In early 2015, WotC will be sending out surveys much like they did for the playtest process. I am starting this thread in hopes that people will be able to use this to have one place to place their concerns. This thread is not meant to start a trolling war, but merely provide a place to express concerns and things that we would like to see changed.
Let me start off this thread by discussing the Ranger and my opinions of why this class is simply "meh" at best.
Things I like:
Hit points
Proficiencies
Extra attack
Land's Stride
Hide in Plain Sight
Vanish
Feral Senses
Things I think need a bit of work:
Favored enemies - if the concept of favored enemies is a base feature for the entire class that begins at the start of the Ranger's career, then why is this feature so, well, boring. In it's current form, you get to get a maximum of 3 of these your entire career. You get to track them better and speak one of their languages (if any). You get advantage on Intelligence checks but that's it. If this class is derived around the concept that we absolute HATE these creatures and hunt them every chance we get, then why does this feature not allow us to hit them better, or do more damage?
Natural explorer - this feature is actually pretty cool. The only thing I don't like is that you are capped at 3 different terrains. Who is to say that in your downtime, you couldn't train for more options here. As the current rules are stated, only tools and skills can be added in this way.
Spellcasting - if we gain our magick the same way a druid does, then why don't we prepare spells the same way? In other words, why do we only have 11 spells total at 20th level, when druids have access to their entire list.
Primeval awareness - we have to burn a spell slot to focus on the surrounding area. For 1 minute per level of the spell burned, we can sense certain creatures within one mile (or 6 if it one of our favored enemies). However, this feature really should allow us to detect how many or at least which direction they are in. For example, if my party and I are hunting a dangerous vampire and I use this ability, we might waste a ton of time tracking this undead creature only to discover, "Sorry, your vampire is in another castle"
Foe Slayer - as a capstone ability, this is pretty weak. To have to wait until 20th level just to add one modifier's bonus to ONE attack OR one damage roll is horrifically underpowered, compared to other classes. The druid, for example, can wild shape AT WILL.
Ranger archetypes - compared to the Hunter, the Beast Master is lacking. The animal types should allow to level as we do. If they are considred companions to the Ranger, then they should be treated as another equal member of the party, and thus level up in power with the Ranger. The fact that in all cases of the Ranger optimization guides I have seen, each one has said that the Hunter is the OBVIOUS choice. This is just bad design that harkens back to the days of 4th edition, in which if you were a Ranger, then you were an elf ranger using these exact powers, with these exact magick items, etc...
These are the issues I personally would like to see addressed with the Ranger.
I'd like to see them finally scrap ability scores and replace them with just ability modifiers.
I second the Favored Enemy concerns. The ability should absolutely provide a +1 to Attack and Damage rolls against creatures of the chosen type. This bonus should increase to +2 and +3 at 6th and 14th level respectively.
Overall, I am very pleased with the Ruleset thus far. A few minor tweaks here and there would shore up some flaws though. The only problem is, we have to come to a concensus about what is MOST important to fix. Surveys as a quantitative research method only really care about majority data unfortunately.
My biggest issue with the rules is the "Sleep is Magic" joke that my group has coined. If I'm a 10th level barbarian with over 100 hit points, and a Dragon dices me all the way down to 1 HP, all I need to do is take an 8 hour nap and I'm good to go fight another Dragon. That simply destroys my group's immersion. You can re-fluff Hit Points all you want to represent "energy" or "fatigue" all you want, but it has been so ingrained in our minds that HP = actual wounds that we cannot separate it.
Modifying the Long Rest rules to heal HP based on level, Constitution, or a simple formula of some kind would be my number on Rules-fix (and is my number on house rule).
Either way...just my 2 cp.
Ganymede425 wrote:
A "short" ( one hour) rest that takes too long to launch a surprise blitzkreig on Team Evil, with all your character's renewable resources requiring that Rest to replenish, and you can only get 2-3 Rests per day, was not well-balanced. The 4e 5-minute rest was too short, but this is too long.
Heroes aren't supposed to run out of gas before lunch !
(Have not yet read DMG for variant Rest lengths; maybe I'm sorely out-of-date.)
Jaden.Shadowcraft wrote:
I agree that the ranger needs a fix. Primeval Awareness is frustratingly useless as written, and Natural Explorer should provide more general benefits that aren't tied to specific terrain types (Expertise in Survival and maybe Nature would be good).
Contagion needs to be looked at.
Hunter's mark and hex are problematic insofar as they are no-brainers for their respective classes, and since they require concentration, this means that you can pretty much forget using any other concentration-based spell.
The Grappler feat needs a third benefit that actually does something.
My concern about the sorcerer: First assumption I'm making for this list of concern is I want the sorcerer to be a viable class by it's own I would love if the sorcerer could be as powerfull as a sorcerer lvl 20 then a sorcere 18/warlock 2 can be. I know that many player love the sorcerer as is because they can multiclass it and do crazy metamagic combo with spell from other caster list that where not done with metmagic in mind. twin life domain cure wound is great, but I do not believe the sorcerer should be balance around a twin life domain cure wound cast by a 11th level cleric of life who took 9 level into sorcerer or other crazy multicalss combos (quicken eldritch blast builds)
-Spell Known
-Sorcerer point
-Metamagic
-Spell List (for dragonbloodline dragon mainly)
He know less spell then the paladin, a half caster. The wizard can prepare 25+ spell per day and change those spell EVERYDAY. The sorcerer is stuck with 15 spells (plus self mage armor and self fly if you are dragon sorcerer, but you cannot cast them on ally). This can be solve 2 ways: give each subclass (and dragon ancestro) a specific spell list (similar to the cleric domain spell, circle druid land spell and plaadin oath spells. Or simply increase the spell knows to a higher number. I think a number between 30 and 35 should be fine. Why? very simple the wizard know a minimal of 44 spells (6+2 per level) + scroll he scribe ins his books, but can prepare 25 (inteligence modifier+wizard level). So I believe the sorcerer should have more "prepared" spell then the wizard since he cannot change then every day, but should have a smaller pool then the wizard to chooce from.
The amount of Sorcerer Point (SP) is way too small. The SP are used to fuel the sorcerer class feature (metamagic for example) and the spell recovery capability of the sorcerer. 1 point per level is not enought. The sorcerer is a full arcane caster who heavily rely on his spell (just like the wizard) but the sorcerer need to choose between spell recovery OR class feature. While the wizard get both class feature AND spell recovery. And wizard class feature are stronger then the sorcerer but I'll come back on these in the metamagic portion. The wizard can recover half is wizard level in spell level (so at lvl 20 he can recover 2 spell lvl 5) and still use all his class feature. For a sorcerer to recover 2 spells lvl 5 he need 14 sorcerer points which means at lvl 20 he got 4 SP left for class feature. This can be solve in various way.
1- Lower the cost for recovering spell so for example, recovering a spell lvl 5 should only cost 5 SP. Yes I understand that this would require to add a line in the description saying that you are not allow to recover spell at higher level then you can cast so a sorcerer lvl 5 cannot create a spell slot lvl 5.
2- Increase the SP pool of the sorcerer, maybe 1.5 time the sorcerer level so at level 20 the sorcerer woul dget 30 SP
3- give the sorcerer the ability to recover SP during a short rest sooner (at level 2 when you gain SP and when the wizard gain Arcane recovery) during a short rest a sorcerer regain half his level in SP. Then change the cap stone for somethiing usefull, like one of your metamagic cost 1 less SP (for a minimum 0) so yes you could make your cantrip and first level spell permanently twinned for example, is it really that much of a big deal if at level 20 a sorcerer can twin firebolt for free?
Some metamagic yes they are very good, and can be very usefull, but other are a lot weaker then the wizards counterpart of similar abilities. Yes I know wizard calss feature are limited tot he wizard magic school specialization, but the wizard school specialization is still LESS LIMITED THEN THE 15 SORCERER SPELL KNOWN. And if the Improved version of metamagic are too powerfull when apply with the multiclass crazy combo, then limit metamagic to sorcerer spell only.
- Carefull metamagic: allow the ally to automatically succeed there save for half damage compare to the wizard Sculpt Spell, who make the ally take 0 damage and succeed there safe.
- Overchannel VS empowered Spell: maximum damage, on average will DOUBLE the damage and work with AoE spell like Fireball so your 5th level fireball (10d6 damage = 60 damage) become the equivalent of a 17d6 fireball, theorically this would require a spell slot lvl 12th. While empowered allow you to reroll a maximum of 5 dice, so in the best case scenario, making a 1 become a 6 (on fireball) so increasing damage by 25. So the best case scenario of one is still weaker then the everyday Overchannel.
- Overchannel / Split enchantement VS Twin spell: Those 3 compare pretty well and are very similar in power, Overchannel and Twin spell double the damage but in different way (AoE VS single target) and split enchantement work exactly like Twin spell. Like I said earlier, the fact that split enchantement is limited to enchantment is counterbalance byt he fact that Twin spell is limited by the 15 spell known of the sorcerer (and let's be honest, only 3 or 4 spell within the 15 spell know will be elligible to twin spell, since spell like Magic missile, scorchign ray, fireball, planar shift. etc... cannot be affected by twin spell)
Distant spell: When was the last time you needed to cast fireball from 300 ft? yes changing a touch spell into a 30ft spell can be interesting, but how many good touch spell does the sorcerer has?
Extended spell: when the last time you wanted your haste to last 2 minute instead of 1? or mage armor to last 16 hour instead of 8? etc... didi you wish it enought that you would have took that metamagic over heighten or twin?
Finally the spell list. I'm fine with the sorcerer having a smaller spell list then the wizard, my issue is that sorcerer spell list make some sorcerer basic option completly USELESS, even on a RP and conceptual level, not just for min/maxer optimizer munchkins. For example: the sorcerer spell list onl;y have 2 acid spell (acid splash and chromatic orb) so anyonw insterested in making an green dragon bloodline dragon, who love acid related spell, but who will never cast big flashy acid spell, he will cast chromatic sphere level 9 and fireball? This one is easy to solve without adding more power to the sorcerer. At level 1 when you choose your dragon ancestor, you can this ability:
[insert cool name here]
When you gain a new level and learn a new spell (because your spell known increase or because you swap a spell) and IF the spell deal fire, cold, lightning, acid or poison you MAY IF YOU WANT change the elemental damage for your dragon ancestro elements. For example, if you are a green dragon bloodlin (acid) and at level 5 you learn fireball, you can choose that your fireball will deal ACID damage instead of FIRE damage. This fireball spell will NEVER deal fire damage. All other aspect fo teh spell still work as describe in the spell description (so flammable object still get destroy An Ice strom dealing poison damage (from a black dragon bloodline) still create difficult terrain. If the spell deal more then one type of damage (like meteor swarm deal fire and bludgeoning damage) only 1 elemental damage get change (so meteor swarm cast by a green dragon bloodline will deal 20d6 acid damage and 20d6 bludgeoning damage) This change is permanent (until you unlearn fireball and relearn it) so if you decide to change your fireball to deal acid damage, you cannot deal fire damage with it unless you unlearn it then relearn it. You can only change one of the 5 dragon elemental damage into your ancestor damage. You cannot change force damage (magic missile or disintegrate), necrotic, radiant, thunder, slashing, piercing, bludgeoning, etc... damage into your dragon ancestor damage.
The idea of this ability is that the Acid dragon bloodline can learn fireball and still use his acid dragon abilities on it. but without making it more powerfull. Yes I know now you all going to go out there and count the number of monster vulnerable to one element and to the other and then you'll see that element X have more vulnerabilities tehn element Y so X is stronger then Y, but if you include all teh resistance, immunity, the probablility to meet one monster over the other (dragon, demon, devil are more popular and are encounter more often then slaad or the Aboleth) it should balance itself out. Then it's the DM job to knwo that he got a acid dragon in his team so sending acid vulnerable monster will make him more powerfull and he should balance his adventure so if there is acid vulnerable monster some acid immune one shoul dbe there too so the other player can have a shining moment.
I fear this thread will spiral into nerf + buff battle coupled with class envy. Primarily due to the lack of details provided for requesting changes and zero care for the game as a whole. Whenever someone puts self interest ahead of the general good you should expect that others will not respond well...
The OP seriously suggesting items like:
"Spellcasting - if we gain our magick the same way a druid does, then why don't we prepare spells the same way? In other words, why do we only have 11 spells total at 20th level, when druids have access to their entire list."
First you do prepare spells the same way as a Druid (having 11 known spells at 20th level has zero to do with how spells are prepared. It just means that the available spells you have to prepare are limited to those 11)
Second being limited to 11 known spells at 20th level vs having access to the entire list for Druids. The reason for this limit is simple your a Ranger not a Druid... obvious I know but think about it. If you had access to all the spells then take a step further and remove the entire Druid class as everyone will want to be a Ranger.
==================================================================================================================================================
"Foe Slayer - as a capstone ability, this is pretty weak. To have to wait until 20th level just to add one modifier's bonus to ONE attack OR one damage roll is horrifically underpowered, compared to other classes. The druid, for example, can wild shape AT WILL."
I fail to see what value comparing one class ability to another could possible provide. You cant cherry pick one thing from any class and hold that up as proof your class is so much weaker. You have to consider the entire class as a whole. You should not expect to be able to put all the 20th level abilities for all classes in a spreadsheet and find they all are equal. Classes are not intended to be similar they are different for a reason.
It seems your misreading the Foe Slayer ability. You get to do this on each of your turns. In other words if you take 10 turns to fight your favored enemy you get to use Foe Slayer 10 times. Which makes it different than the one and done ability as you describe.
====================================================================================================================================================
You are a ranger not a druid. The concept of the ranger class is to be a hunter and to further that deadly hunting skill via one of the paths. You must consider the ranger class as a whole not cherry pick items and compare to other classes. I noticed you didnt suggest changing Fighting Style, Extra Attack, using Vanish as a bonus action, etc... A class is not built on one ability that comes at 20th level. It is the sum of all the classes abilities.
No skill the druid has plays into the ranger role as druid class concept is balance and the skills they have support that... they are not the best fighter, healer, etc. Yet, they can fill a role or support those who are better... if a player of a druid class through adventure becomes a better hunter than the ranger it is probably more due to the style and skill of the player than the abilities you have listed.
Any changes to specific class skills I do not support nor would I expect is the intent of any survey WOTC sends out. The survey would probably be more along the lines of what supplements to put out and not at all open to class changes. Think of it this way WOTC just spent a ton of effort, time and money to put out 5E.
They already went through the play testing which lead them to the current abilities and skills for the classes. The goal of the classes is not to "balance" the classes against each other but to provide each class the tools it needs to excel in a specific area. That took years to complete. Why would they after months of releasing the rule set ask for feedback regarding class changes? You can only hope to see such disaterous class changes when a new version is released (lets hope not for a long, long time).
I would expect that the best you could hope for regarding class changes is a Ranger specific class book supplement that has a tree that you personally feel is more inline with what you want your character to do, but don't expect to have the skills of another class, it is after all intended to be a social game and not a solo one...
Good luck,
Dread
Dreadnoght wrote:
Yunru wrote:
I agree with a lot of what's been said about the Ranger, but I can live with most of it as is. The one thing about the Ranger that really bothers me is the Beast Master subclass.
Beast Master is a genuine concern.
I would like them to take a look at the Land druids. There is much bleh going on there.
Paladin's mount should not be a spell.
Dragon Sorcerers should either have more options to not have to be Gold or Red in order to have enough spells to be viable or gain the ability to change their sorcerer spells into the element of their Dragon ancestor.
I'm currently playing a Warlock. Liking him so far, though I was saddened to see that the free Fey teleport-per-kill is gone. Most of the time it was useless, but BAMFing around the battlefield made me feel a bit more tactical as opposed to just setting up shop somewhere and shooting blasts.
My biggest complaint with him so far is that Eldritch Blast should be a class ability, not a cantrip. I don't know of any other class that you can rip off their most important, signature ability so easily...even non-Fighters need several feats (or prereqs for a multiclass) to build up their armor proficiency. It also kills their starting setup, as once you take the all-but-mandantory EB and Hex that were freely given in other editions you've only got one spell and one cantrip left to begin with.
I originally wanted to play a Ranger, but couldn't justify why I'd want to as opposed to a well-built Fighter with the Outlander background. He could probably use some help, as well as the aforementioned Sorcerer now that everyone can spontaneously cast. But as I've not played those, I can't really comment further.
For non-PC related things? I can't quite grasp the purpose of "monstrosity" in the Monster Manual. It seems like a catch-all "miscellaneous" category that covers everything from abberations to beasts to even a few humanoids like the medusa. Since you already have those other categories, I wouldn't have minded seeing them sorted out a bit more. Even if "Magical Beast" came back to fill in a few gaps, it's at least a bit more understandable what it's supposed to be.
Overall I'm loving this edition though. Can't wait till next game night to try it out some more!
I think that some of the exploits are more appropriate for the thread:
1) Druid 20 Shapechange at will = Unlimited hitpoint pool
2) Warlock Pact of the Chain with Voice of the chain Master summons an Imp; allows unlimited telepathic communication, unlimited Devils sight, and Invisibility. Basically a drone with unlimited range that be invisible, shapechange, can see through anyting and communicate anywhere (on your plane)
3) Conjure Woodland Beings = 8 Pixies = 8 Polymorphs and a host of other utility, buffs/debuffs. A total of 88 spells from the pixies from 1 level 4 spell. This all doubles at 6th lvl slot. Imagine 16 confusion spells going off, 16 entangles, 16 Polymorphs. Change the whole group or force something to polymorph, eventually it will fail it's save. Win D&D
And then there are the grey areas:
Criticals add an extra damage die. In cases like divine smite, should it add extra damage dice to the smite?
Knight_Marshal wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
BRJN wrote:
A supplement with more Sorcerer Power Sources and more Warlock Pacts. Some of these can aid both classes (son of a / oath to an Air Primordial).
More Divine Domains for Clerics.
I do agree that Ranger Beast Master needs alot of work, but Hunter needs fixing as well.
Natural Explorer
Choose TWO TYPES of favored terrains: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in.
While traveling for an hour or more in ANY terrain, you gain the following benefits:
• Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
• Your group can’t become lost except by magical means. For non-favored, you know North, but you need to use your skills to prevent from getting lost.
• Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
• If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
• When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would. Find regular amount of food in non-favored terrain.
• While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area. In non-favored, you need to roll to determine if you know how long ago they passed.
You choose additional favored terrain types at 6th and 10th level
REASON: Natural Explorer was changed from 3 to 4 known favored terrains. Allowing 50% of the terrain to be known is not absurd or overpowering. Additionally, being a tracker and hunter, he should be able to use his abilities at a normal success rate to do what is listed under Natural Explorer. In the favored Enemy, he had advantage to tracking his targets in ANY terrain. So why prevent him from tracking in non-favored terrains?
Spell Casting
15 or 13 spells known vs 11 known.
REASON: Increasing the number of spells known was based on comparisons to Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters, who have 13 spells known plus 3 to 4 cantrips, respectively, known in addition to their class abilities. Paladins were excluded as, due to their oaths, they are able to know between 21 to 25 plus spells. Cantrips can be cast at will with no expenditure of spells slots while spells utilize precious spells slots. Taking that into consideration, 15 as opposed to 13 spells known was elected. 13 spells known should be the minimum. Additionally, a Ranger is adaptable, so why make them more restricted in number of spells known compared to aforementioned classes. If case is brought they shouldn’t know same as Sorcerer, then the argument can be made that Sorcerers should be able to know more than 15 spells, as that is their livelihood. That is why most if not all people who play Sorcerers dual class to gain more spells (as discussed in the D&D forums). The spell slots have not changed
Primeval Awareness
Beginning at 3rd level, you can use your action and expend one ranger spell slot to focus your awareness on the region around you. For 1 minute per level of the spell slot you expend, you can sense whether the following types of creatures are present within 1 mile of you (or within up to 6 miles if you are in your favored terrain): aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number. YOU DO KNOW THE GENERAL DIRECTION. YOU CAN USE THIS FEATURE A NUMBER OF TIMES EQUAL TO 1 + YOUR CHARISMA MODIFIER. WHEN YOU FINISH A LONG REST, YOU REGAIN ALL EXPENDED USES.
REASON: Primeval Awareness was a very weak ability as written in which you use a spell slot and know about creatures in a 1 mile radius, 6 miles in a favored terrain, and not know number or location. I thought at least offering a general direction was adequate, otherwise why even use it. Dividing the area into quadrants, i.e., said creature is somewhere north and east of here. Then the Ranger would use his skills to actually locate/track said creature. Giving a limit usage based on Wisdom modifier made sense.
Foe Slayer - Could not determine what would be the most acceptable modification of this ability.
1) Once on each of your turns, you can add HALF your Wisdom modifier rounded up, (minimum 1) to your attack AND damage roll to an attack you make AGAINST ANY FOE. OR
2) Gain one feature from Hunter’s Archetype. OR
3) Slippery Mind (From Rogue 15th level) – You have acquired greater mental strength. You gain proficiency in Wisdom saving throws. OR
4) Gain an Extra Attack (From Fighter 11th level).
REASON: Foe Slayer was changed as Favored Enemy was eliminated. Additionally, to limit it to only creatures he favored was extremely restricting, as some of his other abilities. For a class that is adaptive, some abilities are usable in a small number of situations. Transforming the class from an adaptable class into one with limitations. Considering that some of the Ranger’s abilities are somewhat from both fighter and rogues, that is where I searched. With respect to Rogue like abilities Rangers already possess, they are gained about 4 levels after a Rogue attains them. So I looked at abilities attained at 16th level and earlier. I also added in some new additions for what can be considered for 20th level ability.
Greed would say select the 3rd attack option. Realistically, a Ranger would most likely have one of the other options.
I agree the Sorcerer needs some changes, the most important of which is increasing the spells known from 15 to 20 or 25. I think 20 is fine. Most players multiclass because of the limited number of spells known, and not caring about the abilities about 17th level. I for one MC with Bard for more spells and abilities.
I wold not change the cost of Metamagic ability, especially if you are decreasing the sorcery point cost of using metamagic. In affect you are quadrupling the Sorcery Points you have available. I would consider increasing the number, though I have not had problems running low/out of points for metamagic, though I wish I did have more when running low on spell slots.
I do wish they had a spell recovery earlier as Spell points do not allow for both slot recovery and metamagic. You are forced to chose one or the other. Recovery of spell points or spell slots after a short rest would be great. Even restricting to able to this this once until you finish a short rest would be helpful.
With changing type of elementa magic, I could see that. One way for Dragon Sorcerers is to chose an element, ie Fire, and all fire spells are instead Acid damage. And any acid based spells are Fire. That means that, in your example of Green Dragon, his only fire based spells are Chromatic Orb and Fire Splash (Acid Splash). You can NOT alternate between the two. I would allow you to later, as you increase in level to change your mind and instead alternate between Acid and Cold. Yes, radiant, necrotic, and force damage. I agree 100%.
For Wild Mage Sorcerers, to compensate for not having this ability compared to Dragon Sorcerers, Wild Sorcerers would be allowed to select a one 1st and one 2nd level spell that they can cast at will at no cost of a spell slot and do not count against spells known. They can not be cast above their alloted level. Or give them some abilities ie Devil's Sight or regain sorcery points twice in level progression vs once for Dragon Sorcerer.. Have not thought about it well now, but something that will offset the Dragon Sorcerers new ability.
A new survey? Fantastic! The last one I had to do quickly becues of life being busy however I should be able to have more time on this one. Will it be set out to all of us who playteseted the pre 5th? Do we shing up some where? How is the survey being relesed.
Also I would like to suggest that the Rangers "favored enemy" ability may not have to be hate motivated. It can be, but it could respet motivated as well. A bounty hunter could have such a respect for man it lets them confront humans and demi-humans better than most. 
BryanLeeDavidson wrote:
pukunui wrote:
BryanLeeDavidson wrote:
Yay, adjustments! Altough I'm loving this new edition so far, I agree that there's a lot of problems on the core books, specially with the features of some classes.
If I were to change something on the rules, I'm pretty sure that the first thing i'd do (after fixing all problems with the ranger and rewrite the third benefit of the Grappler feat) would be giving a little more combat options for the monk.
Although the monk is already a pretty good class without using feats, one glaring problem with this class is that, well... they're kind of repetitive. Yes, the monk can choose between three subclasses, but any two characters between them will look very similar. All open hand monks get the same abilities. Same goes for shadow monks. The only monk subclass that has a little more flexibility is Way of The Four Elements. And even then, due to the way the class is designed, monks also play pretty much the same. They all fight in melee unarmored, wielding a single weapon (wich will be either a quarterstaff or a spear if they want to get that sweet, sweet d8), without a shield. Anything that deviates from this norm leads to a subpar choice. There's no options for a dual-wielding monk. No options for a ranged monk. No options for a two-handed monk, or a damage focused monk. There's not even options for a monk that uses psychic attacks. Normally feats could solve this problem, but almost all combat focused feats are either incompatible or overshadowed by Martial Arts some way.
In short, 5e monks have very little variety, and I think this sucks. I'm going to miss 4e's Iron Soul monks... but whatever. That's my opinion.
Dreadnoght wrote:
TheDraconicSpellcrafter wrote:
Batla76 wrote:
.
Ranged Monks are feasible using Throw weapons, although iirc it's not compatible with Martial Art's BAA. Still not much of a problem for Shadow or certain Element Monks.
RANGER;
I would personally removed favored terrain and favored enemy from ranger class. With favorism to one terrain(nation) and focusing on hating/more trained in tracking/killing one or more races over the other, you might as well instead of rangers write up waffen-SS. /sarcasam.
So, primeval awareness and favorism gone.
lvl1,
Medium armor and shield proficiency removed, skills changed;
training in stealth, perception and survival. Plus two more from ranger class list.
gain expertise in; stealth, perception and survival.
Natural explorer; difficult terrain does not slow your group travel pace, you can use stealth at normal pace if you travel alone,
while tracking and foraging, you remain alert to danger.
lvl2,
Greatweapon fighting added instead of defence.
few cantrips added to spell selection.
lvl3,
endurance; you gain advantage on CON saves VS. exaustion, starvation, thirst, heat, cold, holding breath, running etc...
lvl6; expert tracker, you gain advantage on survival checks used for tracking.
lvl10; expertise in nature and animal handling if you have proficiency, if not you gain proficiency.
lvl14; improved endurance; you gain proficiency in CON saves
lvl20; foe slayer removed; extra attack(3 attacks) added
Yunru wrote:
"No 1d8 thrown weapons"? All simple melee weapons benefit from the Monk's damage dice (and can be used with Stunning Strike), thrown or otherwise.
A ranged weapon Monk can be viable, if highly limited in abilities. Two attacks at range that can stun with ever increasing damage dice is nice. Eventually you get Empty Body which means unless they can see invisible that's two attacks at range with advantage that can stun. Sure it's not going to win any DPR contests, but it's still got its own niche: stunning at range.
As for Shadow's abilities: wow, that sucks. Okay so Elementalists make the best ranged Monks in combat. Basically the above but with the support of various Ele-Monk features (Water Whip being a fun one; stun them then whip 'em, all at range).
I would not mind (but will not demand) a ranged monk sub-class that would be able to toss a Throwing Weapon and use a modified Flurry of Blows to send two more daggers as a follow-up, but lose the normal unarmed strike -based goodies for the duration of the encounter. You can only be awesome in one dimension at a time, sorry.
Yunru wrote:
Fu... Right, yeah that sucks.
Respectfully:
Back to 1.) Yes, I am aware how WS works. I would not be using a CR 1ish bear with 35 bear at lvl 20. It would be a beast around CR 6 with 95+HP(Triceratops example). So effectively, you would have a 95 HP pool each round. As long as you were under 95 DMG each round, no damage would carry over. In the case of Soloing an Ancient Red Dragon, the Dragon could not do enough DPS to do carry over damage(per MM stats, DM could always adjust). Take 91 From a failed breath weapon save? No problem. Battle Wild Shape again as a bonus action and you rgood to go, he attacks claw/claw/bite for 57, no problem, rinse and repeat, save the spell slots - no bonus action healing needed. To me, that seems a bit OP.
2.) I wouldn't say it's a bad thing. In fact, it is really an amazing way to scout. I would submit that it is the very best way to scout. From the DM perspective though, unless you just want to hand them pictures of your entire dungeon, it sucks. Sure you can close every window, door, and crack, but I just find that a little unrealistic. For example, If you wanted to scout out the castle, chances are that it could find some way in. If you wanted to set up an ambush at night, nope, a damn devil sight aerial drone is watching! Great for the party though!
3) This can certainly be tamed down by the DM but as they are given in the MM, I think the ability to access 88 utility spells from one level 4 spell is a bit flawed. Even if they had cast 90% of their spells already. I do agree with you though, as DM I would certainly limite all of these spells.
4) Criticals - Example (Fighter/Paly), It is an awesome ability to be able to add the damage from Mark, Divine Smite, Elemental Weapon, and a Battle Maneuver twice, after you see thet you have rolled a 20. I just think it needs a bit of work.
quote="Undrhil"]
Batla76 wrote:
I hope they can keep the game as simple as they can while giving some of the flavor folks are looking for. I like that I am not having to remember rules from 30+ different sources in order to just play.
Batla76 wrote:
I've now read through all three core books. Overall, I think 5E is really strong. It's clearly designed to be a streamlined chassis that is easy for casual players to enjoy and more hardcore enthusiasts to modify. Like most people on this forum, I probably skew more toward the hardcore end.
In the Monster Manual, I have nitpicks over a handful of creatures, but they're mostly a matter of personal preference. It's the best monster manual ever, by far.
In the DMG, while I very much enjoyed the pages on the multiverse, I think those pages could have been used much, much better. I would have liked to have seen more advice on how to manage a table, deal with player problems and player preference, and examples of play. My God, where are the examples of play?! Additionally, I wanted more advice on how to build an encounter. How to mix and match creatures, modify creatures, utilize terrain, etc. The DMG did a great job with world building and adventure building--would have been great to see that same level of effort applied to encounter building. Other than that, I think the DMG is solid.
The PHB is where most of my concerns lie. And that is exclusively around character building. The core four classes are all pretty much great. It shows that when the devs spend a lot of time on a class, they get it right. Most of the other classes are good. The ranger is meh. It just doesn't look fun to play. At all. Seems like a huge miss. Fundamentally, I don't think it should have been a caster, although I would be more than fine with a 1/3 caster subclass similar to the eldritch knight or arcane trickster. Personally, I would have folded the warden under the ranger, or even the druid, rather than the paladin. In any case, with the exception of the ranger, I think the classes are good to great. PS: I don't miss the warlord as much as I thought I would. But I do think it would have been easy to build a swordmage or similar type of arcane gish on the paladin chassis. So I miss that.
My major complaints are regarding the subclasses. Each subclass grants roughly four features. That means each feature carries a lot of weight. So getting even one feature wrong (or at least not to my personal preference!) really hurts the subclass. I think virtually all of the subclasses for the core four classes are just about perfect. But for the other classes the quality is more uneven. And in the case of the druid and the ranger, I think all of the subclasses are stinkers.
Long story short, I'd like to see additional development put into the subclasses--and an arcane gish class built on the paladin chassis.
Here's a list of things that I think need clarification:
- (Lore) Bard's Magical Secrets: Can these spells be retrained? If so, would they allow for spells from any spell list, or only Bard spells?
-
Life Cleric's Font of Life: It's not entirely clear what may constitute the "use" of a healing spell. Would, for instance, each berry from the Goodberry spell benefit from this feature?
-
Druid's Wildshape: Can a Wildshaped Druid spend Hit Dice from their new form? If so, would it also cause a change to their Hit Dice in their base form?
-
Polymorph/Any spell that lowers mental ability scores: It might be necessary to clarify how much control (if any) a creature retains of their own actions when such a thing happens.
-
True Polymorph: What exactly happens when a creature is permanently changed? Can they be dispelled from their new form? Would killing them in their new form still revert them back?
Things that probably require revision due to error/missing information:
- Sorcerer's Font of Magic: Creating spell slots through sorcery points seems to allow one to gain more spell slots in excess of their maximum, allowing sorcerers to "overflow" more spells in already filled slots. Moreover, aside from only being able to create a maximum of level five spell slots, no other limits exits in which spell level a sorcerer may create. This allows, for instance, for a level 7 Sorcerer to not only create level 5 spell slots, but also allows them to hoard as many overflowed level 5 spell slots as they could get away with making during long periods of downtime.
- Warlock Invocations: The level prerequisites don't specify that it has to be from Warlock levels.
- Conjurer Wizard's Minor Conjuration: It might or might have not been an oversight, but this spell can create functional and expensive items, including consumables (especially poisons), and material components for spells (probably consumable ones, but definitely non-expended ones).
- Illusionist Wizard's Illusory Reality: This feature can be used to have readily available expensive material components for spells, whether the components are consumed or not.
- Necromancer Wizard's Grim Harvest: Certain long duration spells (such as Hex) can be used with the bag of rats cheese to get an easy source of HP recovery.
- Grappler Feat: The third feature does absolutely nothing given the current grappling rules.
- Simulacrum: No time is given for as to how long it would take to restore the Simulacrum's HP via the rare ingredients.
Things that I think require revision for game balancing purposes:
- Moon Circle Druids: CR1 beasts are already more than tough for a mere level 2 character to change into, but being able to change into such forms twice per short rest at that level is just plain overkill.
- Conjure Woodland Beings: Even a single Pixie would be a very powerful ally to conjure for a level 4 spell. But eight? Sheer madness.
- Simulacrum: Though the caster can't create more than one Simulacrum, nothing stops a clone from making Simulacrum themselves: a caster that creates a Simulacrum with Wish prepared can easily create a clone of themselves each round for each clone that are created. The Illusionist's Malleable Illusions combined with this spell allows the Illusionist to change the clone's form, possibly letting the clone effectively regain expended spellslots, hit points, and other features.
Balance revisions:
- Sharpshooter: Change damage bonus from +10 to reroll the weapon damage dice one additional time and add it to the damage total.
- Great Weapon Master: See Sharpshooter. Keying the extra damage to the weapon damage dice instead would sharply lessen the abuse when combined with Crossbow Expert's and Polearm Master's bonus action attacks. An extra 1d4 (PM) or 1d6 (CE) on such attacks instead of the flat +10 keep it much more in line, while still allowing greatswords/mauls (2d6) and longbows (1d8) to shine (but not as much as with the +10).
- Polearm Master: Make its benefits work with spears, FFS. It really bothers me that THE iconic polearm doesn't get the benefits of this feat. Makes no sense. Yeah, yeah, it's not a reach weapon, but neither is the quarterstaff.
- Crossbow Expert: Take away the no disadvantage for firing in melee. No way should the CE be allowed to step all over the melee characters' toes.
Batla76 wrote:
Seriously, what's with the hate for Sharpshooter/GWM? It adds around 3 DPA. That's all. Sure it's a must take for fighters, but that's because even the slightest + gets multiplied three/four-fold.
Which leads to my next question: Have either of you actually played with someone using either?
The problem with Sharpshooter/GWM as they are is when you combine those with advantage and the many spells and situations that cause advantage, Bless, a magic weapon, the Paladin or Bard casting Elemental Weapon on the Fighter, etc. In bounded accuracy, even +1s to hit here and there can result in some HUGE damage increases on characters optimized to do tons of damage, and all of a sudden that +3 DPA doubles or more.
It gets especially bad when combined with Polearm Master or (ESPECIALLY) Crossbow Expert. I have played with a CE Fighter with Sharpshooter, and they pretty much wreck the game.
Now, my question is why the hell are people so intent on nerfing Paladin and Rogue crits. Those are definitely not game-breaking by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes but now you're comparing a SS/GWF with advantage or w/e, to a non-SS/GWF without said bonuses.
Or how about comparing to a non-SS/GWF with said bonuses instead? Point is, SS/GWF increase the damage maximums by leaps and bounds, so the hit bonuses matter a lot more for those characters. Without SS/GWF, those hit bonuses experience more diminishing returns.
e.g. +5% chance to hit with an attack doing 25 damage is going to mean a lot more than +5% chance to hit with an attack doing 15.
So players investing resources to be better is bad?
No. But right now they're getting way too much for it. A flat +10 is just too much, especially when you include Polearm Master or Crossbow Expert in addition. A +10 on a 1d4 or 1d6 bonus action hit is definitely way too much and reeks of the static damage bloat problem 4e had.
Unlike the Sorcerer 6/Wizard 10 with +10 to all Wizard Evocation Fire spells?
Honestly if we're talking insane damage, look no further than the spellcasters.
.
Oh that reminds me:
Currently Rod of the Pact Keeper and Wand of the War Mage stack. They probably shouldn't.
The Sorcerer 6/Wizard 10, (a) doesn't come online until Lv. 16, (b) doesn't allow for a focus fire of multiple attacks all with that bonus against a single enemy, and (c) you're sacrificing 8th and 9th level spells. It's a lot more fair.
Two words: Scorching Ray.
Focus fire? Check.
Great in those 8th and 9th level slots? Check.
OK, point taken on Scorching Ray. But to get that +10, you need both INT and CHA at 20 by Lv. 16. Meaning your CON and/or DEX are going to suffer and you're not going to have any feats, probably. The definition of a glass cannon.
Meanwhile, the CE/SS Fighter is pumping out all that damage at-will against everyone on the map, even in melee, and isn't having to wait 16 levels nor contort their build into pure TheoryOp impracticalness to do it.
I for one would prefer SS/GWF feats that are maybe a bit too good with advantage to nerfed versions of those feats that are terrible without. We knew advantage was too strong / too swingy a mechanic for the default to hit buff purpose it was being put to early on in playtesting, and that never changed. That's the problem, and it's not possible to fix the entire game around it. Either fix advantage or leave it as is, but don't break all the furnature just to try and fit it around the elephant in the room.
But advantage isn't the elephant in the room. The game as a whole, and Fighters, are very much functional without those feats. The elephant in the room, and the broken part of the equation, is indeed SS/GWM.
Also, they wouldn't be terrible with my proposed nerf. Sharpshooter would still have the lovely ability to ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover and snipe from long range without disadvantage, and GWM would still be a Cleave feat that also works if you get a crit. And the bigger weapons for GWM would still be worth it to take the hit-for-damage trade against most of the ACs in the Monster Manual.
No, it wouldn't. As I said the biggest (1d12) would only be +6.5 which is never worth -5 to accuracy.
Biggest is 2d6 (7). I intentionally worded it to reroll all weapon damage dice again and add (unlike with Ferocious or Brutal Critical) so the greatsword and maul benefit.
And you're also wrong that it wouldn't be worth it. Right now the -5/+10 trade's threshold is AC of (15 + proficiency bonus), when the trade starts resulting in a DPA decrease. Lowering it to -5/+2d6 for the greatsword/maul only reduces that threshold to AC (12 + proficiency bonus). Still covering most AC ranges in the MM.
And that's without advantage, Bless, magic weapons, etc. in the equation. Once you get those, trade away, even with the nerf.
The trade would be less worth it for polearms and for all ranged weapons, especially the hand crossbow, but that's how it should be.
I think that those feats are just fine.
I have made little calculation for 16 STR two handed weapon wielder in AC range of 10-20(11 attacks). Didn't have the will to do it with advantage, maybe later.
1.
lvl 3
Strength 16
attack bonus +5
damage 2d6+3(greatsword/maul)
average damage per hit:
5,69
2.
lvl 4
STR 16, GWF feat
attack bonus +0
DMG 2d6+13
av DMGpH:
6,52 (included 90% chance that crit/killing will trigger extra attack, a bit high chance IMO)
3.
lvl 4
STR 18, stat boost
attack bonus +6
DMG 2d6+4
av DMGpH:
6,82
Now we see that +2 STR is by math the better choice.
longbow goes little bit lower with stat boost.
1.
4,13
2.
5,25
3.
5,10
but you get more out of higher DEX than STR so it's OK.
I made it for advantage attacks also, GWF goes a little better now, but nothing gamebreaking.
1.
lvl 3
Strength 16
attack bonus +5, advantage
damage 2d6+3(greatsword/maul)
average damage per hit:
8,11
2.
lvl 4
STR 16, GWF feat
attack bonus +0, advantage
DMG 2d6+13
av DMGpH:
10,62 (included 90% chance that crit/killing will trigger extra attack, a bit high chance IMO)
3.
lvl 4
STR 18, stat boost
attack bonus +6, advantage
DMG 2d6+4
av DMGpH:
9,40
GWF feat not clearly goes ahead, but nothing spectacular. Also this is for 100% advantage chance. Question is, on how many attacks do you get advantage?
If you get advantage on 2 out of 3 melee attack(not going to happen) the average damage per attack for GWF goes to 9,26.
ShinQuickMan wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Yunru wrote:
The comparisons between stat boosts and GWF/SS are worthless, by the way. Because every optimized character is eventually going to both max out their main attack stat AND take that feat. All Fighters are going to have the max stat + GWF/SS by Lv. 8 at the latest (Variant Humans by Lv. 6).
Those comparisons also ignored the combinations with Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert, which provide extra attacks for the SS/GWM damage boost to take effect. Which is where it gets really ridiculous, and where you see stories of CE + SS Fighters wrecking everything with DPRs of 90 or more (without Action Surge).
Well that's just bullshit being spread. Taking from someone who's worked out the DPRs of said build, it doesn't go higher than 110 at maximum for a ranged build, and 127.5 for melee. And that's with BAA and a 1/day Hex. At level 20.
Pre-level 20 is a maximum of 88 at range with BAA and 1/day Hex, 102 in melee. 64 at range and 88 in melee without Hex. And that's post-level 11.
My point is the insanely high DPR you're referencing is nonsense.
GladiusLegis wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Nope. Let's look at a ranged build. We'll assume 100% accuracy, even with SS/GWF, in order to get an overestimate.
We'll also assume the quickest progression: Start with CE, +2 Dex at 4 and 6, SS at 8.
Again for an overestimate we'll start with a +3 weapon.
Level 1: 2 attacks for 19 DPR.
Level 4: 2 attacks for 21 DPR.
Level 5: 3 attacks for 31.5 DPR.
Level 6: 3 attacks for 34.5 DPR.
Level 8: 3 attacks for 64.5 DPR.
Level 11: 4 attacks for 86 DPR.
Level 20: 5 attacks for 107.5 DPR.
So yes, you can get 90+ DPR every time as an overestimate. At level 20. And then you've got to take into account accuracy, not starting with a +3 weapon, etc.
Wow, when that Dreadnoght guy said this thread would spiral into a nerf + buff battle, he wasn't joking. We have to keep calm, people. The worst thing that can happen to this thread is a flamewar.
Ok, I'm going to adress a serious problem that is affecting a lot of classes: The capstones.
Every class has a capstone. It's a very important feature (wich I teoretically suppose) that rewards the player for keeping on his class until the very last level. So in order to do that, a capstone should be something impressive and outstanding. Something that is very strong and interesting, and almost bordering on gamebreaking. However, after looking at so many class guides, I found out that there's a huge discrepancy between the quality of each capstone. Some classes have very cool and powerful capstones, like Archdruid for druids, the last oath feature for paladins and both Primal Champion and unlimited rages for barbarians. Other classes have capstones that aren't very impressive, but are still very good, like the fighter's third extra attack and the wizard's Signature Spells. But on the other side, there are other capstones that are pretty underwhelming and rather weak, like the cleric's improved Divine Intervention (wich is essentially one extra spell, once per week, to be used only in moments of dire need, and completely under control of your DM), the warlock's Eldrich Master (once per day, you can spend one minute to recharge your spell slots... why don't you just take a short rest?), and the ranger's Foe Slayer (it's good, but it only works when you're fighting against your favored enemies, and you can only have three of those). And then there's these piece of **** capstones that only recharge one of your features when you roll initiative and don't have more uses. These would be Perfect Self and Superior Inspiration (Sorcerous Restoration is also pretty weak, but isn't as bad because you dont need to waste all your sorcery points to use it, and it works every short rest).
In a way, having shitty capstones is good, because in encorages multiclassing, but on the other hand, this means that there's a lot of classes that work much better by having levels of another class than going all the way to level 20. Capstones should be powerful, because that way players can have a dilemma when multiclassing. They should feel a little of regret when taking some levels in other class and not waiting for the capstone, but instead, multiclassing turns into an obviously better choice for the classes that have weak capstones, and I think that's a serious flaw in their design. I really hope that gets fixed.
Also, there's the drow's Sunlight Sensitivity. Dark Elves are the only race that has a built in disadvantage, and it's a serious one. Having disadvantage on attack rolls and perception checks on direct sunlight makes you completely useless in any battle or patrol made outdoors and during day. And taking into account that most campaings are played mostly outdoors and during day (in game, I mean), that means drow characters are completely useless most of the time, something that doesn't happen with any other race. This is literally racial discrimination. WotC, please remove this feature. That's all for now.
You say that, but Sorcerer's capstone is equal to a three level dip in Warlock, except dipping Warlock gets you more stuff as well.
GladiusLegis wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
TheDraconicSpellcrafter wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
I feel really bad about the spell Ray of Enfeeblement.
During the playtest, it was a 1st level spell that made the victim so weak it could only do 1 hp of damage on a hit.
At that point, I thought it was too powerful.
It seems like WotC overcompensated.
Now, the spell is 2nd level and it only makes the target do 1/2 damage (plus it still gets a new save every round).
I think it should be a 1st level spell.
Paladin's Abjure Enemy should be a 30' zone, like the Turn Xyz features, not a longer-range single-target ability. This makes it directly comparable.
Option - In effect, Scare Natural Beings by making it usable against intelligent non-outsiders (animals don't care).
7he_professor wrote:
TheDraconicSpellcrafter wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Fighter/Ranger:
Archery Style: +2 to damage rolls & ignore loading from weapons you are proficent with.
1.This remove the feat tax that is crossbow expert's first component, seriously, crossbows are worthless for "weapon" classes (as all of them have extra attack), and this feat just make it competitive with bows for light crossbow and heavy crossbow, but those two are rendered useless compared to handcrossbow with the benefit from the same feat. BTW feats are optional, so without them crossbow are completly useless to all classes that aren't the rogue, where they are just as good as using a short bow anyway (or you being off better longbow if you are an elf, because the range diference is huge between even the heavy crossbow and longbow)
2.Changing +2 to attack rolls to make the -5 to attack roll for +10 damage less attractive and abit more situational, basically you only wanting to do so when fighting enemies with even lower AC than you otherwise would.
Non Magical Healing:
Any option of non-magical healing/potion it's pretty much worthless after the first levels during combat because they don't scale at all, doesn't help that healing is too unreliable in general because it's mostly going to be based on lots of dices instead of a flat number (cure wounds as level 6 spell can heal 11 to 53 hp for example with maxed out spellcasting stat).
Overall mechanics:
The action economy have to be revised, i remember one of the goals of the game is to diminish the micromanage of actions on D&D, but there is actually no diminish of this at all, and it's actually a lot more restrictive now (in 4e, switching a weapon you have in hand for another could be made with a minor and a move action, and there were ways to completly avoid the weapon switch mechanic completly with certain feats or equipment, in 5e you have to spend you action, because you can't sacrifice your movement to grab another weapon), and with somantic and material component returning this complicate things a lot more, to the point were it slow down things way too much, and it can even become very frustrating (even more if you have eldritch knight and arcane trickster who have to switch between casting spells and attacking with weapons).
Get rid of Somantic component, and get rid of Material component when it isn't spended, this mechanic doesn't add anything interesting to the game, and it actually goes against the goal of the game of streamlining things and make things goes faster, it just complicate things for the sake of complicating things.
That's probably my 4 main problems with 5e, overall it's a great system, but some of those things hold it back so much, even more the last 3 where i have seen it become very problematic in play for things that it shouldn't be problematic at all
mexrage wrote:
TheDraconicSpellcrafter wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
TheDraconicSpellcrafter wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
feartheminotaur wrote:
I kind of like Sunlight Sensitivity...seems thematically appropriate for the race, can be worked around, and would help keep them somewhat rare in-game (considering they're essentially a monster race). At least outside the Underdark. I can see how it's a pretty steep penalty, but it doesn't really come up all that often unless someone at the table just insists on playing a Drizzt-clone.
The nagging thing that always annoys me is Darkvision blindness? Instead of that being an extra perk a few races like Dwarves have, it seems that almost every race has it. As a result, the one Human is stuck with a similarly crippling condition that everyone has to work around. Not a balance issue for them as they're otherwise so powerful, but I'd be okay with Elves only having Perception advantage on Sight (to simulate Low-Light Vision), or Half-Elves dropping it entirely. Dragonborn, though, probably should have it...doesn't make sense with them being the most innately magical race, decended from beings with Truesight.
SailorNash wrote:
mexrage wrote:
TheDraconicSpellcrafter wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
Crossbows are viable for Rogues with no feats. You obviously missed that part.
Started looking into Druid now and noticing the Infinite HP problem at 20. Unlimited Wildshape is a fitting capstone, but the temp HP part is what breaks it.
The other problem is that you only get a max of two shifts until then. With RAW, giving players more would be throwing gas onto an already raging fire...they don't need MORE power. But the type of Druid I'd want to play would be like Beast Boy from the Teen Titans cartoon, constantly shifting in and out of forms as I felt like. Maybe within the span of a single combat, or maybe as a sort of shape-based prestidigitation.
I hope the fix to make forms less powerful includes a tradeoff for more of them. Limiting them to only two guarantees this to be a combat ability, where it would be more fun to branch out and use this for exploration or spying or RP purposes, or anything else players could think of.
SailorNash wrote:
Sharazor wrote:
But you are also not likely to have 6-8 encounters a day doing that....
Dual hand crossbow with SS is silly. That's about all I got.
Coredump00 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
So, did everyone stop pointing out problems in the rules? Because I just found one more. Let me talk about something called "unarmed strike", and it's lack of clarification in the books.
In the PHB, the word "unarmed" isn't mentioned very often. Most of the time, it's mentioned in the monk's section on chapter 3, wich is understandable. However, this section makes absolutely no effort to explain what exactly is an "unarmed srike",or indicate where in the book it's explained. Only when you go to page 149 on chapter 5 you discover that an unarmed strike is a simple melee weapon that deals 1 point of bludgeoning damage on a hit... and nothing else. It doesn't even defines what is an unarmed strike (although I think I'm smart enough to assume it's an attack that you make when you're unarmed). Then, you keep looking in the book until you finally find more information about it, on the "Melee Attacks" section on chapter 9, page 179:
PHB wrote:
Okw...I get there's a lot of problems with interpretation of the rules with this edition....but reading all of these examples...seems like people are over analyzing the hell out of everything and forgetting the most importsnt rule of all...it's a role playing game .... It's all open to interpretation, At the end of the day.....some of these things people are Critiqueing are solved with simple common sense of assumption, and before you counter-argue, that the entire point is to clarify rule etc, perhaps they purposely left it open to interpretation, to allow for more fluid construction for the DM's....I mean i agree with some of these points started here and I agree there needs to .everyone plays there game differently, no two DMs are Alike etc.
^^ above: so you pretty much want wotc To go into vivid description of what a fist or a leg looks like... I think the average play can understand their intent with unarmed strikes.... That doesnt really need to be overly detailed...as for what you described I think you were over analyzing it quite a bit, I mean take a step back and use common sense for a minute...you know what their intent your it was, you know it was referring to punching/kicking etc. I get you're just asking for clarification, but I don'tthink that necessarily needs clarification.
daspian wrote:
i mean, technically you could hold a "Hand" or "foot" ...if it were a severed leg or arm, but then i believe it would fall under the category of an Imp.weapon.
Dude, really? This is your complaint? That no one in your entire gaming group is capable fo figuring out what an 'unarmed strike' is? Even if that were true of me, I would be way to embarrassed to admit it, let alone complain about it.
Yes 'unarmed strike' is in the list of weapons... is that really confusing you that much? I play with 10 year olds, and they seem to be okay with it.
The rules are meant to be used to play a game, by humans. I am sure there are many 'mistakes' you can find if you treat it like computer code and go looking for things to complain about.
I will try and help... an unarmed strike, is when you strike something without using arms. (arms as in physical weapons, not as in apendages)
No, it is not really a separate, physical weapon; it can't be, or you would be 'armed' again.
I would like to see them remove the last line of the Crossbow Expert feat "When you use the attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding" and replace it with "Firing a crossbow from prone no longer imposes disadavantage on attack rolls.".
I would like Dwarves to be small again, did they make them big just so short actors could play them in movies?
Be nice if Familiars could get some love, really should be a class ability and work similar to how they did em in 4E, I didn't like much about 4E but the Familiar stuff was spot on.
Rangers - Primeval Awareness - give direction and number of.
Hide in Plain Sight - make this a bonus action in favored terrains, standard action in others.
Vanish - can be used wile observed.
Beastmaster - more advancement for the beast companion as the ranger gains levels.
More ranger specific spells, maybe beast related heals/damage or movement options.
TheDraconicSpellcrafter wrote:
Look, you didn't get it. I know what means to make an unarmed strike. I know what "unarmed" means. What I want to know is: what the game considers to be an unarmed strike? Can it be any attack made with a part of your body, or does it have to be made with a specific part of your body? If a monster attacks with it's natural weapons, does that count as an unarmed strike?
Yunru wrote:
Then there's the fact that Unarmed Strike uses Natural Weapons: what else can a human's fists and legs be classed as?
@Yunru: That's the only case where natural weapons and unarmed strikes are ever compared, and even then not strictly. No other rules source defines or even hints otherwise.
Or look at it mechanically: Alter Form gives you Natural Weapons. Not a facisimilie (sp?), actual natural weapons. The only change this brings about is to your Unarmed Strike. Which leads to thw following conclusions:
Either
● Natural weapons deal no damage but instead modify Unarmed Strike. Or
● Unarmed Strikes are made with natural weapons.
Either way, the two are tied together to the point where they are functionally identical.
Now that I've provided logical reasons, both descriptive and mechanical, as to why they are; find me where it's suggested they're not.
Yunru wrote:
I feel like a large problem with some of these class-related requests is that people are suggesting changes that are not at the core of the class. A sorcerer is something specific, as is a bard, and a druid. If you remove or add certain elements, they are no longer those things. Keep in mind what the class means thematically before suggesting changes. Otherwise you may be talking about a different class entirely.
Some suggested changes are also already variant rules listed in the DMG... though admittedly the DMG was very piritful in providing materials that I personally wanted to see, like how to build races (basically says to look at other races and base it on those). It was more of a magic item compendium than anything.
All that being said, I do feel that the Beastmaster gets the short end of the stick for the Ranger, as there any many gaps and many hindering elements to it that leave a player wanting. Primeval Awareness also is more of a hinderance when the range increases, since you know that the thing is near, but not any general idea of how close or in what direction. Obviously, it shouldn't pinpoint it for you, but it should give some benefit that would make it worthwhile. as opposed to being led on a wild goose chase. I don't have too much of a problem with Favored Enemy, though it feels that Foe Slayer's damage increase comes a bit too late.
Monk's Way of the Four Elements is something I haven't really tested out, but seems very lacking, and most people are not really that interested in it, partially due to its strange and detached mechanics as compared to other casters. It also felt weird as a monk to be able to use a Dart for my first attack, then get only unarmed attacks from Flurry of Blows. I'm not sure about the balance at higher levels, but shouldn't I be able to at least throw "shuriken" faster? Also, some clarification on when you can use an unarmed attack would be nice. Since technically you can kick someone while you're carrying something in two hands, or headbutt someone. Does a monk have to use their fists, and not be wielding a two-handed weapon? (I personally allow 2h quarterstaff and unarmed attacks in the same round for this reason)
Also, some things to add real quick. It seems strange that the Drow was included, but Svirfneblin and Druegar were only mentioned in the PHB, and they never recieved an official race. Were they considered too powerful? I could see that. The variant Familiar rule in the MM is clearly superior to the one mentioned in the PHB, as it lets you have ANY tiny creature, regardless of HD and CR, and you get an added bonus from certain choices in the form of familiar bond powers. And technically with the Find Steed spell you could summon a dragon, as there are no specific peramiters to the spell for CR/HD either, and the Giths use dragons as mounts.
Would also like to amend the second line of the Crossbow Expert feat to read "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature dosen't impose disadvantage on your ranged crossbow attack rolls".
Don't think we really need the last line in Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter, maybe throw in a +1 Stat bump for taking that part out, Str/Con for GWM and Dex/Wis for Sharpshooter.
http://sgiz.mobi/s3/D-D-5e-Elements-Survey-1
The survey is up.
edit: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/fifth-edition-feedback-survey
ppaladin123 wrote:
Warning: You get no do-over, especially with the "which is stronger?" As soon as you've choosen one for that you're locked into it.
I clicked back to the previous screen and then forward and was able to change my answer.
Seemed odd to me that the monk wasn't really in the survey, except during the power comparison. Maybe they already realized there were problems with it, or perhaps they are apprehensive to change it, since they already think it encompasses the spirit of a monk.
Yunru wrote:
Ah but if that is the case: Then what do the natural weapons it does give you do? And why would they alter your Unarmed Strikes?