just a bard Between sword and valor, we were fine on tanks for the melee fighting. And my lore bard was basically the cleric And with having 21 bardic inspirations per short rest, we were pretty well off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
KittyEmpress posted:Good bard times This honestly reads like a condemnation of 5e’s class balancing to me
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 06:37
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:One of the things that can be challenging for a DM to deal with is that Strahd asks you, the DM, to use an overleveled NPC to gently caress with the party whenever you want to. If you do not do this, it's actually not that bad, but if you do do this, there are only a couple of areas that are going to be tricky. Personally, I like having him show up after the burgomaster's funeral, during the festival in Vallaki, and one other time before the castle. Running the adventure as written, of course. If your party feels like kicking his door down immediately or working for him or something, he'll probably make himself more available. Bad Seafood fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Mar 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 06:37
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:I've got a one-shot tomorrow. Is there any kind of barbarian grappler build that will be worth a drat at level 5 rather than 6? I feel like the multiclass shenanigans don't pay off when I don't have multiattack because it's offset a level. Depends on what you mean by 'build'. I don't know how good it would be but a Dwarf battlerager with the Tavern Brawler feat could get some work done. You'll lose out on unarmored defense and probably can't use a shield unless you want to beat somebody to death with your shield. The nice thing is that the Advantage from rage plays nice with grapple. Spiked armor also plays nice with grapple. EDIT: Actually, looking at it, if you're comfortable dealing 1d4 damage either way, there's nothing stopping you from using a shield. With spiked armor and shield that gives you a respectable 18 AC, a damage of 1d4+4 twice per round, and the ability to grapple (with advantage) as a bonus action. Spiked armor deals +3 damage when you establish a grapple, so you could always end and then re-initiate a grapple on each turn to get a little damage boost. With rage rolled in, you're looking at (1d4+6)+(1d4+6)+3 on an optimal turn, which is low compared to a rogue but you've also got a monster locked down for the turn. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Mar 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Guess I can make a quick one. I think it's important to note that in terms of viability and long-term fun in play it typically goes Full casters - these classes are only competing with each other to see who is most important, not who is weak ------ "Gish" casters - Most are actually well-designed and fun. Sorry ranger. ----- Seven floors of dirt ----- "Martial" characters
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 08:39
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:This honestly reads like a condemnation of 5e’s class balancing to me Bard is basically the only class designed to be an actual adventurer, and more or less entirely on accident, at that. While it's totally a mark against 5e that you can only really achieve this with all bards, it's also...not limited to 5e at all. Everyone but bard typically ends up as such a weird narrative specialist, and with D&D's typical bad mechanics and binary resolution, instead of having a cool specialization or gimmick you pull out every so often, you end up entirely defined by it. So yeah, all bards being the perfect team makes sense, because you finally have a group made of people ready to go out and, you know, adventure. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Mar 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:This honestly reads like a condemnation of 5e’s class balancing to me You can do similar silly things with clerics and to a lesser extent Warlocks. Bards are my favorite example and thus what we went with, because it let us fluff our adventuring party as both an adventuring party and a band, so we would go destroy threats and then sing about our victories. But yeah, the fact that a party of all bards was more harmonious and powerful feeling, while also letting every PC feel important and like they contribute, is both a point in bards favor, and a point in every other classes negatives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 15:35
|
|