|
I'm fine with discovering that the people you're working for are assholes and then getting to punch them in their smug faces. Where you start getting into trouble is "everyone is an rear end in a top hat and/or has the support of a massive political structure / the citizen population, so you can't punch them in the face." The players need ways to make a meaningful impact on the world, and because D&D RAW is almost entirely about combat, those ways almost certainly need to involve face-punching punchable faces. If you surround them with shades of gray, then face-punching becomes meaningless; why bother punching this guy when they'll just get replaced by something possibly even worse? And popular villains are the absolute pits, you're basically just taunting the players at that point. I doubt most D&D groups want to play "plan a societal revolution, distribute propaganda, and slowly turn the citizens against their rulers." Like, you absolutely can have that kind of thing in your RP group if that's what they're into, I just feel it's a poor fit for D&D. D&D is very black and white by its nature. You're working against type if you try to introduce too much subtlety to it. edit: to be clear, I'm not saying you can't have villains that need some work to access, but that work being "convince the entire population that loves and supports this person that they're actually evil" is probably not a great pick. TooMuchAbstraction fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jul 3, 2019 |
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
I think moral ambiguity can be interesting to explore but it's just as prone to overused cliches as any other theme. Also bringing politics into gaming can be tricky because the drive to establish an ideological statement can easily be perceived as narrative railroading.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Jul 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think moral ambiguity can be interesting to explore but it's just as prone to overused cliches as any other theme. WoW ruined trying to do Orcs as misunderstood noble savages and Drow as misunderstood edgy elves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
I'm tired of elves being super important. Let the halflings run the oppressive autocracy. Waves of hyper-militaristic aasimar. The saviors of the last age, the dwarves and only the dwarves. Where are my secret histories of the orcs protecting the world from itself in the dark of night? Why can't the apocalypse be triggered by the arrogance of gnomes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:I'm tired of elves being super important. Let the halflings run the oppressive autocracy. Waves of hyper-militaristic aasimar. The saviors of the last age, the dwarves and only the dwarves. Where are my secret histories of the orcs protecting the world from itself in the dark of night? Why can't the apocalypse be triggered by the arrogance of gnomes? I think at least some of this is in Eberron.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
I agree with what others have said: a cliché is a cliché and anything becomes boring if overdone. While I think that moral greyness is fine if done, like anything else, properly and in moderation, I really do dislike "status quo syndrome" where what the players do doesn't really change anything. MMOs have to do this... in fact, I recall a world-changing experience from an MMO I played years and years ago and it pissed off everyone except the assholes who perpetrated it. However, SQS has become endemic to RPGs, novels, pen & paper and so on, and it utterly strips the PCs of their agency. If the PCs can't really change the world, why bother? That said, while some games like the Witcher series go too far, but I still believe that moral ambiguity has its place - to each their own. I like the idea of the PCs having to make a hard decision and perhaps, sometimes, they realise that they were wrong and the campaign continues while they try and make it right.Mendrian posted:You know who arent selfish fucks? They certainly don't demand their pound of flesh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think moral ambiguity can be interesting to explore but it's just as prone to overused cliches as any other theme. Also bringing politics into gaming can be tricky because the drive to establish an ideological statement can easily be perceived as narrative railroading. The thing is that plenty of people have already been railroaded into a bunch of ideological statements by the original DnD lore. That's the point of these writing/thought experiments. It forces you as the writer/DM to think about the cultural assumptions in the game that are completely political but in ways that don't make societally dominant groups uncomfortable. "Orcs are bad and therefore expanding Civilization to engulf their territories is good" is a fantasy cribbing of the Doctrine of Discovery/Manifest Destiny. Rejecting your evil race and culture to enmesh yourself into the dominant group is a political story with real world analogues. And DnD literally never backs away from these ideas. Razorwired fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jul 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
You can't have games about fighting monsters unless the setting is fundamentally Man vs Nature/Primordial Evil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
The "shade of grey" that is non-edgy is that the evil kingdom is definitely really evil and needs to be stopped, but also there are bad guys at home and now that you're the popular conquering hero with enough power to topple kingdoms... are the "good" kings good enough that you don't want to change things for the better there? Are the "good" gods good enough? Did the heroes accidentally do something bad without knowing it that they have to fix? That last part is a classic fantasy plot - heroes fix their own mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You can't have games about fighting monsters unless the setting is fundamentally Man vs Nature/Primordial Evil. I mean, you can even play Fantasy Cowboys and Indians if you want. Just remember that the cowboys were the bad guys and choose a side appropriately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Mr. Humalong posted:I think at least some of this is in Eberron. I'm all about dinosaur riding halfling cannibals. Though, you can save elves. Like Divinity: Original Sin elves have a unique culture, including ritualistic canni- Huh. I'm in the middle of one of my favorite goof-off games, Prototype 2. Maybe I'm just pro-eating-people. Ok, what game should I play that involves devouring as many people as possible?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You can't have games about fighting monsters unless the setting is fundamentally Man vs Nature/Primordial Evil. You have to have a pretty broad interpretation of "nature" for that to be true even in D&D. Half the monsters in the Manual are "some wizard hosed around and produced this" or "some other plane's perfectly normal denizen is Weird and Different on the Prime Material".
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
I think that some of this explains why devils and demons are so popular as antagonists; they are literally the physical personifications of unrelenting evil and tie into various myths, secular and otherwise, and the human desire for dichotomous thinking. Angels are similar but a bit dodgier because much has been done with the idea of oppressive but well meaning good as an analogy for religious extremism, but nobody has ever really said "Sure, this horde of devils wants to enslave all the races of the prime material plane, but look at how many female devils there are in positions of authority!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
Gender is not really much of a thing for Devils. Added on along with many monsters being just a wizard/fiend/god messed with some stuff. There are also many humanoid groups with monsters they have trained, there is no need for Man vs Nature. Hell for the most part in D&D the evil humanoids tend to be invaders rather than the opposite. Let's take the classic adventure Against the Giants were you invade giant strongholds. The reason you are sent to attack the giants is because they have been pillaging and raiding the area after they moved in. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jul 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Gender is not really much of a thing for Devils. I was under the impression that lower planar outsiders basically choose their gender identity. How does that make it not a thing? It's cool when DMs mix things up, but the basic reason alignment exists and there are always evil humanoid races is so the players can just get on with their murder-hoboing without getting distracted by ethical concerns. Now if your play group wants to roleplay ethical concerns that is completely great and it can be a lot of fun. But if you just want to murder orcs and kobolds to collect treasure so you can start murdering ogres that's fine too. User fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jul 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:nobody has ever really said "Sure, this horde of devils wants to enslave all the races of the prime material plane, but look at how many female devils there are in positions of authority!" Which is an interesting choice, imo; if I were writing Hell, the epitome of LE in D&D, that's the faction/plane I'd be absolutely most likely to turn into a rigid patriarchy. And you don't need races of literal evil guys to justify murder-hoboing, just say that the bad guys are really malicious bandits or necromancers or slavers or fantasy Nazis. Most games have at least some kind of simple plot, and that one is less morally-conflicting for most people than killing orcs or dark elves because the Monster Manual and the mayor of Dundershire both say they're evil. Baku fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jul 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Which is an interesting choice, imo; if I were writing Hell, the epitome of LE in D&D, that's the faction/plane I'd be absolutely most likely to turn into a rigid patriarchy. In stock D&D there is such a thing as objectively evil. Detect evil and know alignment say they're evil, be it orcs, evil clerics, or nazi elves. But obviously in your campaign you do you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
I was actually thinking of Mariliths, the six-armed ones who are often lieutenants, but now that I think again those are probably demons from the Abyss. Leave it to this thread to split hairs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
I like to create settings where the people in charge are kind of assholes but the people at the bottom are good or at least more nuanced, and then give the PCs the tools to turn everything upsidedown. It creates a special kind of catharsis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:And you don't need races of literal evil guys to justify murder-hoboing, just say that the bad guys are really malicious bandits or necromancers or slavers or fantasy Nazis. Yeah, you should be able to take pretty much any D&D society and inject as much nuance as you need without needing to rely on designated bad guys. It's entirely possible to write a villain that's "yeah, I can understand their motivations but holy poo poo they're going way too far and need to be put down." edit: or even just "hey we got abducted by someone who's so far gone that they don't really relate to ethics any more." I mean, you want to be careful about not demonizing mental illness, but at the same time history has a lot of precedents of people who just did horribly nasty things for no discernable reason. TooMuchAbstraction fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
User posted:I was under the impression that lower planar outsiders basically choose their gender identity. How does that make it not a thing? This was the recent entry on it. MToF posted:To a devil, gender is insignificant. Devils can’t create new life with each other through physical means; a new devil comes into being only when a soul is corrupted or claimed in a bargain, and the gender of the mortal that provided the soul is immaterial. Devils that represent themselves to mortals are likely to adopt an appearance (including an apparent gender) that conforms with what those mortals believe to be true. Gender (and the assumptions that mortals make about it) is just another tool for devils to use to get what they want. User posted:In stock D&D there is such a thing as objectively evil. Detect evil and know alignment say they're evil, be it orcs, evil clerics, or nazi elves. Those things don't work like that in 5e anymore. They only detect things like Fiends and Undead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:This was the recent entry on it. Oh interesting. I guess my brain just filled in some blanks. Thanks for the heads up. Looks like commune can do the trick too, and also I imagine most DMs would let a wish tell alignment too (what a waste). Still, it definitely means a low level party doesn't have a reliable way to determine that the target they're murdering for their stuff actually has it coming, instead of just being kind of an rear end in a top hat. User fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
To be entirely honest, unless you're playing with millenials or big retro game nerds, you could probably lift the plot from the original NES Final Fantasy almost wholesale: Winds stop blowing and are often toxic, bringing death in the wake of storms; The oceans rage out of control, making travel and commerce nearly impossible; The earth itself begins to rot and decay, while the dead begin to walk again; Fires rage out of control, sweeping across the land and leaving little but ash in their wake. You get major villains in the Lich of Earth, Kary the Marilith, a sorcerous Kraken in a sunken temple, and loving Tiamat in a goddamn technological sky castle, all following the bidding of a dishonored knight, once forced to kidnap a local princess for ransom, now thrown back in time to become the embodiment of Chaos itself. The players get to start off the adventure rescuing the kidnapped princess and being big drat heroes, before finding themselves thrust into events far beyond their control. No need to worry about "shades of grey" stuff going on, as all the villains are very evil and have very real plans to destroy the world and let Chaos reign. Even the minor bosses, like Bikke the pirate and the dark elf wizard-king Astos have decent-enough motivations without really being grey about them, so beating them up and taking their stuff doesn't feel bad. Besides, if you follow the story super closely, the players eventually gain access to an airship, and people absolutely love airships. Can't really go wrong there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
Aniodia posted:To be entirely honest, unless you're playing with millenials or big retro game nerds, you could probably lift the plot from the original NES Final Fantasy almost wholesale: This is appropriate, as FF1 itself lifted an awful lot from D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
Aniodia posted:To be entirely honest, unless you're playing with millenials or big retro game nerds, you could probably lift the plot from the original NES Final Fantasy almost wholesale: This was literally the first game I ever DMed, except I used the Rod of Seven Parts instead of the Crystals. That went on for a while, and instead of playing the name level political game I introduced Spelljammer, to the delight of my players. It was a great time. There's nothing like helping your friends unleash their imaginations. User fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:This is appropriate, as FF1 itself lifted an awful lot from D&D. I think the original used some D&D rules along with copying most of the monsters from the Monster Manual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:This is appropriate, as FF1 itself lifted an awful lot from D&D. You're underselling it, the original Final Fantasy basically was an unofficial D&D video game. It had a version of Vancian Magic, it had Mindflayers and Otyughs and a Beholder, and all the major bosses but the main villain were right out of the monster manual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
It also managed to have martial classes that ended up getting access to magic so they wouldn’t become useless!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 06:26
|
|
|
It's also got elves, dark elves, and dwarves, which aren't exactly standard in Final Fantasy games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
The monk was fantastic too. Total 1e nostalgia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 06:32
|
|
|
So awhile back people were talking about just bolting Fighter and Rogue together to make a better class. And it sounded like a good idea, would probably need some retooling. I can't remember if they suggested getting two archetypes, one from each class or perhaps even two from the same? Not sure. Could see making a Specialist class. A class with Fighter HP, Rogue level skills, Expertise in 2 skills and a tool at first level, with more at higher levels. Maybe make Sneak Attack a Precise/Precision Attack, that is not limited to Finesse weapons, probably keep it 1/turn. I would definitely give any "Specialist" class the entire Battlemaster subclass as a part of the base class, possibly giving the first die at 1st level, I would also make it so the dice recharge 1/round, not sure if it should be at the start of the character's turn, or the end, one requires more thought and rationing of the dice, the other has less. This would let the class be the best at skills, get the most attacks a round without using a resource, and be able to add a trick/some damage to many of their attacks. I am also thinking maybe give them one attack of opportunity a turn without using their 1/Round Reaction. Combine that with the 1/turn Precision Attack and all of a sudden you have a class that is VERY good at punishing those who try and slip past them. But in thinking about all of this I realize that some other classes would then really suffer, like the Barbarian. Some classes that are kind of subpar, or would be rather overshadowed at that point. So I got to thinking about what one can do with the Barbarian. First would be to make Rage more common, one idea I had was that it was a short rest recharge, another was that you didn't control when it happened, it was at will but only happened when you either received or inflicted damage. Much like bolting the the Battlemaster to the fighter, with a little buffing, as a baseline thing I kind of like bolting on the Brute subclass of Fighter to the Barbarian, and maybe the Champion as well to make the Barbarian the master of crits. Would probably get rid of the extra fighting style part though. Another idea to make Rage more impressive is to add another die of the same size as the Brute Force die while raging, so a 3rd level Barbarian would do weapon damage plus str mod plus 1d4 damage, and while raging would add another 1d4+2 to that. This still isn't a lot, but then I had the idea of bolting the Monk into it. If I did that I could make Rage cost 1 Ki point, but I also would have it be either a bonus action to start or for free as part of an Attack Action, because bonus actions would be at an insane premium. This would give the class more speed to get into the thick of things, and the ability to make an extra attack as a bonus action, or two with the expenditure of Ki. Would need to refine the AC calculation, especially since Barbarian has a focus on Str and Con while Monk has a focus on Dex and Wis. Some ideas I had, spitballing here no math for how powerful it would be, for the Barbarian Monk class, I want to call it the Perfected One or something similar. Flurry would be with any weapon instead of just unarmed, unarmed would become magical of course as usual, would move the Brute Force extra die down to 1st level, have the unarmed die start at 1d4 as usual, so they would use 2d4 unarmed, weapon+1d4 with a weapon, and add +1d4 when they go into a Rage/Battle Trance. The unarmed damage and the Brute Force damage would both scale at the levels Brute Force scales now, so d6 at 3rd, d8 at 10th, 1d10 at 16th, and 1d12 at 20th. More or less. This goes higher than either Brute Force or Unarmed damage goes right now, and scales at levels comparable to when Monk Unarmed scales. Of course Monk Unarmed used to get to 1d12 back during the playtest. I also had the idea of the Perfected One attacking all adjacent enemies whenever they crit or killed an enemy, kind of like half of that one feat, but without using a bonus action and attacking everything nearby kind of like the Barbarian's Carnage from Pillar's of Eternity. Might have to put a limit on the getting free attacks from crits though, just because this combination would probably be critting a lot. Another idea I had, but that would probably not be super popular, was to have the Perfected not get ASI/Feats. But instead have something that is kind of like a combination of the Barbarian's current capstone, and the playtest Monk's old capstone. The current Barbarian capstone increases Str and Con by +4 to a max of 24. The old Monk capstone set all the Monk's stats to 20. So the idea would be that at level 4 any stat below a 16 would be raised to a 16, at level 8 any stat below an 18 would be raised to an 18, at level 12 any stat below a 20 would be raised to a 20, at level 16 any stat below a 22 would be raised to 22, and at level 19, because the last ASI is usually at 19 not 20, any stat below a 24 would be raised to a 24. This kind of fits the idea of a warrior who perfects their mind and body, which fits the Monk side better than the Barbarian, though some Barbarians are intelligent or charismatic, and one could be good at those skills and checks without being played as Intelligent if one wanted. This would mean no feats for the character, unless a variant Human, but also the stats that no one else could get. This would help with how mad a Barbarian/Monk would normally be, and the AC could then be 10+any two of Con/Dex/Wis, or 10+highest two stat mods. Also this means the class would probably be the absolute best about saves, except maybe for a Paladin but the Paladin makes everyone better. At 20th level they would have proficiency in all saves, +1d6 to all saves, and a +7 stat modifier for each save. Those two "classes" are the ones I have the most ideas for at the moment. Would definitely need to do something for Ranger, would probably start with making Hunter's Mark an innate ability rather than a spell, and taking stuff from the variant Ranger that was so much better, and possibly poaching some stuff from the spelless cascade ranger, which was crazy good for the 3 or so levels they had shown. Maybe rip out some druid stuff? Or give them better fighting style options? Beef up what Favored Terrains and Favored Enemies give them, maybe go full on geomancer for terrains. Paladin ... I would probably add in some stuff from like 3.x Marshal or something, some more auras/team buffs, maybe give them some Warlord like stuff, letting them go in and smite some enemies, and also be a force multiplier that makes their team better just by being there. Warlock. I would probably completely rebuild from the ground up. Stripping spells out entirely. Beefing up Invocations, and probably making things like Pact much more meaningful so they completely change how the Warlock plays. Eldritch Blast would absolutely not be a Cantrip, and probably wouldn't be multiple d10 attacks, instead being one big attack like in 3.5 that can then be modified by Invocation or Pact Not entirely sure what I would do beyond this but each class would probably be redone to stand out more from the others, and things like Clerics would probably have more about the class change based off Domain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
User posted:It's cool when DMs mix things up, but the basic reason alignment exists and there are always evil humanoid races is so the players can just get on with their murder-hoboing without getting distracted by ethical concerns. Now if your play group wants to roleplay ethical concerns that is completely great and it can be a lot of fun. But if you just want to murder orcs and kobolds to collect treasure so you can start murdering ogres that's fine too. User posted:In stock D&D there is such a thing as objectively evil. Detect evil and know alignment say they're evil, be it orcs, evil clerics, or nazi elves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 08:36
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I can't tell if you didn't read the last page or just didn't understand it. Right back at you buddy. Did you not see the part where I thanked the other more polite and helpful poster, who beat you to responding by hours, for explaining the 5e changes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I think the original used some D&D rules along with copying most of the monsters from the Monster Manual. Omnicrom posted:You're underselling it, the original Final Fantasy basically was an unofficial D&D video game. It had a version of Vancian Magic, it had Mindflayers and Otyughs and a Beholder, and all the major bosses but the main villain were right out of the monster manual. So I've basically always been a fan of BECMI D&D since '94, when a friend first got me playing with his dad's old books. While I'd played Final Fantasy before then, it was really around the turn of the millennium that I'd realized it cribbed a ton off of Basic, with a healthy sprinkling of the AD&D Monster Manual. The reason I bring it up now is the whole discussion on grey morality vs black and white, and whether there should be objective evil or subjective evil. Like yeah, the subjective evil is great when done correctly, but there's been so many different fantasy properties within the past two decades that people constantly try and ape for their games (cough cough Game of Thrones) that "subverting the tropes" is by far the more common thing to see and actually playing it straight had circled back around to being fun and exciting again. Like yeah, having that moral dilemma can make for some interesting roleplaying. However, sometimes I just wanna smash evil poo poo in the face and ride around in a goddamn airship saving the world from destruction. User posted:This was literally the first game I ever DMed, except I used the Rod of Seven Parts instead of the Crystals. That sounds rad as gently caress. And hell, I'm not even saying you need to have crystals in your game (though nice touch with using the Ro7P instead; that just gets so little love), because the effects of the big bads is plain to see. When there's massive wildfires in the horizon, undead crawling out of the ground, and sea trade and travel impossible, there's plenty of plot hooks to give players something to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 10:12
|
|
|
User posted:Right back at you buddy. Did you not see the part where I thanked the other more polite and helpful poster, who beat you to responding by hours, for explaining the 5e changes? To move away from posting about posting, having linchpin individuals who are yes definitely evil is grand, having larger social structures you need to overthrow to enact real change is grand, murdering horrible monstrosities that should not be is grand. Universes where you legitimately can tell whether someone is evil or not by their skin colour and skull shape carries uh.... connotations Splicer fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
Since someone replaced the hilariously pathetic red text User gave me, I get to manually remind you to check his rap sheet before responding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Since someone replaced the hilariously pathetic red text User gave me, I get to manually remind you to check his rap sheet before responding. You guys really should check it out, there's this really cute gif of a sheep just having a good day. Good dog one too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Aniodia posted:So I've basically always been a fan of BECMI D&D since '94, when a friend first got me playing with his dad's old books. While I'd played Final Fantasy before then, it was really around the turn of the millennium that I'd realized it cribbed a ton off of Basic, with a healthy sprinkling of the AD&D Monster Manual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:So awhile back people were talking about just bolting Fighter and Rogue together to make a better class. And it sounded like a good idea, would probably need some retooling. I can't remember if they suggested getting two archetypes, one from each class or perhaps even two from the same? Not sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I might suggest bolting Battlemaster Fighter on to every single non-full-caster class. Give them all action surge, a more extra attacks, static bonuses to weapon rolls, a few extra feats/ASIs, etc. Some guys like Warlocks might take less advantage of it than others, but who cares? Just give guys who aren't using a cantrip (at minimum) that scales to Fighter 20 automatically other options. Warlocks do get a cantrip that scales to Fighter 20 automatically, it's like 90% of what they do in any given combat situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 03:03
|
|
