|
ProfessorCirno posted:The actual problem with "I do a creative thing" is that it's not actually mechanically encouraged at all. As part of a thought experiment on the value of Trapfinding (the Rogue's ability to disable magical traps in 3e and Pathfinder) for a future Murphy's Rules thing, I went through various modules and counted the number of times magical traps appeared as opposed to nonmagical ones (anyone with Disable Device can deal with nonmagical traps in Pathfinder). Single digit answers across entire adventure paths were common, which meant that magical traps were pretty easily handled by wands or scrolls that granted you trapfinding for a few minutes. It is a staggeringly over-rated ability, especially when most of the slack can be picked up by any other Dex-heavy character with skill points to spare.
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
LightWarden posted:As part of a thought experiment on the value of Trapfinding (the Rogue's ability to disable magical traps in 3e and Pathfinder) for a future Murphy's Rules thing, I went through various modules and counted the number of times magical traps appeared as opposed to nonmagical ones (anyone with Disable Device can deal with nonmagical traps in Pathfinder). Single digit answers across entire adventure paths were common, which meant that magical traps were pretty easily handled by wands or scrolls that granted you trapfinding for a few minutes. It is a staggeringly over-rated ability, especially when most of the slack can be picked up by any other Dex-heavy character with skill points to spare. The biggest issue is that trapfinding can be entirely replaced by spells/magic items. If you're the "super useful at X" role, you should not be replaced by a single spell. I was having this argument with someone recently, about how the only way to play 5.0 at high levels is to just have everyone be a caster, or everyone be a non-caster. The divide in the ability to contribute in an useful manner is to great otherwise. "I'm good at sneaking. I've been practicing this for levels!", "that's cool. I cast Greater Invisibility". "We need to protect this caravan for hundreds of miles" "Teleport". I'm pretty sure that for every skill there's a spell that does it better. That's without getting started on actual combat. The whole "I do a creative thing" issue is, you shouldn't have to wrack your brain for ways to make your character be useful or interesting because you didn't pick a caster. You should be able to do fun and interesting things because its built into your character, just like when the wizard looks at his spellbook and says "Oh cool, I can cast Polymorph" the fighter should be able to say "Oh hey, I can Rampaging Assault". This should follow out of combat "Oh hey, there are guards, I can cast an illusion to distract them" should have an equivalent in other classes. The issue is the divide in options. I think the point that "the ability to do something an infinite number of times is basically worthless" holds true, since whenever someone in the party uses up their limited resources, you're going to stop. Its not like stopping for a long rest really punishes the players unless the DM goes out of his way to do so, and if that's overabused you're legitimately imposing on your players ability to play their character, no one's character should have to be hamstrung so the rest of the party isn't overshadowed, everyone should get to be cool and have fun.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
This all spirals back to the discussion several pages back about how having each class type have its own separate-but-equal unique mechanics is perhaps a fun-sounding idea but in practice it never results in anything good. Since casters and noncasters don't interact with the game through the same mechanics there's literally no way to make them comparable.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:This all spirals back to the discussion several pages back about how having each class type have its own separate-but-equal unique mechanics is perhaps a fun-sounding idea but in practice it never results in anything good. Since casters and noncasters don't interact with the game through the same mechanics there's literally no way to make them comparable. The solution, like we figured out a decade ago with 3e, is to have everyone play a full caster. Forever. History repeats itself, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
GMarshal posted:The biggest issue is that trapfinding can be entirely replaced by spells/magic items. If you're the "super useful at X" role, you should not be replaced by a single spell. The DM enforcing pacing mechanics against spellcasters is the entire basis for Vancian casting and isn't hamstringing them whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:The DM enforcing pacing mechanics against spellcasters is the entire basis for Vancian casting
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Point number 37 in the list of "Why D&D Vancian Casting is not a very good system". Time pressure makes things exciting 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Time pressure makes things exciting e: Less snarky, more useful: Time pressure can be exciting for a number of reasons. Time pressure does not make Vancian casting exciting, nor does Vancian casting make time pressure exciting. Time pressure is a fun and good thing that is fun and good because it causes interesting things to happen. Vancian casting turns this fun and good thing into a boring and dull thing because all it means is that you can't use your toys. It takes away your tools with which to do fun and good things. Splicer fucked around with this message at 00:41 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:This all spirals back to the discussion several pages back about how having each class type have its own separate-but-equal unique mechanics is perhaps a fun-sounding idea but in practice it never results in anything good. Since casters and noncasters don't interact with the game through the same mechanics there's literally no way to make them comparable. See, separate but equal mechanics can work, they just need to actually be equal. They need to work on the same time frame and have the same amount of narrative power. That doesn't mean every class needs to be a vancian spellcaster a'la Pathfinder or 5e; maybe one class uses wizard style spell slots, another uses the spontaneous spellcasting, another uses a point based system, another builds up charges that the spend immediately, etc, etc. Video games have managed to give multiple classes with varied resource management for a long time now, its hardly impossible. You just have to give a poo poo. So, you know, not 5e.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:See, separate but equal mechanics can work, they just need to actually be equal. They need to work on the same time frame and have the same amount of narrative power. That doesn't mean every class needs to be a vancian spellcaster a'la Pathfinder or 5e; maybe one class uses wizard style spell slots, another uses the spontaneous spellcasting, another uses a point based system, another builds up charges that the spend immediately, etc, etc. Video games have managed to give multiple classes with varied resource management for a long time now, its hardly impossible. All the starter classes should look like Tome of Battle / Incarnum / Binder / Warlock / Dragonfire Adept stuff, with Vancian Magic in as a 'high power alternative' class for the grogs (because you gotta sell books).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
On an unrelated note, what is it about Arrakocra that makes grogs so angry?Tunicate posted:5e should have learned from the poo poo that they finally figured out at the end of 3e. Play idk what to say about 5e, a lot of it seems predicated on a Splicer posted:I know you don't think this is a non-sequitur but... Take casters. Give them a 'Mana' system, like Ki or Superiority, and make sure its equally limited in how many you get per rest/day. Remove all spells past the 5th(?) level. Arbitrarily assign 'Mana' values to spells. Now we're all working on relatively the same resource system! Even if our powers vary wildly in actual usefulness. Also make short rests not suck. e: okay example; you are level one Wizard and start with, lets say 2? 3? mana points per (short) rest. You can use Mana to cast 1st level spells on a 1:1 basis. 2nd level spells are 2 points, 3rd level spells are 3 points, etc etc etc. Your Mana per day caps out at, lets be generous, 10 mana points at level 20. Enough for two Really Big Spells or ten Really Small Spells. To compensate maybe tweak Cantrips or whatever i don't give a gently caress at this point. e: wait didn't Incarnum or some other book do exactly this in 3e and everyone hated it?? Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 04:36 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:See, separate but equal mechanics can work, they just need to actually be equal. They need to work on the same time frame and have the same amount of narrative power. That doesn't mean every class needs to be a vancian spellcaster a'la Pathfinder or 5e; maybe one class uses wizard style spell slots, another uses the spontaneous spellcasting, another uses a point based system, another builds up charges that the spend immediately, etc, etc. Video games have managed to give multiple classes with varied resource management for a long time now, its hardly impossible. Okay, true. I was thinking for tabletop, where you're not operating in a very precisely defined context, it's next to impossible to actually come up with disparate mechanisms for approaching narrative control (as opposed to in a video game where the ability to interact is extremely narrow and tightly controlled). Buuut you're right that it's probably not true. It's just difficult and requires actually thinking about what the mechanics are. Personally I think a unified system is probably the best approach, and you could build flair on that, but I've never built a tabletop system. Nor would I want to.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:Okay, true. I was thinking for tabletop, where you're not operating in a very precisely defined context, it's next to impossible to actually come up with disparate mechanisms for approaching narrative control (as opposed to in a video game where the ability to interact is extremely narrow and tightly controlled). Buuut you're right that it's probably not true. It's just difficult and requires actually thinking about what the mechanics are. Personally I think a unified system is probably the best approach, and you could build flair on that, but I've never built a tabletop system. Nor would I want to. The other thing about video games is, ones with systems like that, notably MMOs, tend to have terrible balance in terms of weight of importance and execution. Some outright destroy themselves and rebuild everything every year or two (see: WoW.) Most importantly though, video games have that poo poo automated. The distinction is important but not nearly as much as on table top, when rules discrepancies come up. Or worse, misruling, and/or poor interpretation of a rule rendering one character impotent while the other, very similar-but-different character goes balls to the walls with no regrets or worries. Sort of like now..
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:On an unrelated note, what is it about Arrakocra that makes grogs so angry? quote:e: wait didn't Incarnum or some other book do exactly this in 3e and everyone hated it?? No, incarnum was you had X Essentia points that you could assign to Y fake magic items. Z of which you could also Bind to one of W slots. but you couldn't use a magic item in that slot unless you took a special feat for each and every slot you wanted to use a magic item in. It wasn't very powerful and it was a bookkeeping nightmare because your essentia allotment could change on a round by round basis, changing all of your bonuses and attacks. It also had a bunch of needless alignment restrictions to gently caress up multiclassing options, and one of the worst "paladin but worse in every way" classes short of the divine mind. Kurieg fucked around with this message at 05:11 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Flight being avaliable to players without a spell is one of the big groggy no-nos. It being avaliable to a player race was usually enough to earn that race a +3 or more level adjustment in 3.5. Aarackoa get it at level 1 just for being bird people. In fairness to the grogs, I have been playing an Aarakocra lore bard in a Princes of the Apocalypse game. Being able to fly around invisibly for a couple of hours a day at levels 3 - 4 busts a lot of the encounters wide open.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
idk about WoW or other mmos, but Guild Wars 1 & 2 have historically good class balance. 2 specifically built their classes around different mechanics to differentiate them and still managed to make everything viable at high-end PvP/PvE, so it can be done. Could be fairly easily translated to a tabletop rpg, if simplified a bit. Like, video games have come a long way in terms of making things fun for everyone to play. Maybe tabletop/traditional rpgs should take a look sometime.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:In fairness to the grogs, I have been playing an Aarakocra lore bard in a Princes of the Apocalypse game. Being able to fly around invisibly for a couple of hours a day at levels 3 - 4 busts a lot of the encounters wide open. *allegedly
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
To be clear, I am aware that the better solution is still to give the Fighter things to do that are explicitly handled by the game's mechanics - it's just that even if we grant that the Fighter-player should be adapting a "narrative-based" approach, not only does it not work, it's actually a step backwards from previous editions.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
2e is the way and the light! Come back... Come back to us! 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Lets say you wanted to give the fighter a few spells as Extraordinary abilities to shore up the balance with spellcasters What and how many would you give?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
I love how "Fighter is best at fighting" amounts to "gets Fighting Style at Level 1 instead of 2, for easier MC'ing out into a spellcaster." Combined with Proficiency making them literally not any better at hitting things with sticks (which a MC character would also poach, if they some how were better) and it's like  gently caress this game.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
Between full BAB, feat chains, magic items, maneuvers that weren't gated off into 5e feats/abilities and the Fort/Ref/Will save structure, would it be a stretch to say that the 3.PF Fighter is better than the 5e one?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:Lets say you wanted to give the fighter a few spells as Extraordinary abilities to shore up the balance with spellcasters What and how many would you give? I don't know that I'd give them spells, per se, but I'd give them fightery things, like various exploits performed by legendary mythical heroes. The below should start to apply to fighters as they hit the level 7-15 range or so Something like: Smash - you may destroy an obstacle or object of your choice, such as a door, wall, legendary evil ring, whatever. If the object or obstacle is significantly larger than you, create a fighter-sized hole in the object sufficiently large for you to pass through (break through a castle wall, the side of a mountain, etc.). Endure Elements - through sheer badassery, you are immune to negative environmental effects. Choose an environment - you are now immune to that environment. Change environments after a long rest. Example environments might be a blizzard (move at no penalty, ignore the cold), a volcano (ignore the oppressive heat, ignore the poisonous gas, etc.), swimming underwater (hold your breath for days if need be) Obviously this sort of thing would have to be cleaned up, codified, etc., but the idea is to give a fighter the ability to do awesome stuff while still feeling like a fighter. Let him/her do things like break any object, disarm multiple foes, fire an arrow through multiple people, walk unwavering through a hail of arrows, or a host of other things that would make non-fighters quail in fear that this virtually unstoppable god of combat is out to get them. At the same time the wizard can teleport his way into the evil warlord's castle, the fighter can walk up to the castle, taking arrow fire as he goes without flinching, stare at the wall, and shatter it in a single hit. Granted, if the warlord himself or the warlord's lieutenant or general are firing at him, then he or she starts caring about the arrows, but generic soldiers should be well beneath his or her notice. Rogues should have similar things where a rogue is capable of simply sneaking into the castle perfectly, only caring if, again, major characters are attempting to ferret out intruders. Let martials do reality-warping things that are within their specialization. If the question comes up as to how on earth a mere human can pull off something like smashing through a castle wall barehanded, reply that this human just happens to be a badass legendary hero.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:<Nice things for fighters> Here's a brief list I posted somewhere earlier in the thread. quote:"You can jump the distance of a bowshot". No dex check, no "unless the ground is slippery", you can just jump that far. Like, whenever. You provoke OA as normal when you do it, you're not teleporting, you can just jump real far. And don't forget that in older editions the fighter ended up with a small army, a group of elite bodyguards, and a couple of mid level sidekicks.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Martial Exploits Isn't this exactly what 4e did with Fighter/Rogue powers, right down to calling them Exploits?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Even if your solution to martials is to give them vancian powers ala 4e dailies, you still haven't solved the noncombat issues with spell casters. Really the only way to do that is via chance of horrific failure on spells (roll a d100 on every teleport, if it's a 100 you teleport into a rock) and through a social system built into the fantasy world that restricts casters (ex: your spell components require you to be horribly evil). Both are hard to do.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Isn't this exactly what 4e did with Fighter/Rogue powers, right down to calling them Exploits? Yes.  AlphaDog posted:<more nice things for Fighters> Building off this theme: Your base speed doubles. Your endurance is just that good. Later on this also becomes "you gain fly speed equal to your base speed for one round" or something You gain blindsight. You're Daredevil. You can Intimidate inanimate and mindless creatures. You can hold your breath for a number of days equal to your CON score, and you can shout loud enough to be heard for a number of miles equal to your STR score. Brute Force: you can add your STR modifier to any ability check or saving throw. You can stomp your feet hard enough to cause earthquakes. Do with this what you will outside of combat. Your mere presence forces spellcasters to make Concentration checks to pull off spells.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Even if your solution to martials is to give them vancian powers ala 4e dailies, you still haven't solved the noncombat issues with spell casters. Really the only way to do that is via chance of horrific failure on spells (roll a d100 on every teleport, if it's a 100 you teleport into a rock) and through a social system built into the fantasy world that restricts casters (ex: your spell components require you to be horribly evil). Both are hard to do. The way to make the game less about wizards is absolutely, positively not make the game even more about wizards, which is exactly what your solutions do.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Your mere presence forces spellcasters to make Concentration checks to pull off spells. I love this one so much.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
The only way to fix wizards is to peruse the spell sections of your books with a red sharpie. Beguilers and similar limited casters are OK though. Edit: Incarnum was really cool but like a lot of the cool 3.5 stuff it got 1 book that could have used more playtesting and then they went back to making wizard spells. If you play PF, Dreamscarred Press is tackling Incarnum just like they already did Psionics and Time of Battle. Nihilarian fucked around with this message at 16:40 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Between full BAB, feat chains, magic items, maneuvers that weren't gated off into 5e feats/abilities and the Fort/Ref/Will save structure, would it be a stretch to say that the 3.PF Fighter is better than the 5e one? Yes, this is a stretch. Unless you were seriously optimizing and had access to all of the splatbooks a 3.PF fighter was not in a good place either. Full BAB wasn't that helpful because all your iterative attacks activated on a descending bonus, so you weren't a 20th level fighter making four attacks against a CR 20 opponent, you were' a 20th level fighter making one attack, followed by a 15th level fighter making one attack, followed by a 10th level fighter making one attack followed by a 5th level fighter making one attack. Unless you had a seriously ridiculous attack bonus through spells or the ability to go for touch AC, your last attack often missed. Feat chains were terrible because they were designed around the idea that fighters had lots of feats, so normal people could only do one thing and even fighters couldn't pick up that many things. Plus you had to plan out your character in advance to get the most out of them. Maneuvers were gated behind feats in 3.PF just as they are in 5e, just not through the same way. Just because you can use maneuvers without the feat in 3.PF, it doesn't mean that you should.n Using a maneuver without the feat means that you're provoking an AoO, have a smaller bonus in a game where enemy strength/size/CMD bonuses rapidly outstrip your own offense for the maneuver, and many maneuvers are of questionable value against different foes (can't disarm a dragon's teeth, and bull-rushing the dragon 5 ft doesn't mean it's magically out of reach). You could get something out of maneuvers, but it required serious investment and feat synergy. The Fort/Ref/Will save structure involves fewer weak points than 5e's six saves, but the 3.PF fighter is better than the 5e fighter in the same way that being eaten alive by rats is better than being eaten alive by fire ants. The 3.PF fighter has only one good save that can even hope to keep pace with rising enemy save DCs, but without heavy investment in spells and ability scores you'll probably be outstripped by high level opponents in your best save, and utterly clobbered in your worst, because at high levels the penalties from failing saves get really bad, with stuff like mind control and instant death being flung around left and right. Meanwhile, the 5e fighter's bad saves just straight up do not increase at all, and you have too many bottlenecks in the form of Concentration spells to prevent buff stacking and Attunement to prevent magic item stacking, so your bad saves at 20th level may be almost what they were at 1st level against enemies designed to challenge the good saves at 20th level. Both save systems are total garbage. Magic items were better for the 3.PF fighter since they were more abundant, but they were far, far, far better for the 3.PF caster, especially the 3.PF caster crafter, who could have whatever was needed for half the market price.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Edit: Incarnum was really cool but like a lot of the cool 3.5 stuff it got 1 book that could have used more playtesting and then they went back to making wizard spells. If you play PF, Dreamscarred Press is tackling Incarnum just like they already did Psionics and Time of Battle. And like a lot of things, Incarnum worked best as a thing for other classes. I remember there being a warlock/totemist gestalt built that revolved around using totemist as a way to get a giant pile of essentia to invest in incarnum blast, incarnum shroud, and the few good incarnum feats. And then using the remainder on the decent totemist soulmelds because the Totem chakra didn't actually take up a magic item slot. There's also the Incarnum spells that were designed in such a way where a spontaneous caster only ever needed like, 6 essentia at maximum, but a prepared caster needed 30+
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Yeah I am running a game with some houseruled stuff for Fighters and Champions, mostly Champions.quote:Fighters Now some of this has changed. In part because it looked like a bunch of people were going to dip 1 level of Fighter for a feat, so I instead just gave everyone a feat at 1st level, and instead moved the Feats when a Fighter gains a Fighting Style to instead be gain a bonus feat whenever a Fighter gets a Fighter Archetype Feature. quote:Okay if we are going to end up with a bunch of people dipping fighter for a feat I think I will have to make a change to the houserules. Also am going to change the Improved Damage feature at 3rd and 15th feature for one handed weapons. This is at the suggestion of the person playing a dual wielding Fighter who is going to go Champion at 3rd level, because they thought it might be too close to the Great Weapon Fighter in damage, while getting more attacks. So instead going to have one-handed weapons increase by 1.5x instead of 2x, and probably something like 2x instead of 3x at 15th. Looking at a 1d8 weapon becoming 3d4 at 3rd, and maybe 5d4 at 15th. He already has Two Weapon Fighting Style and the Dual Wielder feat, and wields two 1d8 Weapons, and I believe he is looking forward to 3rd level. I am also getting a chance to try out the Great Weapon Fighting Champion in another game that is currently 4th level, so will be getting a chance to try it out myself. These changes are more combat focused than some suggested so far, but they were primarily about making the Champion actually be the best at Fighting like some claim. Also a lot of the changes to Champion were brought about by looking at the Gladiator and thinking, man why is the Gladiator a better Fighter than the Champion.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
I think one could also just straight-up lift Maneuvers from Tome of Battle and use those, don't even need to adapt them to Archetypes or Superiority Dice or whatever. Any reference to a Full-Round Action would be taken to mean consuming all your movement and your Normal Action, and then references to F/R/W saves would just have to be mapped to an appropriate attribute-save. A level 1 Fighter knows 3 Maneuvers and 1 Stance, and can use 3 Maneuvers every encounter. They can also recover all their Maneuvers mid-battle by spending their Normal Action to do nothing, or spending their Normal Action to make a melee attack (copying the Warblade model).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Yeah I am running a game with some houseruled stuff for Fighters and Champions, mostly Champions. Myself and Ryuujin talking about stuff for this game was what kinda got the ball rolling on what to do about fighters. Like, i like the idea of a "simple" fighter, such as a buffed Champion just being "I always add Double Prof to any roll that includes my STR modifier." That flatout makes the fighter better at fighting than anyone else; the problem is with MC, you have to spread it across Fighter levels (which sucks) or it gets poached; otherwise, you have to insert a mechanism by which you lose certain class features when you stop being a single-class character. The question about whether to make fighters broadly competent with all kinds of weapons, or specialized into one came from this thought I had: What if you gave EVERY fighter a bunch of weapon-loadout feats? For example, you would get Shield Master, Polearm Master, and Crossbow Expert. You can effectively only utilize one at a time so having these 3 specific feats as a free bonus isn't a huge boon, but it gives the fighter some measure of versatility in combat. If we're sticking with the idea that "fighter is best at fighting and literally sucks at everything else" i think that sort of versatility is a reasonable way to go. The alternative seems to be doubling down on some synergistic feat chains and specializing in one type of weapon (say, Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter + Skulker, for example) Not saying that's invalid, but is one method demonstrably better than the other?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Or as stated above you could give fighters drastically better BAB that increases by level, so there wouldn't be any multiclass dipping. Combine that with always available actions like power attack, cleave, disarm,called shots, parry for ally, etc that comes at the cost of attack penalty and it'd work great. Have fighters be hitting dragon AC 95% of the time by level 10 and keep climbing from there. Also add extra half attacks at level 5,10,15 and 20.
mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 21:24 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:The question about whether to make fighters broadly competent with all kinds of weapons, or specialized into one came from this thought I had: Specific to Crossbow Expert though, it's tricky because all that that feat really does nowadays is "you can use crossbows like you can use a bow, i.e. it's compatible with Extra Attacks", which doesn't strike me as a huge benefit so much as how it should be working in the first place (or at least IMO).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Even if your solution to martials is to give them vancian powers ala 4e dailies, you still haven't solved the noncombat issues with spell casters. 4e's attempted solution was to create rituals. Anyone can learn them, although wizards and clerics get them by default (of course). The idea is basically to make all the non-combat spells fairly slow and kind of expensive. Honestly, it doesn't work all that well. It's kind of kludgy, and doesn't really mesh with the faster paced tour of set piece encounters that 4e shines with. But I do think there's value in the idea, if fleshed out properly. Make the big adventure-derailing spells into rituals, and make rituals something that the party casts, not any single character. Maybe the wizard has the actual recipe book, but the cleric knows which gods have to be placated, and the fighter and rogue have to perform actual physical feats to finally pull the ritual off. Maybe the invisibility spell involves stealing the eye of a beholder without it noticing. Maybe the flight ritual involves the fighter having to win a boon from the angel of gravity via unarmed combat. The Raise Dead spell requires the whole party to visit the plane of ghosts and convince their dead party member that no, really, that was just a fluke, we totally promise not to let you die painfully and horribly again, pinky swear, please come back. There's way more interesting design space that you could tap into that isn't D&D's 'push button win scenario' default.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Mechanics question: How does dual classing Wizard and Sorcerer work in regards to spell slots? Does the player get spell slots specific to either class or uses the higher class' spell slot?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
Kortel posted:Mechanics question: How does dual classing Wizard and Sorcerer work in regards to spell slots? Does the player get spell slots specific to either class or uses the higher class' spell slot? You'll have spell slots according to the table in the multiclass section (for 2 full casters like that, nothing changes). You'll prepare spells according to each class' level (so a Wizard 3/Sorc 2 would prepare wizard spells as a level 3 wizard, and sorc spells as a level 2 sorc, and overall you'd have spell slots like you were level 5).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 23:14
|
|