|
Spell slots are being burnt. You're getting that trade-off for a resource you might want to conserve for later.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
and at high levels where the level one spell slots are plenty, +5 is less of a bonus. As AC in 5e starts to trail off, while creature attack bonuses continue to go up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't have anything to back it up but it seems like just negating 4ish hits per long rest, not accounting for sorcery points/arcane recovery, isn't that OP. At low levels your squishy casters probably need the help surviving and they'll need their level 1 slots for other spells if they want to be effective. At higher levels more monsters will be able to get through the high AC and it won't be as powerful a choice, especially if you have higher level reaction spells you want to use. EDIT: I looked and never mind that last point, there are no higher level reaction spells for wizards and sorcerers that are useful defensively. Cool Dad fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Shield is a garbage spell for a lot of design reasons (a lot of which stem from the idiot poo poo mother-may-I hidden roll fuckery that 5e was auspiciously designed around that literally nobody uses). It's incredibly strong out of the gate and almost always worth having in your pocket. Later, it completes with Absorb Energy, which is more generally applicable. You carry both if you can. Personally, I really like the way PF2E handled it: Shield is effectively a bonus action +1AC cantrip, and you can cash it in for a once-per-fight damage reduction on a hit, but you can't cast shield for the rest of the encounter. You take it a lot, but it offers some interesting choices that the 5e version lacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Is there even anything else that gives you that big a boost? I could understand if it gave you your proficiency bonus as extra AC (because then it would scale), but +5 just seems like such a crazy bonus for the early-mid game. . +5 is roughly the best-case value for advantage/disadvantage, but rerolls becomes less impactful the further you move from 50/50 odds, while Shield does not. This also doesn't, however, take into account how Shield's effect is guaranteed, while Silvery Barbs is not, which does make it a bit more efficient; an enemy might still get lucky twice despite rolling against disadvantage, but with Shield you will always either no-sell the hit completely, or know it isn't enough regardless, and save the spell slot. Also, the fact that it's effectively -advantage that stacks with real advantage in a notionally bound-accuracy system counts for a lot, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:Shield is a garbage spell for a lot of design reasons (a lot of which stem from the idiot poo poo mother-may-I hidden roll fuckery that 5e was auspiciously designed around that literally nobody uses). I would like to know more. What's this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
Shield only seems OP because 95% of the time it is being used to save a very squishy caster from a chonky hit. When that isn't the case, like a rat biting your level 3 Wizard or whatever, Shield looks like a very wasteful use of a spell slot. But that is just the best way to use the spell. You wouldn't see it otherwise. Same thing happens with people occasionally complaining about Divine Smites. Yeah, if your Paladin only uses them when fishing for crits against Fiends or whatever, it's gonna look wicked strong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
shields good because the player says i cast shield and then they dont die and they feel good when they do this
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
I plan on making a temp Landsknecht fighter in the future. The question is, what are the most fitting sub-classes to fit this character? Otherwise I'll probably just roll my own, but even some inspiration will go a long way! Fishbus fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
pog boyfriend posted:shields good because the player says i cast shield and then they dont die and they feel good when they do this I'm playing solasta and every time it fires on my arcane trickster i say 'hell yeah'
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
Fishbus posted:I plan on making a temp Landsknecht fighter in the future. A Landsknecht with a halberd, I'm guessing? Using a two-handed polearm with both PAM/GWM feats is still the best and only melee weapon attack build, so you're pretty good to go there already; you'll probably want to play a Vuman or custom lineage to get one as a bonus starting feat, too. As for subclasses, the effective but boring option is still Battle Master, since Precision Attack can patch up the accuracy penalty from using Power Attacking with GWM. The other good popular fighter subclasses are Rune Knight and Echo Fighter, but those are also a lot more overtly supernatural and maybe not a good fit. Also, PAM is a pretty taxing feat on both your bonus action and your reaction already, so any ability that requires spending either comes at a bit steeper of an opportunity cost. Missing really sucks too, so you'll probably want to save your Superiority Dice for salvaging misses with Precision Attack, since turning a miss into a hit is generally worth more than turning a hit into a slightly bigger hit, when you can make lots of hard hits each turn already. You can probably expect to mulch anyone that gets into arm's reach, and also have the usual Fighter problems with doing things that don't involve hp-go-down. Anyways, halberds and other polearms are super cool in my book so I'm all for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
Carry a massive sword, call yourself a Dopplesoldner, and claim a double share of all treasure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:I would like to know more. What's this? Technically the way that things are supposed to work in 5e is that the monster rolls to hit, the DM declares “I rolled a 14”, the number actually rolled on the die. The player then declares their AC. Then the DM silently adds the attack modifier to the roll, and if the number equals or beats the AC, they declare a hit. This is why there are multiple spells and abilities which have the odd formulation that they must be used after the die has been rolled but before the DM has declared a hit or a miss. You’re supposed to use these abilities in the space between the roll and the DM doing the mental maths. So when the DM says “14” you need to think about whether or not you need to cast shield, and you either say “My AC is 19” or “I cast shield, my AC is 24”. But almost nobody plays like that, the most common way (afaik) is for the DM to declare the total number—rolls a 14, adds the +7 bonus and declares “21”, then the 19 AC player either says “hit” or “I cast shield”. I know some DMs stick very closely to the rule but imo it’s just tedious faff that makes every single d20 roll in combat take a fraction of a second longer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
Also sounds less fun for the players. Using Shield and then getting told "sorry bud the wolf hits you anyway" is a bummer
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Technically the way that things are supposed to work in 5e is that the monster rolls to hit, the DM declares “I rolled a 14”, the number actually rolled on the die. The player then declares their AC. Then the DM silently adds the attack modifier to the roll, and if the number equals or beats the AC, they declare a hit. It's an extra tedious rulekeeping step that slows combat down even more. I usually keep an index card with my players and their ACs so I don't even need to stop and ask, just "Alice the giant spider rolled a 21 and buried it's fangs into your flesh. It probably hurts a lot". I also keep a note about their armor as well so I can describe defeated attacks based on the roll. Basically anything below their natural armor is a miss, anything between their natural armor and their armor AC is deflected by their armor, and if they have a shield then a failed attack roll by 1 or 2 is blocked by the shield.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l44mmYu2pqM
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Summary from a discord I am in Ranger bard rogue ASI is now a feat Arcane Divine Primal Spell lists up to lvl 9 More rules stuff; supercedes old rules stuff They ditched the new critical stuff ditched d20 test rolling a 1 gives inspiration 40000+ completed first survey haven't investigated the first survey results yet so they're basically presenting different rules glossaries, then gonna go through surveys for each to decide part of the design process Ranger / Bard / Rogue - labeled as "expert group" (and artificer which won't be in phb) Some Feats will have "class group" prerequisites Magic items will have "class group" prerequisites (eventually, not in this UA) expert group all have expertise feature expert group all have components reminiscent of other groups "Classic D&D party" will have 1 member of each class group List of suggested prepared spells Any class can ritual cast a ritual spell class capstones are at lvl 18; you get an epic boon at 20
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
Artificer is much cooler than Warlock, it should be a base class 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Technically the way that things are supposed to work in 5e is that the monster rolls to hit, the DM declares “I rolled a 14”, the number actually rolled on the die. The player then declares their AC. Then the DM silently adds the attack modifier to the roll, and if the number equals or beats the AC, they declare a hit. Also doesn't play well on VTTs where rolls automatically calculate modifiers, and DM's often roll hidden.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Artificer is much cooler than Warlock, it should be a base class Wrong. Warlock is the coolest base class by far. Artificer is cooler than Wizard though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
Defining the classic D&D party by role is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Defining the classic D&D party by role is a good idea. You mean like 4e?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:You mean like 4e? Partially, but I think an "expert" role also speaks to out of combat abilities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Putting the classes in buckets is just an idea without further context; it's neither good nor bad. I suppose adding another contour in a game as flat as 5e is welcome for design space but... well... Just as a for example, "expert" really sounds like, "these are the skill monkey classes"; and the existence of skill monkeys has been a problem in this game for as long as the rogue has existed. In a game as combat focused as 5e you cannot have a class balanced around out of combat capabilities; if it describes *how* they interact outside of combat fair enough but the existence of the "Warrior" classification would seem to suggest otherwise. If they give the larger category a shared mechanic that diverges in the individual classes, that would be exciting. It Expert classes got expertise dice that were used in different ways (damage for rogues, inspiration for bards, etc) you could build some really wild stuff on that. But this is dnd so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Putting the classes in buckets is just an idea without further context; it's neither good nor bad. I suppose adding another contour in a game as flat as 5e is welcome for design space but... well... They do, there are feats and items locked to specific class buckets. The UA will release tomorrow but it's possible that there will be some per-class usages of the bucket abilities since otherwise if all three get the same thing, that's a bland mush
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
Well I mean "shared feat" isn't the same thing as "shared base mechanic cleverly diverged per class", I'll believe it when I see it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
Expert is too generic, every class is an expert at something! The categories should be: Fighting Man, Thief, Magic-User, and Priest
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:You mean like 4e?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:It's an extra tedious rulekeeping step that slows combat down even more. I experimented with this for a while but ultimately decided that the call and answer (with the more normal convention of the DM rolling and adding the number before asking) adds a little theatre to proceedings. Players who have specced into having high AC enjoy declaring that attacks miss them, and every once in a while you get to make players poo poo their pants when you say something like "Does a thirty-two hit?" It also creates a symmetry between player and DM, which I think is beneficial (in some ways)--players need to announce their result and ask if it hits, so it creates a sort of regular cadence and rhythm to combat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Technically the way that things are supposed to work in 5e is that the monster rolls to hit, the DM declares “I rolled a 14”, the number actually rolled on the die. The player then declares their AC. Then the DM silently adds the attack modifier to the roll, and if the number equals or beats the AC, they declare a hit. Wait, what? My GM just says "it's going to hit" or "it misses."
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
Caphi posted:Wait, what? My GM just says "it's going to hit" or "it misses." What do you do with spells like shield then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:It's an extra tedious rulekeeping step that slows combat down even more. I sometimes do this but what always bugs me a bit is that most hits getting past the shield and only being stopped by the armor feels weird. I suppose I could reverse it, having an attack roll be deflected by the shield when over 10+dex but below AC without the shield and blocked by armor when below AC but at or above AC without shield, but that feels really screwy. Caphi posted:Wait, what? My GM just says "it's going to hit" or "it misses." I think this is actually how it's intended to be done? In the DMG section discussing whether to roll openly or behind the screen, one of the bullet points is "Rolling behind a screen keeps the players guessing about the strength of their opposition. When a monster hits all the time, is it of a much higher level than the characters, or are you rolling high numbers?". Though I suppose that actually fits with telling the totals too, though if you roll a 29 or something on a non-crit that would reveal the monster has at least a +10.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 02:17
|
|
|
Letting someone use Shield only to be hit anyway is unfun so I would never run it in a way that makes that possible. Generally speaking DMing should be done with an eye toward letting players do cool poo poo, not fizzling their spells for no gain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
Yeah it's already bad enough when a spell just outright misses. No reason to add another to the list. Spells should be more about trade-offs and less about RNG, imo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 02:46
|
|
|
“Would casting shield help me dodge this blow?” “Nope.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
There is nothing more fun than having your party observe an insanely high roll result since it communicates that they are in a bad way. If you want to hide the final value of the roll, that seems needlessly cryptic. If you also don't even want to provide a range (at least 5 more than your AC) then you're just an adversarial DM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
It's also often important to establish via low rolls that some of the opposition is weaker than others (or unluckier). 5E's bounded design makes mixing even very low CR foes in with higher CR foes extremely effective, and the low to-hits can be important to establish, especially if the players aren't metagaming/you aren't messing with expectations (like having a group of CR 12 kobold adventurers as an encounter).
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Sure. I am naturally wary of dark vision related traps for players because they seem to always originate from DMs that are mad that players don't need to count torches and buy lamp oil like in the good old days. Darkvision is cool when it is a rare bonus. It would be fine if absolutely everyone had it. It is dumb and boring when it is something almost everyone has, turning humans, halflings, etc. into cripples weighing the party down. Way too many races get it. Like Tabaxi. Why do Tabaxi have dark vision? "Darkvision. You have a cat's keen senses, especially in the dark. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray." A cat's keen senses?  Cats get keen smell, not darkvision. The cat god who created Tabaxi done hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 04:23
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Artificer is much cooler than Warlock, it should be a base class Agreed. I guess you could make the argument that a steampunk vibe artificer won't fit in some settings. But you could say the same about a monk or a tiefling. And they don't need to have a steampunk vibe. An animistic proto-wizard artificer could hang out just fine in a low-tech society. The weave permeates all things, the animist artificer isn't so much imbuing items with magic as releasing the magic that was already there. A stereotypical Granny Weatherwax type witch could easily be an artificer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:Darkvision is cool when it is a rare bonus. It would be fine if absolutely everyone had it. It is dumb and boring when it is something almost everyone has, turning humans, halflings, etc. into cripples weighing the party down. Hey, no argument, it's dumb. It's not the players fault that it's dumb though. Needs to be fixed at the game level, not the "set silly counter vision traps" level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 04:37
|
|
