|
Slippery42 posted:Bolded what Shadow Monks can already do without a skill check or resource expenditure required. Most of the remainder could be argued as skill checks, so Barbarians and Rogues can ensure success at them at-will with Indomitable Might or Reliable Talent once they hit high enough level. Totem barbarians can fly to some extent, and Wo4E monks can fly to a much fuller extent (but then you'd have to play a Wo4E monk). "Could be argued" is the same waffley bullshit that casters can bypass completely by being able to point to a spell that explicitly says they can do a thing and which martials get hosed on. This is a problem because a fundamental design tenet in 5E is that you are assumed to be incapable of doing a thing unless you have an ability that explicitly says you can do the thing, or unless the GM decides you can try to do the thing, which leads to martials playing a game of "mother may I" while casters can just... do it. And yes, I'm fully aware martials can do some of that stuff. I get a lot of use out of the Eldritch Knight's 30' teleport in conjunction with some slippers of spider climb. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be more of it, and more spread around, and importantly, just as good as the poo poo casters can do.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Reene posted:And yes, I'm fully aware martials can do some of that stuff. I get a lot of use out of the Eldritch Knight's 30' teleport in conjunction with some slippers of spider climb. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be more of it, and more spread around, and importantly, just as good as the poo poo casters can do. Yeah, "just as good as casters" is key here. Doesn't have to be the same stuff, just has to be on the same level. Doesn't matter how you achieve this. Bring martials up, bring casters down, do a bit of both, whatever. I totally get that some people want a vaguely "normal human" limit on martial stuff, but if a caster can get Finger of Death, and a warrior can't have a broadly equivalent "this guy is taking a shitload of damage even if he saves" ability at the same level, then Finger Of Death doesn't belong in the game. And seriously, the "save for half" vs "damage on a miss" thing? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Oct 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
DAMAGE ON A MISS IS THE DEATH OF DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 09:56
|
|
|
Damage on a miss is awesome because it helps speed up fights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Serf posted:Damage on a miss is awesome because it helps speed up fights. Time to get my alchemist’s fire and +1 pitchfork.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:If you're referring to mine, it's a bit of a toned-down version of the material that was posted by gradenko: here. I basically reworked most of the exploit concepts into battle master maneuvers. That's it, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
It occurs to me that if damage on a miss works both ways, all of a sudden heavy armored master and other abilities that give a straight damage reduction becomes actually sorta useful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
I wonder if that gorgoroth guy ended up having mental illness or something? I just skimmed through some of the threads for hilarity and god drat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Did they ever tell whether the revised ranger is getting an official release in Xanathar?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
 is the Xanathar table of contents, does not seem to indicate that at least
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
It will be a released like that free Elemental Evil Player's Companion
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:It occurs to me that if damage on a miss works both ways, all of a sudden heavy armored master and other abilities that give a straight damage reduction becomes actually sorta useful. Conversely it would make pure AC builds, and by extension high dex low strength martials, much less valuable. Whether that's a good tradeoff...you'd need to crunch the numbers a bit but I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Did they ever unfuck Favored/Divine Soul for sorcerers? The latest version I saw replaced all the neat and useful stuff with healing spells and it was god awful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
New version will be in xanthars. The YouTube dnd beyond vid hinted at the changes. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/759ijg/first_look_at_the_divine_soul_sorcerer_in/ Has the transcript and changes. odinson fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Oct 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Reene posted:Conversely it would make pure AC builds, and by extension high dex low strength martials, much less valuable. In the context I brought it up in, "damage on a miss" doesn't have to mean "every time you roll to hit, you still do damage". It's the idea that non-casters can have limited-use abilities that still deal damage or apply an effect if they fail to overcome the target's defenses - similar to how damage spells that have "save for half" work. The most basic thing I can think of in this context that keeps in line with 5th ed's wording would be something like: "Particularly Deadly Move: Once per turn, choose one of your attacks to be a particularly deadly move. If the attack would normally hit, apply damage as if you got a critical hit. If the attack would normally miss, apply damage as if you had hit. You must complete a short rest before using this ability again".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Reene posted:Conversely it would make pure AC builds, and by extension high dex low strength martials, much less valuable. It should be noted that high dex low strength martials are already substantially less valuable outside of rogues due to a complete lack of damage options. 5e is much like previous editions in that I absolutely guarantee that many "fighter/wizard" types actually just want to play a low armored martial character who isn't garbage and have no actual major connection to the spells themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Im thinking of a weird mashup martial class: One where you get two archetypes depending on your best stats from body/mental. It's just literally popped into my head today so Im still working out how it might be but: Body archetype determines your actions, Mind archetype determines your bonuses. So CON fighters get defensive bonuses, more second winds, shield bashes, the like, pair that with WIS and get free opp attacks, disengage punishes, movement denial. STR fighters get more superiority die and get to apply their bonus to it, pair with INT to apply conditions on enemies, get superiority die back, more and improved maneuvers DEX fighters get more attacks and more action surges, pair with CHA for p much just Warlord stuff. I realize it doesnt solve the narrative problem but it sounds more fun imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:The most basic thing I can think of in this context that keeps in line with 5th ed's wording would be something like: "Particularly Deadly Move: Once per turn, choose one of your attacks to be a particularly deadly move. If the attack would normally hit, apply damage as if you got a critical hit. If the attack would normally miss, apply damage as if you had hit. You must complete a short rest before using this ability again". Out of curiosity, how would you rate advantage vs. a damage on a miss move like the one you described? How many attacks with advantage are equivalent to one Particularly Deadly Move in your opinion? If you're a martial character focused on dealing damage and aren't able to get a couple swings with advantage per short rest, you or your party are probably doing something wrong. Sources of advantage are readily available and often very inexpensive. A couple swings with advantage might be less flashy than Particularly Deadly Move, and I agree that's not great, but I wouldn't say it's any less effective if we're talking about overall power. ProfessorCirno posted:It should be noted that high dex low strength martials are already substantially less valuable outside of rogues due to a complete lack of damage options. You're aware that the Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert feats exist, right? And the Monk class?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Slippery42 posted:You're aware that the Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert feats exist, right? And the Monk class? Yes; I'm talking somewhat specifically about melee I guess? The monk class does exist! It is not a high damage class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Remember at will damage on a miss does exist in the system. While damage on a "miss" of course exists on spells that deal half damage on a successful save, there is the Evoker Wizard that gets half damage on a successful save on Evocation cantrips as well. But of course a non spellcaster cannot have damage on a miss in 5e D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Slippery42 posted:Out of curiosity, how would you rate advantage vs. a damage on a miss move like the one you described? How many attacks with advantage are equivalent to one Particularly Deadly Move in your opinion? If you're a martial character focused on dealing damage and aren't able to get a couple swings with advantage per short rest, you or your party are probably doing something wrong. Sources of advantage are readily available and often very inexpensive. A couple swings with advantage might be less flashy than Particularly Deadly Move, and I agree that's not great, but I wouldn't say it's any less effective if we're talking about overall power. Either I'm missing your point, or you're missing my point. Damage numbers aren't the issue. The issue is that fighters have practically no way of declaring "this happens" and having it definitely happen. There might be a better way of saying that, I dunno. What matters in this particular case is the ability to say "I'm definitely hurting that guy now", and then nothing can mean that they didn't hurt that guy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Either I'm missing your point, or you're missing my point. The point I got from your earlier post was that it sucks when you miss and spend your turn accomplishing nothing, and that there should be some mechanism to available to martials to prevent this sometimes. The point I tried to make was that advantage + multiple attacks makes saying "I hurt that guy" close enough to certain that such a mechanism might as well already be in the game. Let's reference this advantage probability chart. If you'd normally need to roll a natural 7 or better to hit some baddie, advantage boosts your chances of doing so on a single attack from 70% to 91%. If you have advantage on two attacks per turn, your chances of accomplishing nothing drop below 1% against this baddie. Even if you only have advantage on only one of those two attacks, you still have over a 97% chance of dealing some damage. Granted, these aren't 100%, but they're close enough for me, especially considering how easily most martials can get advantage/extra attacks as early as level 2 or 3 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Unless you think that "a 70% chance that goes up to 91% in certain circumstances, and when you think about it you'll probably get to try more than once so really it's more like 99%" is equivalent to "this will happen with 100% certainty every time you say you're doing it", you're still missing the point. This isn't about percentage chance to hit, or damage numbers. It's about how a certain subset of charcters don't get to have anything at all that just works, no rolling, no chance of failure. Where are the martial abilities that say "this happens", or even "this happens, unless the target saves, then that happens"? Here's some stuff I'm thinking up or adapting as I write this post: When you take the attack action, in place of one of your attacks, knock one adjacent opponent prone. You must complete a short or long rest before you can use this ability again. As an attack action, you try to blind your opponent. If you hit, the opponent is blinded, save ends. If you miss, deal damage as if you had hit. You must complete a short or long rest before you can use this ability again. As a bonus action, you have Advantage until the end of your turn. You must complete a short or long rest before you can use this ability again. As an attack action, deal 1d4+1 damage three times, to adjacent opponents. You can target one opponent or each set of damage can target a different opponent. When you use this ability above first level, add another 1d4+1 roll to the set for each level above first. This caps at level 9 (12 sets of damage). You must complete a long rest before you can use this ability again. As an attack action, target one adjacent opponent. That target takes 7d8+30 damage on a failed save, or half on a successful save. You must complete a long rest before you can use this ability again. You must be 13th level or above to use this ability. As an attack action, each creature in a 40' radius around you takes 40d6 damage on a failed save, and half as much on a successful save. You must complete a long rest before you can use this ability again. You must be 17th level or above to use this ability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:You must complete a short or long rest before you can use this ability again. I think this is an aspect that the Advantage comparison doesn't quite capture. You can get Advantage from a lot of things, and you can get it from turn-to-turn. If we grant that Advantage increases your chance-to-hit so much that it effectively means you can't miss, you're then entering into this design trope similar to 3.5 Trip Fighters where the "unlimited" access to an ability means that the ability necessarily has to be watered down lest it be too powerful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Unless you think that "a 70% chance that goes up to 91% in certain circumstances, and when you think about it you'll probably get to try more than once so really it's more like 99%" is equivalent to "this will happen with 100% certainty every time you say you're doing it", you're still missing the point. You're missing the forest for the trees. Chance of failure sucks when you fail, yes, but it's apt enough a mechanic. People are used to it. Even it being a binary isn't bad, as long as you aren't missing so much that it gets frustrating, and it's not slowing the game down (which is why skill challenges and such should always be 'fail forwards'). The problem isn't that casters have 'actions' that just succeed, as per the rules. Use a resource and you automatically succeed at a task, whatever, it doesn't inherently break anything as a concept - it leads to a different kind of play, but you know what? That is fine. You can have classes whose mechanics work differently than other classes. The problem with casters is that they can take actions that completely sidestep the rules of the game, as they apply to the rest of the classes. You can add a failure chance to spellcasting and guess what? The loving wizard can still teleport. You can give Fighters an ability to automatically do damage and guess what? The wizard can still teleport. *That* is what truly makes this poo poo lopsided, and the pathetic attempt at balancing it has from the beginning been to add a failure chance to combat spells, adding the silly dynamic where the wizard casts a spell and whether the encounter is trivialized or not comes down to dice roll - this is DnDs greatest problem, the whole loving magic system, and giving martials the ability to automatically take certain actions isn't going to fix poo poo about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You're missing the forest for the trees. I agree with everything you said there, except for this part. At the top of the page, I said AlphaDog posted:Yeah, "just as good as casters" is key here. Doesn't have to be the same stuff, just has to be on the same level. Doesn't matter how you achieve this. Bring martials up, bring casters down, do a bit of both, whatever. I thought that had it covered, and I've repeatedly said that chance to hit or damage numbers is not the point, the point is that martial characters get nothing like what casters get. If a wizard can teleport, the fighter needs something on that level. An ability as powerful and useful as "I move from here to there, no questions asked". If a wizard can fly, the fighter needs something on that level. An ability as powerful and useful as "I can literally fly". If a wizard can cast Meteor Swarm, the fighter needs something on that level. An ability as powerful and useful as dropping 4x 40' radius 40d6 damage spheres anywhere within a mile. This is my point: Martial abilities don't need to be the same as wizard abilities, just on the same level. Damage stuff is easy to talk about, because it's easy to think of and write down a fighter ability that does massive amounts of damage. The other stuff is harder. What's a fightery or rogueish ability that's the equivalent of True Polymorph, or Wish, or Teleport Without Error? If you can't think of anything, then those shouldn't be spells available to PCs. Part of this is that the big stuff for casters generally happens reliably - there's no need to roll to see if they get to do it at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Well, glad we're on the same page then; consider it just that talking about damage - while easy to relate to - is really just a tangent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
If you're going to discuss the caster/martial divide, damage is an important part of the discussion, because right now that's all martials really do. There's also some really basic differences in how damage actually gets done. As an obvious example, multiattacks divide their total damage amongst targets but AoE spells multiply their total damage by the number of targets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
odinson posted:New version will be in xanthars. The YouTube dnd beyond vid hinted at the changes. Every loving second of this is comedy gold. From the refusal to even acknowledge that 4e exists to "accidentally" calling Heracles a spell caster 'cause he can actually accomplish poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Its also the most boring take on Jesus, the most boring chosen one in myth/theology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
OutsideAngel posted:Every loving second of this is comedy gold. From the refusal to even acknowledge that 4e exists to "accidentally" calling Heracles a spell caster 'cause he can actually accomplish poo poo. He said Heracles is not a good example cause he is more a warrior. And don't know why your brought up 4e there. When it had nothing to do with what was being talked about. Or could you elaborate in case I missed something. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Oct 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
OutsideAngel posted:Every loving second of this is comedy gold. From the refusal to even acknowledge that 4e exists to "accidentally" calling Heracles a spell caster 'cause he can actually accomplish poo poo. Hahaha what the gently caress we now have to remove iconic fighters from being fighters because they could imply the class is anything other than complete poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Its valid to bring up 4e because Mearls consistently tries to pretend it doesn't exist and you can see him fall into 15 year old design traps because of it. Remember that time he said the 5e PHB 1 would have every class ever in a PHB 1 until someone told him that to do so he would have to design a Warlord?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
I've playing Out of the Abyss as my first D&D game, just hit level three as a Warlock and took Pact of the Chain. I'm kind of considering multi-classing into a wild magic sorcerer for my next level and going down the sorcerer path from there on out, largely for RP/story reasons. How strong/viable would that be, compared to a straight warlock? My party also has a tome warlock, alchemist, bard, barbarian, monk, and a couple rogues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Hahaha what the gently caress we now have to remove iconic fighters from being fighters because they could imply the class is anything other than complete poo poo. That person read the quote wrong. He said Heracles was not a good example as he is a warrior. Like it feels like you guys are just making stuff up to make fun of. Razorwired posted:Its valid to bring up 4e because Mearls consistently tries to pretend it doesn't exist and you can see him fall into 15 year old design traps because of it. Yeah that still has nothing to do with the interview about the Divine Soul.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Hahaha what the gently caress we now have to remove iconic fighters from being fighters because they could imply the class is anything other than complete poo poo. Rather than redesign the class, or really the whole system, they would elect to deny fighterdom to legend's greatest fighters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
to be fair, Hercules is extremely not a d&d fighter. just pick one of the other myth of a warrior who doesn't have divine heritage
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
He is a more a Barbarian then anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Fighter with divine heritage sounds pretty awesome to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:to be fair, Hercules is extremely not a d&d fighter. In AD&D 2e, he is literally the very first example mentioned as being a Fighter. Now I'm not saying that 2e was particularly good at realizing this idea, but how sad is it that rather than improving itself to do justice to this idea, D&D just gives up and reduces the concept of the FIghter instead?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:46
|
|