|
As far as CoDZilla and such go, casters are not back iup to 3.x levels of supremecy, but non-casters other then one specific type of barbarian are near pointless and don't really belong in the game. You will pretty much never think "I'm glad I made a fighter instead of a paladin." Except rangers. Rangers, despite being spellcasters, are still the worst class in the game.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Some gencon gossip. The 3rd party company that runs convention D&D (wotc hasnt in years) is moving out of the main gaming halls entirely. They are going to a nearby hotel's ballroom and surrounding smaller rooms. Great news for noise control, which got worse each year. Side effect though is there probably won't be any D&D in the main areas for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I mean, you can't beat that as a melee character period for the most part. The "polearm" part isn't even the big one - it's Great Weapon Master. Polearm Master just makes it more absurd. Unfortunately, those feat slots take up ability score increases, which hurts pretty much everyone not a variant human fighter. Which is why I just built a Bard for 5e. Pump dex and cha, pick up a rapier and a longbow, and then forget about them because you just nuked the encounter with Shatter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Unfortunately, those feat slots take up ability score increases, which hurts pretty much everyone not a variant human fighter. On the other hand, there's no reason to take a race that isn't a variant human for basically anyone. And I DID specify "for melee builds."
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:If you want to skill monkey, fire a bow, AND heal, you want to play a Bard, fullstop. Bards are the most versatile class in the game since they have a wide variety of spells to choose from, decent armor and weapon proficiencies, and of course their skill bonuses. Make Dex and Cha your two highest stats and bump them when you can. Bard is so absurdly versatile (and better than most other classes at their core function) that you can use it to spoof just about any class concept, those in the game already and a few not. I would have to go back and look at fighter, but from what I recall, making all their maneuvers at-will would make them competitive in a power/interest level way. That's true of most things in the game. Name Change fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Mar 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
I really don't want to use a polearm, but I might use a two-handed sword instead. Is the extra damage worth the loss of AC?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Zarick posted:I really don't want to use a polearm, but I might use a two-handed sword instead. Is the extra damage worth the loss of AC? Unless you are doing a build that is focusing on AC it tends to lag behind after early levels, and the game's balance generally promotes a "rocket tag" style where you're looking for powerful offense more than defense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Bard is so absurdly versatile (and better than most other classes at their core function) that you can use it to spoof just about any class concept, those in the game already and a few not. It gets really disgusting when your Bard starts poaching spells from other classes, before the original class even has a chance to choose them (see Ranger). That's not even getting into the fact that Bards already have access to some of the most powerful, encounter-ending spells in the game. Even Valor Bards who don't get to poach as early can still be insanely strong because of that. I quit playing 5e around level 8-9, but by that point I was just transforming into a T. rex and completely loving over the DM's encounter balance. It's all well and good if that's your thing, but I generally like to have much more tactical fights than "choose best spell at highest level, nuke encounter." I had former party members tell me I should just play a different class, but considering that Bard is as good if not better than most classes at their own niche, I didn't see a point and eventually dropped out. Edit: Then again, I don't think they really understood the game they were playing or didn't really care. After all, one of them was playing a Wizard/Fighter hybrid instead of, you know, a loving Bard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
The general issue is less "spellcasters are better then normies" (which was CoDZilla's issue - even without their spellcasting, druids had more powerful class features then most other classes) and more "spells are better then any other option." This leads to poo poo where fighter-casters don't actually fight - they use that "fighter" bit to just make them more defensive while they spellcast. The Bladesinger gets all this stuff to go with using one weapon and psuedo-fencing, but you'll never notice, because their best action is to immediately shapechange into a dragon. It's the same problem that 3.x had. They might've sorta lessened the gap between wizards and fighters, but spells are still what the entire game is built around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
For those of you who like me had to remember what Codzilla meant. https://1d4chan.org/wiki/CoDzilla
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:For those of you who like me had to remember what Codzilla meant. You could do it by accident by playing a druid well. Had a fighter in party who was a half giant and I made them look like they didn't matter with a wolf pet and 1-2 spells.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Fallorn posted:You could do it by accident by playing a druid well. Had a fighter in party who was a half giant and I made them look like they didn't matter with a wolf pet and 1-2 spells. This is the actual consequence of badly designed and poorly balanced games. It's not "well what if Bob decides to go hunting down all the things he needs to break the game across a hundred sourcebooks and ruthlessly minmaxes everything he can what then huh" so much as "oh hey Natural Spell, that seems cool."
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Summon Natures ally with the feat from eberron that gives it 2x the duration because we were playing in eberron and it fit the character. Welp I now have two wolves that are better than the fighter/barb/thief/monk at level 1 it takes out two monsters, when I hit level 2 it last for 4 rounds which is longer than some combats and flanks the opponents for the animal companion and it to tear through encounters. When you get summon natures ally two it was what ever you want it most likely has more attacks than the full bab classes and deals more damage. poo poo got dumb fast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Dungeons & Dragons makes a comeback http://www.telegram.com/article/20160311/ENTERTAINMENTLIFE/160319833
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Dungeons & Dragons makes a comeback People don't want a million splatbooks and a dearth of complex options, yet 3.X/PF is the greatest D&D in the minds of a ton of people in the hobby.  Somebody in here recently said that 4e is kinda the only "Advanced" edition of the WOTC versions; 5e is definitely like a basic-er version of 3.5 (that still tries to do too much and fails at most of it)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Dungeons & Dragons makes a comeback
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
I was working up a good head of steam to write a long "There is such a thing as too few books and WOTC needs someone from Onyx Path to beat them over the head with a book about how the modern gaming marketplace works." post, but I can't imagine that hasbro would be okay with them only releasing 4 readable(E.G. not an adventure, something anyone can grab, read, and understand, player or DM) books unless that was all Hasbro wanted. That the DMs Guild is their plan and their endgame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Can you even POD the DMSGuild material?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
I doubt it? If it's fan made stuff then it's probably not properly formatted for print.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:t I can't imagine that hasbro would be okay with them only releasing 4 readable(E.G. not an adventure, something anyone can grab, read, and understand, player or DM) books unless that was all Hasbro wanted. That the DMs Guild is their plan and their endgame. Hasbro doesn't care. D&D is nothing to them except an IP they can keep others from having.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Payndz posted:"The rules are light" - yeah? Then why does it need a loving 300-page rulebook? So you can ignore the parts you don't like, that are broken or contradictory, that differ from your favorite previous edition, that confuse you, or that you simply weren't expecting! Those parts will be obviously different for everyone. As we have previously determined in this thread, for purposes of thinking about or writing about the game, when you ignore a part of the rulebook it completely ceases to exist, and when you change a rule it changes for everyone else too. Thus, if you like light games, and were expecting a light game, D&D Next 5.0 consists of ~10 pages of perfect rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Payndz posted:"The rules are light" - yeah? Then why does it need a loving 300-page rulebook? (Even the 'basic' rules are 114 pages!) Well you see D&D 5th Edition recaptures the feel of the game I played 2 decades ago, and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition had a 322-page rulebook, so that fits, and furthermore
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:WOTC needs someone from Onyx Path to beat them over the head with a book about how the modern gaming marketplace works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
I have long grappled (hah) with the monk. With stupid rolled stats and using OA/Rokugan feats you could get some mileage of of them in 3.0/3.5 They have improved in Pathfinder but have one really good build (Zen Archer) and then a couple of variant re-attempts like the Brawler and the Unchained Monk. I actually like the Brawler a lot as it's the most caster like of the Monks, where system mastery and prep can make you very effective. Played a monk in 4e, the needing to roll average to do stuff drove me a little mad and I kept think I would have been better off playing a revanent half elf monk and abusing Twin Strike with flurry of blows but they were in a better place. Was disappointed by the nerfing of Monks in 13th Age, locking them into their strike changes, making you choose between being responsive to the fight or doing decent damage. I tried an Aarkockra Sun Soul Monk in Lost Mine, get hit for 6 and 22 damage in one round of combat at level 1, (Bugbears man, what can you do) Rolled a Druid. Rest of the party is Cleric, Paladin, Bard and Wizard. I'll try the Monk again in either Strahd or Underdark. Probable build is 5 of Monk into a two level dip in the Sun Warlock for the radiant damage buff and hex. After that see if the numbers keep up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Zarick posted:Which of the Paladin fighting styles is better? I feel like using a shield is probably good since AC doesn't scale that much (and I think I'm the only beef in my party), but I'm not sure the shield reaction is worth giving up +2 damage for. Maybe +1 AC? Power Player fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:There was some oversight in a splatbook monk variant that let them take any [fighter] feat without having the prereqs, including epic feats. From a couple pages back, but what was this build? Sounds cool. Okay, found it. Dragon 310, the Martial Monk loses 1 skill point per level and Knowledge skills are no longer class skills, but: quote:Gain: Fighter bonus feat list to choose monk bonus feats (at 1st, 2nd, and 6th level); Intimidate is class skill Which combines with the original Monk bonus feat description: quote:Bonus Feat: At 1st level, a monk may select either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, she may select either Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat. At 6th level, she may select either Improved Disarm or Improved Trip as a bonus feat. (See Chapter 5: Feats for descriptions.) A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them. So the Bonus Feats that a Monk gains at levels 1, 2 and 6 include all Fighter bonus feats, they do not need to have any of the prerequisites to take them. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Not quite sure how bringing in the people behind the rolling dumpster fire that is the Exalted 3.0 kickstarter helps anyone... My point was more the whole "POD is not your enemy and we've survived six years of benign neglect too, here's how." thing. Most of the opp kickstarters are for premium editions and I highly doubt that wotc would even need to touch that revenue stream, just release books on dtrpg at a lower overhead and allow the people who actually want to to buy physical copies. They could probably release a big "get people's attention again" physical only book every year that would also direct them towards their online marketplace, because it's not too big an ask for someone to buy something online.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
HidaO-Win posted:They have improved in Pathfinder but have one really good build (Zen Archer) and then a couple of variant re-attempts like the Brawler and the Unchained Monk. I actually like the Brawler a lot as it's the most caster like of the Monks, where system mastery and prep can make you very effective. gradenko_2000 posted:From a couple pages back, but what was this build? Sounds cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
I see a lot of mentions of how Bards are basically broken. Can anyone actually show me how/why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
HidaO-Win posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
NovaLion posted:I see a lot of mentions of how Bards are basically broken. Can anyone actually show me how/why? I wouldn't say they're broken, they're just versatile and can steal the spotlight from noncasters who are supposed to have out of combat niches (rangers and rogues). Heck, they are one of the best grapplers in addition to skill monkeys by virtue of bardic inspiration, peerless skill, cutting words, and other good class features. By virtue of cherrypicking the best spells from across several lists they can do basically whatever they want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:I wouldn't say they're broken, they're just versatile and can steal the spotlight from noncasters who are supposed to have out of combat niches (rangers and rogues). Heck, they are one of the best grapplers in addition to skill monkeys by virtue of bardic inspiration, peerless skill, cutting words, and other good class features. By virtue of cherrypicking the best spells from across several lists they can do basically whatever they want. What makes it so you can cherry pick spells from other lists? Am I just not reading the PHB correctly? Edit: Is grappling just that good in this edition? NovaLion fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Level 6 Lore College bard gets the ability to pick 2 spells from any list and learn them. And grappling being good or not isn't the issue, it's that a sufficiently motivated bard can be better than *any other class* at anything that class wants to be good at.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
All Bards get to learn spells from any class list: two at level 10, another two at level 14, and one more pair of spells at level 18. College of Lore Bard just gets to do it earlier/before the campaign peters out at level 6. And the fact that the Bard can be better than anyone else at grappling isn't a reflection on how powerful grappling is, but rather a commentary on how borked the skill system is that the best grappler isn't, say, a Barbarian or a Fighter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:one other Pathfinder monk option I like is the archetype that has a less extreme version of this: Keep in mind that Epic Fighter Feats in 3e are mostly 'get +1 to attack roll', 'get +1 natural armor', 'get energy resistance 10 to one energy type (And no it doesn't stack with magic)', or poo poo like quote:You don’t take a penalty on Ride checks when riding a mount without a saddle (bareback). You never need to make a Ride check to control a mount in combat (and even controlling a mount not trained for combat doesn’t require an action). Because when you're fighting literal gods, and the wizard is able to create his own universe, +1 attack is really a level-appropriate bonus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:And the fact that the Bard can be better than anyone else at grappling isn't a reflection on how powerful grappling is, but rather a commentary on how borked the skill system is that the best grappler isn't, say, a Barbarian or a Fighter. Rage at least gives the Barbarian advantage on STR checks (such as Athletics checks to Grapple or Shove) whereas the Fighter (specifically the Champion, which is supposed to be the world's greatest athlete) only gets prof on STR checks at level loving 7, assuming you didn't already take Athletics as a proficient skill (spoilers: You did; you're a goddamn Fighter.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
It's pretty minor compared to the spells, but being able to take a feat as a bard and go "ok, pick half the skills on the list, you are best at them now" and then add Expertise on top of two of them means you will dominate skills every time, even when another class (or classes) theoretically should be ahead of you. Or don't take the feat and do it with just a third of them, still beating people but not quite as hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
This has definitely happened in my campaign. The Bard I'm playing is better at stealth and thievery than the Rogue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:This has definitely happened in my campaign. The Bard I'm playing is better at stealth and thievery than the Rogue. Can the rogue cast Invisibility? Because I know Bards can and easily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Hey guys I see a lot of hate in this thread (didn't read it all, it'd take less to read all published 3.5 books) for 5th ed. but I kinda want to start a game to introduce a few friends to the joys of dungeoneering, and possibly dragoneering too. We've played a bunch of Call of Cthulhu adventures before, but none of us have much experience besides that, and that was mostly "you read some musty old tome - oh no you inadvertently summoned an all-consuming abomination, try to take it down while you all go insane repeatedly then die" which was fun but I think they'd enjoy a world where you can actually charge into battle, use healing potions or get resurrected without necessarily becoming an ungodly, disgusting parody of life. So I downloaded the Basic free rules, laid out a barebones idea of world, I'll try and whip up a few low-level quests, I guess that should be good enough to start out and see how we like it, then if we're having fun proceed to get the real manuals and maybe create a proper campaign or purchase some ready made ones. I am kinda knowledgeable about D&D in general thanks to being exposed to lots of related videogames (never actually played PnP D&D!), but I'm by no means a min-maxer uber God-Nerd, so I don't care if fighters are worse than wizards or if the bard can destroy the whole universe by burping while doing backflips. Actually, I want to keep things as simple as possible both for ease of mastering, and for ease of playing. Will this end badly? Should I be looking at other systems?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 20:51
|
|
