|
There's a few feats that are very very useful for spellcasters but they have more options outside the feat system whereas rogues and fighters really don't.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Randalor posted:So... martial classes get something to balance out the loss of feats, right? ...right? Most of the DMs and parties I play with don't really have a lot of dnd experience, so it's not really too difficult for me to build a fighter that can keep up. But also yes as everyone points out spell casters tend dominate. Which is why I like building anti-mage fighters as a gently caress you Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Sep 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 05:41
|
|
|
Talkie Toaster posted:It’s completely bizarre as the most natural wording, “After you melee attack someone on your turn you can Shove them as a bonus action” has very little ambiguity. That wording implies that if you have multiple attacks you can shove between them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 05:54
|
|
|
"After you take the Attack action using a melee weapon on your turn, you may use your bonus action to use an equipped shield to Shove a creature within melee range."
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 06:10
|
|
|
Still doesn't define what taking the Attack action entails. If you attack someone once, and have more attacks remaining, have you taken the Attack action? Remember that 5e allows you to move and take other actions between attacks. For example, you could attack, cast Misty Step as a bonus action to teleport 30 feet, then move next to another enemy and attack again. But could you do the bonus action shove on the original target instead of casting Misty Step? Does "taking" mean "completing", or do you just need to start it with the first attack?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Still doesn't define what taking the Attack action entails. If you attack someone once, and have more attacks remaining, have you taken the Attack action? Remember that 5e allows you to move and take other actions between attacks. For example, you could attack, cast Misty Step as a bonus action to teleport 30 feet, then move next to another enemy and attack again. But could you do the bonus action shove on the original target instead of casting Misty Step? Does "taking" mean "completing", or do you just need to start it with the first attack? The Attack action is defined: quote:The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks. Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action. The extra attack feature reads: quote:Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. If, as part of an Attack action, you can take multiple attacks and you have taken one (declared a target, rolled to hit, rolled to damage if it succeeds), then that attack is complete but the Attack action is not. Any language specific enough to limit it to what is seemingly the intended use as a sort of combo finisher (Like changing it to "After using all of the attacks available to you as part of the Attack action on your turn...") would also prevent someone from using it if they chose to only use some of their attacks when taking the Attack action. If you want to decide that an action is completed when you still have options available to you that you intend to use, then I guess that's up to your table.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 15:43
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Keep in mind the below is in response to the isolated thing posted above. E: f;b. Misty Step is a good example. That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Sep 29, 2023 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
I hate natural language because the same sentence can be interpreted the opposite way with a different reading of the Attack action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 17:38
|
|
Kwyndig posted:I hate natural language because the same sentence can be interpreted the opposite way with a different reading of the Attack action. Every time I think about mechanics like Bless and "the guiding bolt effect" not being codified with a Keyword (but being rewritten in full text every time you need to use the same effect), I die inside a little.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
My favorite bit of terrible 5e language is the “bonus action”, which is not a bonus (you get one every round) and is not an action (you can’t use it to take normal actions), but is instead just a separate category of things you can do on your turn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
blastron posted:My favorite bit of terrible 5e language is the “bonus action”, which is not a bonus (you get one every round) and is not an action (you can’t use it to take normal actions), but is instead just a separate category of things you can do on your turn. That's not quite true—you only get a bonus action every round if you have some ability that lets you use it for something. If you don't have any, then you don't have a bonus action to not spend on anything. This is explicitly mentioned in the PHB: quote:You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take. This doesn't really change anything, of course. I guess it's a framing thing or something? Honestly I don't understand why they felt this was worth expounding on. I guess it sorta makes the name make more sense if you squint?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
Is there any functional difference between not spending a bonus action on account of having nothing to spend it on (like not using your attack action because you have no targets) and not having the bonus action in the first place because you can't use it? Like, the moment you pick up an item with a bonus action trigger, surely you'd be able to use it anyway?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
Poops Mcgoots posted:The Attack action is defined:
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Ah, I might be a little poisoned by Baldur’s Gate 3, which is a fairly faithful recreation of the 5e rules but with a variety of balance changes to make things more fun. This includes making a lot of things bonus actions, such as shoving an enemy or drinking a potion, so you’ve always got something that “grants you” a bonus action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
Splicer posted:You said taking, not completing, an attack action. Oh weird, I could've sworn I said completing. That's my bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
I prefer the version where you can shove first, so I would phrase it "as part of your attack action" and explicitly include "can be made before, after, or between any attacks". The edge case of shove somehow making it so you have no targets to attack is bad, but clear: you're in an attack action and have no more valid targets, same as if you have two attacks and the first removes the last target.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
BonHair posted:Is there any functional difference between not spending a bonus action on account of having nothing to spend it on (like not using your attack action because you have no targets) and not having the bonus action in the first place because you can't use it? Like, the moment you pick up an item with a bonus action trigger, surely you'd be able to use it anyway? No, there aren't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
Which is why I preferred the minor action term. It's understood that it's lesser than an action and that you only have one. Bonus implies that it's free or extra when it's very not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
You could use your action to do a minor action though, right? Like if you wanted to do two minor actions. You can't do that with bonus actions. It's not really hierarchical that way, it's a weird orthogonal thing, even though they are weaker than actions 99% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 02:45
|
|
|
You can't but that's just "hey it's different in this game" like how "Short rests" in 5e are an hour long rather than five minutes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 04:24
|
|
|
That's not a short rest. That's not short at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 04:45
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:That's not a short rest. That's not short at all. So remember how none of the words of “bonus action” are conducive to understanding its meaning, and they’re in fact misleading? Same team wrote the whole thing. It’s all like that. It is both reliant on natural language while refusing to use it as you would in natural speech. Any clarifications are up to the table, ultimately, although you can also try to find and parse some mealy-mouthed tweets. It’s bordering on performance art.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 05:12
|
|
|
Natural language is fine for like storygames but for tactical games you'd want technical language. I don't understand why anyone would want natural language for something so highly tactical as D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 05:52
|
|
|
I don't think they want D&D to be a tactical game. I think they want D&D to be some kind of verisimilitude-heavy medieval simulator that can do Anything and Everything, because it is the only game. Problem is, they then dedicate like 50% of the rulebook to combat and another 33% of the rulebook to highly specific spells.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 06:14
|
|
|
Just play GURPS lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 06:45
|
|
|
There's a lot in the 5e core rules that very much feels like was added in order to yank the game as far away from 4th Edition as possible. D&D 4e very loudly acknowledged the fact that Dungeons and Dragons is, first and foremost, a tactical wargame, and that it always has been. They then built what was effectively a brand new game from the ground up, and when they did so they put a lot of effort into making a very good wargame. This wound up with a combat ruleset that could be entirely removed from the roleplaying context and played as a board game, and one of the biggest indicators of that was how clean and precise the language was. Every action was clearly spelled out using common keywords. Burning hands was not a spell, it was a Wizard Attack Encounter Power. It didn't do damage in a 15-foot cone in front of you, its AoE was Close Blast 5, where the 5 refers to the size, in grid squares, of the blast. The grognards hated this. They didn't want to play an Arcane Controller with a gimmick to swap out Powers every Long Rest, they wanted to play a wizard, which is to say, they wanted an arcane spellcaster that controlled the battlefield with spells they chose to prepare every morning. The veil had been pulled back too far, and the common sentiment among the grogs was that this here tactical wargame just wasn't Dungeons and Dragons, dagnabbit. So, 5e's designers looked at that and decided that they needed to be as little of a wargame as possible. Everything is now described using the most natural possible language, precision be damned. Playing on a grid, which is the way that basically everyone has played D&D for decades at this point, is listed as a variant rule. (Every combat-relative distance being a multiple of five feet is entirely coincidental, I guess.) They stripped out a ton of tactical complexity as well, not just to bring it back to 3.5e--which is what the grogs thought of as the "good one" and had more-or-less stuck with--but even simpler than that. 5th edition is, as a result, a very shallow game, devoid of tactical complexity or character customization. This was, somehow, hailed as a return to form.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 07:46
|
|
|
blastron posted:So, 5e's designers looked at that and decided that they needed to be as little of a wargame as possible. Everything is now described using the most natural possible language, precision be damned. Playing on a grid, which is the way that basically everyone has played D&D for decades at this point, is listed as a variant rule. (Every combat-relative distance being a multiple of five feet is entirely coincidental, I guess.) They stripped out a ton of tactical complexity as well, not just to bring it back to 3.5e--which is what the grogs thought of as the "good one" and had more-or-less stuck with--but even simpler than that. 5th edition is, as a result, a very shallow game, devoid of tactical complexity or character customization. Hell, every edition of D&D prior to 5e expected you to be playing on a map with minis and checking exact distances. Before it was the 5 foot grid, you were expected to be using a ruler.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 08:24
|
|
|
People also get extremely defensive if you point out the video game version is a solved puzzle where the correct solution is more or less always the same.
Terrible Opinions fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Oct 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 08:31
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Natural language is fine for like storygames but for tactical games you'd want technical language. I don't understand why anyone would want natural language for something so highly tactical as D&D. D&D doesn't really get treated like a tactical game, hell, outside of 4e grids/maps were just a suggestion, not a requirement. blastron posted:They then built what was effectively a brand new game from the ground up, and when they did so they put a lot of effort into making a very good wargame. They did not build it from the ground up in any way, lmao, it inherited so much poo poo from earlier editions(or, well, from 3.x) that dragged it down. 4e's sins wasn't the changes it made, it was the changes it didn't make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 08:45
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:D&D doesn't really get treated like a tactical game, hell, outside of 4e grids/maps were just a suggestion, not a requirement. Incorrect, 3.5e stated that you required a grid multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 10:16
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:People also get extremely defensive if you point out the video game version is a solved puzzle where the correct solution is more or less always the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 10:33
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:D&D doesn't really get treated like a tactical game, hell, outside of 4e grids/maps were just a suggestion, not a requirement. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 10:35
|
|
|
Zereth posted:Hell, every edition of D&D prior to 5e expected you to be playing on a map with minis and checking exact distances. Before it was the 5 foot grid, you were expected to be using a ruler. The first subheading of the 3.5e "Combat" chapter is "The Battle Grid", and its first paragraph is as follows: 3.5e PHB posted:To help visualize events in the fictional world of the D&D game, we recommend the use of miniature figures and a battle grid. A battle grid, such as the one provided in the Dungeon Master's Guide, consists of a grid of 1-inch squares. Each of these squares represents a 5-foot square in the game world. Its examples of movement, cover flanking, etc all take place on a grid as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 11:13
|
|
|
The AD&D 1e rules gave distance, movement rate, etc in inches. As in, inches on the table where you had the dungeon being mapped out and your minis standing. A number of spell descriptions were positively gleeful about the potential for catching your party members in friendly fire if you weren't very careful about the geometry of your fireball or lightning bolt or whatever. You can't really do that without a grid unless you're trying to encourage fistfights at the table.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 11:30
|
|
|
Splicer posted:...goon mad about baldur's gate 3?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
BG3 is *almost* 5e but it's different in a few important ways that mainly increase quality of life. Also my issue with multiclassing in 5e is more that it means that defining class features are locked off until higher levels that most games will never see, this does not apply to spellcasters, of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 15:19
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:It is very good in spite of 5th edition rules. There is a certain sort of person online who will claim the opposite. This is also the sort of person who gets mad about multiclassing for mechanical advantage. The opposite being that it's bad because of the 5th edition rules? Or that it's good because of them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
That it's good because of them. You'll get a people giving an introduction about BG3 being easy to learn and good because it's based on "the best" or "easiest to learn" version of D&D. Statements that only make even a little sense if you're exclusively comparing them to the Owlcat Pathfinder games. Really almost every BG3 change to 5e's rules are just objectively better and should be backported to the tabletop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Murphy’s Law’s: another place for the dungeons and dragons edition war. I feel like I’ve seen it on cooking forums by now. Actual Murphy that might be intentional: if you’re fighting in Apocalypse world, the best thing you can do is be in a larger group than someone else. You do +1 damage and take -1 damage. We had a climatic player versus player duel in AW game, with both players leveling up during it and both becoming metaphorically gang sized. Gaaang shiiiiiittttt. Golden Bee fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Oct 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Golden Bee posted:Murphy’s Law’s: another place for the dungeons and dragons edition war. How would that be a Murphy? Being a larger group is a huge advantage in a fight, realistically and fictionally, and AW is sufficiently abstracted that making a small gang and a super badass the same mechanically makes a lot of sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2023 17:31
|
|