|
Darth Walrus posted:Any ideas for a character concept for an abjuration wizard PC? As I see it, that's three things ((a) a magic nerd, (b) a specialist in wards, shields, and exorcisms, and (c) a travelling adventurer for hire), and I'm trying to figure out how all three fit together into a strong, coherent character with particular drives. In particular, how would be best to marry the scientific curiosity of a wizard with a school based around excluding, rejecting and ejecting outside forces? "I've been studying the planes since before you could walk. I know what's out there. And I've made it my mission to ensure not a drat bit of it ever gets to me." = Wizard: "Does this Rune look like a summoning ritual to you? It looks like a summoning ritual to me..... I don't know it just looks like a summoning ritual. It's probably not a summoning ritual. I mean..." DM: Stop bothering the Barbarian why do you think he would know? "I just think we should be careful if this could be a summoning ritual" Dwarf PC: "It's just an ancient word fragment in Dwarvish, it's part of a road sign." Wizard: "Yeah but that could be like, part of a summoning ritual. I'm just saying we should probably shouldn't put it in the bag of holding." "Before you enter my Tiny Hut I have just a simple few dozen rules for magical hygiene that anyone with common sense should be able to-- hey hey no all Ranger pets must stay outside god that's rule sixteen"
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 11:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
Yeah. The world is already a terrifying place for common folk, with bandits and giants and and orcs and goblins and even undead and whatever being realistic dangers. On top of that are of course the bigger threats, like dragons and liches and stuff, that while rare are also frightening as gently caress and absolutely real. Then there's all the things the common people don't even know about or have only heard about in legends. Evil gods, eldritch beings, devils and demons. At any point in time there's always something of immeasurable power trying to destroy life, the world, the very fabric of reality. Even their weakest minions are have the power to lay waste to cities, destroy armies, devour continents. The Terrasque? Pfah, a child's toy compared to Hadar, literally a sentient planetoid covered in rotten amniotic fluid, and he's like the weakest of his kind. You live in a world where serpents big enough to curls themselves around a mountain feed off the dreams of both man and god. You as a wizard have come to grasp with the terrifying nature of reality and you know what's out there. You can barely hold on to your sanity, finding solace in your protective magics. It's not much, but it's something, and might just buy you enough time to stave off the forces of evil for just long enough to stay alive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 11:39
|
|
|
I like the idea that our abjuration wizard doesn't have a tragic backstory. They're a scholarship kid from a nice family in an idyllic farming village in the middle of nowhere, and they took one look at a monster manual or planar map when they got to the academy and went 'lol, nope'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 12:00
|
|
|
Speaking of Abjuration Wizards, I'm reaching a crossroads with how I want to build my character in my current game. Right now he's a Mountain Dwarf Eldritch Knight, level 8, leveling to 9 in the next session and I'm trying to work out how I want to progress him as he levels. Right now I'm kind of torn between keeping him leveling as a fighter for a little bit longer (For Indomindable at 9 and Eldritch Strike at 10), throwing in for Rune Scribe (which would fit extremely well for the character concept, but I'm kind of torn on the core class features being tied up behind multiple item attunements) or going Abjuration wizard to augment his defense and just become un-loving-movable. I don't really need fighter 11 for the third attack since 95% of the time I'm casting Booming Blade and using my minor action to make a followup attack, and ultimately leveling up to 10 Fighter / 10 Wizard with or without Rune Scribe levels mixed in vs 11 fighter/9 Wizard is the difference between having access to a level 7 spell or not (if we get that far, that is). Any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 13:36
|
|
|
If your main form of damage is still going to be hitting people I would strongly recommend getting the third attack. It is amazing with shadow blade and tenser's transformation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 13:53
|
|
|
Hackan Slash posted:If your main form of damage is still going to be hitting people I would strongly recommend getting the third attack. It is amazing with shadow blade and tenser's transformation. Well, if I went 12 fighter (for the stat advance/feat) and 8 Abjuration Wizard it'd still give me level 6 spells by 20. Shadow booming blade as a reaction to something moving away from me would be rad as hell, especially since everyone in the party has darkvision and we don't use any light in dungeons so I have basically free advantage with it. I wound up taking Enlarge/Reduce with my level 8 EK non-abj/evo spell and I'll probably swap it over to shadow blade on leveling. Been thinking about swapping out my other cantrip, I have Booming Blade and Toll the Dead right now, might swap the latter to Create Bonfire for when I'm not concentrating on shadow blade and/or I've got something grappled and want some extra "gently caress You" damage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Related, but not entirely, to that last post I made: I kind of hate the Monk class as a concept, dating back to at least 3E. Some people hate Rangers or Rogues as a concept, I hate the Monk. Here’s a video from a guy who hates monks from a mechanical perspective. https://youtu.be/Aaqq7iZUmMk It’s kind of depressing because I want to play a Monk sometime before the end of 5e. The open hand monk looks pretty cool to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
Hackan Slash posted:If your main form of damage is still going to be hitting people I would strongly recommend getting the third attack. It is amazing with shadow blade and tenser's transformation. Woth noting that Tenser's is definitely not going to be an option, because even though the build will eventually get level 6 slots, it's going to be limited to L4(with 8 levels of Wizard) or 5(with 9 or 10) spells. The higher level slots can only be used for upcasting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
So what was the consensus on making Sorcerers better? If switched to a mana point system, what was the good math so they end up with generally more spells than wizards?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
Undead Hippo posted:Woth noting that Tenser's is definitely not going to be an option, because even though the build will eventually get level 6 slots, it's going to be limited to L4(with 8 levels of Wizard) or 5(with 9 or 10) spells. The higher level slots can only be used for upcasting. Good to know, I never really multiclass because I feel the real synergy of these builds takes too long to get online and we always start from 1. Guess he'd need to switch over for 11 wizard levels to get tenser's, but at least in a year your PAM action surge fighter could get off 5 attacks with bonus 2d12 in a round. That's sounds nifty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
nelson posted:Here’s a video from a guy who hates monks from a mechanical perspective. https://youtu.be/Aaqq7iZUmMk It really is......conceptually I LOVE the monk. I want to play a wuxia stunning strike, hitting your pressure points Kenshiro bad rear end. In play............monk is 'meh' the class.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
Tenser's Transformation doesn't seem great for a 6th level spell, even; you're the wizard, and by trying to play at being the Hulk, you can't support/blast enemies/lock down the field with spells anymore. Especially since fighters at that level get 3 attacks instead of just 2. It'd be way better if you could cast it on others, polymorph-style. Plus you have to make CON saves to keep it up while also getting attacked at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
nelson posted:Here’s a video from a guy who hates monks from a mechanical perspective. https://youtu.be/Aaqq7iZUmMk Yeah, he makes good points. And he doesn't even get into the lack of magic items etc. The counterpoint is that monk *subclasses* can fix the problem - the kensei has better dps, the long death is a better tank, etc. -- but you still have the "jack of all trades, master of none" problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
nelson posted:Here’s a video from a guy who hates monks from a mechanical perspective. https://youtu.be/Aaqq7iZUmMk That video sparked some big debates trying to push back on "monks are bad". He's right though. The best part was using the stats from some Critical Roll monks entire career, every failed stun and every ki spent. Seeing the data like that is pretty crazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
nelson posted:It’s kind of depressing because I want to play a Monk sometime before the end of 5e. The open hand monk looks pretty cool to me. Dude's major focus is on criticizing the class through the lens of optimization, you'll be fine if you make a Monk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
Yeah monks are honestly fine. There's a lot of design flaws in the class but performance wise they pull their own weight. You won't be a burden even if say, a fighter does more damage. Monks aren't optimal but they're totally playable. There's way worse classes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Seriously just play one. It's fine you won't be min/maxed, but like unless your table is one that is that type of game just do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
Hood to hear because one of my players is switching to the drunken master monk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
Glagha posted:Yeah monks are honestly fine. There's a lot of design flaws in the class but performance wise they pull their own weight. You won't be a burden even if say, a fighter does more damage. Monks aren't optimal but they're totally playable. There's way worse classes. In 5e? What core class is worse than the monk in 5e?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
I think a big problem with inspecting a class is comparing it to other classes, instead of what the game expects a character to be able to do at each of the levels. If a game expects classes to be able to hit certain ACs and deal x amount of damage, and a class can meet those expectations, then it truly does not matter if other classes are better unless it matters to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:In 5e? What core class is worse than the monk in 5e? Ranger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
change my name posted:Tenser's Transformation doesn't seem great for a 6th level spell, even; you're the wizard, and by trying to play at being the Hulk, you can't support/blast enemies/lock down the field with spells anymore. Especially since fighters at that level get 3 attacks instead of just 2. It'd be way better if you could cast it on others, polymorph-style. Plus you have to make CON saves to keep it up while also getting attacked at the same time. Yeah, the whole spell slot thing not-withstanding, I probably wouldn't take Tenser's even if I had the opportunity. I'm not super worried about concentration checks because Con saves are already my strong suit and War Caster gives me advantage to boot. If I was able to take a proper level 6, it actually probably would have been globe of invulnerability since his whole concept has been to be an immovable brick shithouse more so than a wrecking ball. Especially knowing now that you can only use those higher level slots for upleveling, I actually feel a lot better about throwing Rune Scribe back into the mix. My one gripe about Rune Scribe is that I hate that class features are completely tied up in your item attunements. The runes themselves are powerful yes, but you don't get the 'free' attunement rune slot until level 5 in the class and if you give up all three of your item attunements to runes, then you functionally have to burn spell slots to get a weapon with a magic enhancement bonus. I talked to my DM before and he's willing to help develop a homebrew master rune of a Thunder flavor to go along with my character, so at least there's that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Rip_Van_Winkle posted:Ranger. Yeah, Ranger is in a way worse state, even after the UA rework TBQH.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
Glagha posted:Yeah monks are honestly fine. There's a lot of design flaws in the class but performance wise they pull their own weight. You won't be a burden even if say, a fighter does more damage. Monks aren't optimal but they're totally playable. There's way worse classes. . . . eh. for the first, say, four to maybe eight levels, yeah, they're probably fine or at least fine-ish. Most campaigns don't go to high levels, so middle and high tier imbalances aren't a *huge* problem, and more importantly, if you're playing at a decent table with a decent DM, the DM is going to be adjusting challenges for what your group can handle, so it isn't necessary that everyone be optimized. The important thing is that the player know he's playing a "jack of all trades, master of none" type character. If you try to make a monk the party's primary tank or primary damage dealer or primary controller that won't work. If you have a tank and a striker already and want a pinch hitter supplement that can fill in each of those roles at like 75% efficiency, that's something a monk can do. I'll agree on "better than rangers" though yeah. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Aug 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
Yeah rangers are worse and some subclasses are worse than at least open palm. They're fine. You're not gonna be the most optimal character but monks at least function as a class. They can hit things alright and they have stun and some other flurry tricks. They work, they're just not great at it. Plus a lot of their fluffy abilities are fun. Being able to run up walls and over water is just fun. They're way better off than rangers with just like "if you're in a forest you don't have to worry about terrain I guess". They're fine. Just play a monk if you wanna play a monk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Yeah, play a monk if you want, and if your DM is good with 3rd(?) party content, play a Way of the Living Weapon monk from Exploring Eberron.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
For real though, outside of 4e, ranger has always had some pretty significant problems in basically every version of the game. If they arent fighting their favored enemy and you're not playing with a DM that's leaning heavily on like tracking / being tracked / foraging for food when out of town they kind of don't bring much that you couldn't get better elsewhere. Their spellcasting options are some of the weakest in the game (and unlike Paladins, they can't burn their spell slots for smites) their core spells are a mess of overlapping concentration so you can't do things like stack Hunter's Mark and Hail of Thorns like you would want to do. Half the Archetypes don't get a second attack action and they don't really get the spell access/cantrips or anything as compensation. Really, they should probably have gotten Cantrip access outside of the Druid Magic fight style or multiclassing - Make Hail of thorns a Cantrip - balanced in the same vein as Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade but for a ranged attack and give them another melee attack cantrip that works in the same vein as Green Flame/Booming Blade but nature flavored. It'd be a good edge case for the Heavy Crossbow existing for someone that doesn't have the crossbow mastery feat since if you're cantripping you are only attacking once a round anyway. Drop favored enemy entirely in lieu of something else. Favored enemy is awful and should die a dishonorable death. That mechanic has always sucked and no matter how you cut it there are always going to be significantly more things you don't have favored than things you do and that kind of sucks, especially if you pick something that works for flavor for your character, but for whom isn't a primary antagonistic force for the campaign. Are you a bounty hunter who specializes in hunting humanoids in his flavor and background? You get to eat poo poo in this undead campaign! DeathSandwich fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Aug 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
I think favored enemy could work if they took a cue from Witcher and made it so you could change your favored enemy every long rest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
For the record, a hunter ranger is like 20x better than a 4 elements monk. The hunter ranger in our group was a top tier damage dealer and barely took any damage due to range. The monk was always low on hitpoints or dying... and probably the lowest damage dealer in the group except for the bard when he wasn’t fireballing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Yeah, hunter's mark + colossus slayer + sharpshooter and multiattack is just *chef's kiss*
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
I feel like my monk was kind of lacklustre, I had basically few opportunities to really make use of its mobility, and each time I try to get behind the enemy line to target the spellcasters I just get primaried and lose a huge chunk of damage in the intervening round. Then comes boss fights where I'm just dealing lacklustre damage and if I'm out of ki points basically stop being able to contribute. Hence why I'd love having skill check based interactions/maneuvers which don't cost resources. To give me something to do when I run out of ki points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
I played a mark of finding kensei monk and he was consistently the MVP in a low to mid-level game. MoF gave me a decent way to boost damage via Hunter's Mark without having to multi and kensei meant I was able to use whatever weapon I wanted well enough. I was definitely starting to fall off near the end but for a 1-8/10 game it was just fine. OTOH one of my bros played a 4 Elements monk not knowing it was bad, and it was, well, bad. The DM in that campaign ended up giving him extra ki points every 2 levels on top of the usual ones to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
I'm playing a bugbear monk. The main downside I've run into is just my weird rolls - RNGsus seemed to have decreed that my monk can only lightly slap people. Until he's on the verge of defeat or has just been revived, then he's One Punch Man for the rest of the battle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:give me something to do when I run out of ki points. Indeed. I think my fix would be have no ki cost for any of the level 2 abilities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
So speaking of brawlers, has anyone given Unarmed fighting style a go? Playing it as a brute fighter seems like it would be funny, given between the brute dice and the grapple damage bonus you can potentially be throwing a lot of dice by mid/high level. Also 1d8 damage die on unarmed strikes if you're two handing means you're mechancally encouraged to do that double handed Kirk Punch on dudes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM DeathSandwich fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Aug 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
The monk kind of inherits its problems from the 3.5 monk, where the developers had no idea what it was supposed to do and 5e copies it for that sweet cargo cult feeling. They don't fit nicely into either the burst damage or crowd control roles very well and are a squishier class that is expected to fight opponents in melee. The developers keep boning the monk to be less resilient than the plate classes because of realism or whatever, but I do not know what a monk is supposed to do. Despite what Jason Buhlman tells you, they're not caster killers because endgame mages are big demons and poo poo, and they don't have the damage to actually eliminate "soft" targets because their DPS is meh and everything in 5e has stupidly bloated hitpoints. You can maybe keep someone stun locked by setting ki points on fire, but that targets the highest enemy save in the game so good luck with that! The monk will never be good until the developers figure out what its supposed to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
I nominate Monk for martial controller. Let it push grapple, knock prone, slow, and other debuffs all day long with no size restrictions. You want to body slam an ancient dragon? Go for it.
nelson fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Aug 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
While I'm not necessarily against suplexing dragons, I would also like the ability to have a modified grapple for huge opponents that, instead of holding them down just lets you start climbing up them Shadow of the Colossus style. Get into their blind spots so they have disadvantage hitting or trying to shake you off, and they drag you wherever they go. That way if you're fighting something with significant flying/movespeed like a dragon / rok / horror from the deep it gives those guys who don't excel at ranged attacks to still be useful on those kinds of fights. But also yes, I'm pro suplexing dragons also.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
nelson posted:For the record, a hunter ranger is like 20x better than a 4 elements monk. For the record the monk part is fine. The 4 elements part is a complete design fail and should never be used.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:I would also like the ability to have a modified grapple for huge opponents that, instead of holding them down just lets you start climbing up them Shadow of the Colossus style. Get into their blind spots so they have disadvantage hitting or trying to shake you off, and they drag you wherever they go. That way if you're fighting something with significant flying/movespeed like a dragon / rok / horror from the deep it gives those guys who don't excel at ranged attacks to still be useful on those kinds of fights. This is cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2020 22:29
|
|