Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 rampant Aug 10, 2015 15:45:41	Basically i don't like the fact that you can't fly in armor if you play a bird-man, aarakocra or something birdman is easier to spell. It's the kind of nasty little restriction that really limits your practical class options that I HATED in pre-4th editions of the game.   That said I'm not inclined to simply ignore it because I'm going to give the devs the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a poorly thought out attempt to balance the flight power rather than just a random fit of stupid.   So I find myself thinking that I need to replace a negative with a negative. Now that said the rerason i don't like racial penalties as a rule is because most of the time they're only negatives for certain builds which discourages out of the box race-class combos, and encourages players to combine race and class based on power synergy rather than any other concerns.   So I need to come up with limits/flaws that apply somewhat evenly accross the classes/builds.   I see two major approaches:   1. Limit the flight power. This might take the form of duration limits or a limited number of rounds per day of flight.   2. Weaken the race in some manner. Something like reducing the benefits of healing surges, or a speed reduction.   Which seems like a better idea.
#2 Yunru Aug 10, 2015 16:30:28	Make them have to end their turn on the ground or fall.
#3 Xeviat-DM Aug 10, 2015 16:57:32	Flight in the DMG section on monsters counts as AC towards determining their CR. not being able to fly in armor similarly reduces their AC. I'd say have "open wings" be a "stance" that reduces their AC because they are a considerably bigger target.
#4 Orethalion Aug 10, 2015 17:06:42	I've never understood why people feel the need to have everything  be good at everything.
#5 mellored Aug 10, 2015 20:32:25	i agree that reducing AC would be the most direct port. probably -2.
#6 MechaPilot Aug 10, 2015 20:38:56	rampant wrote:
#7 lawrencehoy Aug 10, 2015 21:48:26	I'd go with the limit flight power option; perhaps allow only gliding in medium armor and downward gliding (controlled falling?) in heavy armor.
#8 MechaPilot Aug 10, 2015 21:57:50	lawrencehoy wrote:
#9 lawrencehoy Aug 10, 2015 23:50:15	MechaPilot wrote:
#10 rampant Aug 11, 2015 0:09:42	Basically armor limit is a dumb restriction because it only punishes the characters that would actually want armor so a bird-man monk or sorceror is loosing nothing while a paladin birdman is likely to be missing out on stuff. It's less about the race being good at everything and more about the race not being game warpingly bad at specific classes/builds.   I'm giving the devs the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they were trying to make flight balanced as opposed to trying to nuke bird-man paladins while making birdman monks powerful. So the idea is to replace the inability to fly in medium/heavy armor with a restriction/penalty that would be more generally applicable, and less build crippling.
#11 lawrencehoy Aug 11, 2015 3:26:47	rampant wrote:
#12 Mecheon Aug 11, 2015 6:19:39	Technically speaking I reckon you should fly with armor.   Considering a woodpecker can carry a weasel, albeit completely against the woodpecker's will, I'm sure a human sized avian could get off with armor at least   However I do support that rule you can't end a turn in midair and need to land somewhere, so....
#13 SleepsInTraffic Aug 11, 2015 7:02:54	Or just make a dex build paladin.
(Reply to #13) Mechatarrasque	SleepsInTraffic wrote:
#15 Orethalion Aug 11, 2015 7:32:19	rampant wrote:
#16 Orethalion Aug 11, 2015 7:32:43	Mechatarrasque wrote:
#17 Ralif_Redhammer Aug 11, 2015 8:42:54	As discussed in other Aaracokra-based threads, the ability to fly is a serious game changer. Removing the armor restriction shouldn’t be done lightly. But if you're going to do so, of the two, I would say limiting the flights per day would be the most organic – flying with armor is just too exhausting to do more, than say, once per long rest (the Air Genasi can levitate once per long rest, if I recall correctly).
(Reply to #15) rampant	Orethalion wrote:
#19 MonsterEnvy Aug 11, 2015 10:22:36	rampant wrote:
#20 LuisCarlos17f Aug 11, 2015 10:34:07	Mmmmm, that makes me remember the raptoran from "Races of the wild" and the avariel, the winged elf.    My first suggestion is to create the swashbuclker variant class, where the warrior lose heavy and medium armour, and heavy shields, but it is replace with some feat, or sometthing like a "maneuver" (= martial power)   My second suggestion for winged PCs is:   - in the first level a bonus to jump and a Str check to avoid damage by fall.(the prequesite is wings to be totally spreaded out and only light load). - second level. Str check for glaze movement.  - third level. Str /Jump check to ascend     Why not any ki martial power like the "Jump" spell?
#21 draegn Aug 11, 2015 11:23:36	Wouldn't the "birdman" be a race that is campaign/adventure/situation specific? How many times would a birdman be able to fly while fighting demons in the tunnels of the underdark?
#22 Orethalion Aug 11, 2015 11:24:57	rampant wrote:
#23 MechaPilot Aug 11, 2015 12:04:13	lawrencehoy wrote:
#24 Ahrimon Aug 11, 2015 12:49:52	So... a strength based paladin/fighter/cleric/etc is an "outside the box" character idea now? I'd argue that being a birdman encourages outside of the box characters by encouraging dex based melee combatants other than rogue and monk. There's always the swashbuckling weapon option if someone is so worried about their "build effectiveness" that playing a flying warrior without armor is so daunting. Not every race is good for every class. I haven't seen anyone upset that their halfling paladin /fighter/cleric/etc can't run around with a great sword like the other races.
#25 LuisCarlos17f Aug 11, 2015 13:26:44	We have some canon winged humanoids, like the classic aaracokras, the avariels, the raptorans, the desmodus (antropomorphic bats) but we shouldn't forget the humanoids from  Dragon #244 :Ashiera, Fainil (Night Flyers), Masgai and Telvar.   And combat with flying enemies need a special XPs reward, because the same monster, for example an arpy with a bow, it different for two PCs with same level, but with or without ranged weapons, for example a ranger and a barbarian.
#26 rampant Aug 11, 2015 14:30:02	Birdmen are aaracokras, i just keep messing up the spelling so I used their alternate name from the race entry. I don't see why they'd be hyper campeign specific. Some Dms and worlds may not have them around, but that's a thing for everybody isn't it? I mean even if you're homebrewing a race for  a homebrew world you want to do a good job and not make them UP or OP.   Bird-man dex builds are not especially out of the box given the way  the race is set up. I never said class-crippling, I said build-crippling. Basically the aracokra forces you to either spec for dex or drop your AC (unless you're  a barbarian or a mage) if you want to use their racial power. That's about like if Dragon born could only use thier breath weapon if they're a caster class, or if dwarf rogues and monks got a speed bonus.    Let me explain this one more time.   Now I'm still unpacking my books so correct me if I'm wrong but the armor limitation on flight is not an inherent part of flight in 5e. It's a birdman trait, therefore it was added specifically to their description, thus it is most likely some sort of penalty trying to balance the awesomeness that is their flight power. However it utterly fails to do so because many more characters benefit form flight than benefit from heavier armors. Therefore any class/build that isn't being forced to accept a less than optimum Armor is effectively getitng all the benefits of playing a birdman and avoiding the penalty. They are OP. I want the penalty to apply more evenly, not just because I want heavily armored birdmen flying around in all their clanky shiny glory, but also because the current model is letting certain classes get away with not taking the downside of the race alongside the good bits.
#27 ZHDarkstar Aug 11, 2015 15:54:22	rampant wrote:
#28 rampant Aug 11, 2015 16:46:05	The high elf still gets that cantrip if he plays a fighter. He doesn't suddenly lose it if he picks up a sword, the wood elf gets a speed bonus regardless of which class it plays and even in heavy armor he's faster than the human in the same.
#29 Orethalion Aug 11, 2015 16:48:31	rampant wrote:
#30 ZHDarkstar Aug 11, 2015 16:56:51	Orethalion wrote:
#31 Orethalion Aug 11, 2015 17:00:11	ZHDarkstar wrote:
#32 OB1 Aug 11, 2015 17:22:34	Orethalion wrote:
#33 rampant Aug 11, 2015 18:05:51	Yes Dex can get you a good AC, in fact one of my primary complaints about the AC system is that the guys who have the best armor class are the ones not wearing any armor, however that's not the issue. The issue is a racial penalty that only applies to specific characters rather than accross the entire spectrum of the race.    The realism argument falls apart because again this is an aracokra only limitation, dragons, angels, giant birds, little birds, and griffons do not have this problem. This was added specifically to limit the aaracokra as a race and I think it does a poor job so I want to replace it.  I'm not stupid I know all sorts of logical reasons why armor would interfere with flight in the real world, but it doesn't seem to matter to any of the other fliers so why are the birdmen getitng the shaft? The only explaination I can come up with for the armor limit to exist as it does with the aaracokra is as some sort of failed attempt at balancing the ability in which case it needs to be replaced because it's not doing that in the case of a large number of classes and builds.   As for tough choices... explain please? Because honestly my problem is that the choices are a bit too easy in the case of the bird-men.
#34 Orethalion Aug 11, 2015 18:00:33	rampant wrote:
#35 ZHDarkstar Aug 11, 2015 18:05:24	Character design, especially with regards to builds that go against a race's favored classes, is all about opportunity costs when picking your player options. A classic example of a character with against-the-grain choices is the John Cena of Faerun: Drizz't. Drizz't Cena is a drow (+Dex +Cha) in a Dex/Wis class, Ranger. By choosing a build outside of his subrace's favored class, he put himself at a mathematical disadvantage when it comes to his abilities tied to Wis. That's the same type of opportunity cost you would expect out an aarakocra Paladin, whose stat foci are Str/Cha. Rumplestilskin would tell you that suboptimal choices always come with a price, dearie. The challenge is finding a way to work around them.   If you're looking for a tanky birdman, Barbarian 3/Fighter X is a far less suboptimal choice. Point buy primarily into Str/Dex/Con, take the bear totem at 3rd level, and grab the Defense Fighting Style to boost your AC if needed. Unarmored Defense allows you to still use a shield, and a shield counts as armor for Defense. Therefore you're looking an AC of 13+Dex+Con with resistance to all but psychic damage while raging.
#36 draegn Aug 11, 2015 18:21:32	With regards to armor and wings; should the birdman's armor cost more due to special tailoring to fit his wings so that the armor does not intervere with and restrict his movement?
#37 ZHDarkstar Aug 11, 2015 18:35:07	rampant wrote:
(Reply to #34) rampant	Orethalion wrote:
#39 MechaPilot Aug 11, 2015 18:46:16	draegn wrote:
(Reply to #37) rampant	ZHDarkstar wrote:
#41 ZHDarkstar Aug 11, 2015 18:53:32	Drizz't didn't lose any racial features, but he fell behind on progression of his primary casting stat. It's all about the trade-off of making a suboptimal choice. That's the point that I'm trying to hammer home. If you make a choice that goes against your race's favored class design, be expected to pay a price for it.   Dwarven Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks who want the medium armor proficiency give up casting stat progression as their opportunity costs. The aarakocra who wants heavier armor has to give up something in exchange for its usage. It's all part of the system of checks and balances built into the game. Having a flight speed at 1st level already tips the scale towards unbalance. There has to be a regulator put in place to even out the imbalance. Otherwise, what's the point of designing races to favor one class over others? It's a design philosophy that has been in place ever since race and class became separate choices.
#42 rampant Aug 11, 2015 19:03:41	Ability scores are definetly class aspected, but most of them are useful enough that even in earlier editions a caracter could get something out of them. 5e is actually better about making the various ability scores useful to everyone than 3rd or 4th, except maybe int.    Also 5e's no racial ability score penalties means that the swing between the modifier for optimized and unoptimized race is only 1. In 3e even using phb1-only races the gap could be as much as 3. Also the ability score cap in 5e means you can catch up eventually, where as in previous editions you weren't going to do that, ever.
#43 ZHDarkstar Aug 11, 2015 19:34:24	While I'll agree that Int lost some oomph with the removal of skill points, it isn't the dump stat that everyone makes it out to be due to the flexibility of the skill system. Investigation can be used in place of Perception in a lot of places, and the rules allow for skill checks to be made with different ability bonuses than the default if the situation allows for it. If I ran a non-AL game, I'd let characters use Int for Insight instead of Wis if their Int score was higher, or allow Athletics to be rolled with Dex to escape a grapple.   Regardless of the ability to catch up to the optimized race's stats, it still takes the player longer to do so and costs them access to a feat in the process. While these subtleties may seem insignificant when measured discretely, they become a system of nuances that affect overall balance in the grander scheme.   However, to show that I'm not just trying to force you to accept things 100% as written, I'll offer you a heavier armor alternative for your home game usage. Allow aarakocra in heavier armor to use a weakened version of the Monk's Slow Fall ability, reducing fall damage by their character level.
#44 rampant Aug 11, 2015 20:15:56	There were two other reasons why i wasn't worried about ability score bonuses being too class aspected, one of which you supported.    Yeah not really looking to ameliorate the armor restriction here, I want to REPLACE it with a different limitation or penalty that applies more evenly. I want the new bird man to not be flat out better than the old one. So far I'm liking forced landings (posisbly with a concentration based out, not sure about that part), or a brittle bones feature that reduces the effectiveness of healing surges.
#45 MechaPilot Aug 11, 2015 20:26:12	rampant wrote:
#46 Cyber-Dave Aug 12, 2015 12:15:55	I'm with the crowd that says: "not every race has to be equally effective in every type of build; it is perfectly acceptable for class abilities to push certain classes towards or away from certain builds, and for birdmen to be pushed away from heavy armor builds." *shrug*   EDIT: I meant to say race, not class.
#47 Greenstone.Walker Aug 12, 2015 13:23:45	Ahrimon wrote:
(Reply to #46) rampant	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#49 Orethalion Aug 12, 2015 5:51:21	rampant wrote:
(Reply to #48) SleepsInTraffic	rampant wrote:
#51 draegn Aug 12, 2015 8:56:12	MechaPilot wrote:
#52 ShinQuickMan Aug 12, 2015 9:14:36	Racial "prejudice" towards certain builds is something that's been present since the beginning of this edition. For proof, look at halflings and gnomes, both being as terrible with two handed weapons as "birdmen" are currently with heavy armors. This is clearly not something that's going to go away any time soon.
#53 OB1 Aug 12, 2015 9:40:31	rampant wrote:
#54 rampant Aug 12, 2015 9:51:30	The small races are a long term problem, I don't have any idea how to fix that. If i come up with an idea I'll try it.   The Birdman have a much less systemic issue that can be fixed by changing one detail. So I'm going to fix them first.    Which of these is a better replacement for the armor limit:   1. Brittle Bones - -1 to hit die rolls. -or- 2. Birdmen can't end their turn in the air or they fall. -or- 3. As 2 but they can use concentration to stay in the air.   @ OB1, The problem is that the first one isn't a choice. A racial penalty that only affects certain builds effectively doesn't exist for other builds, meaning that the guys playing the 'approved' builds aren't making the hard choice.
#55 ZHDarkstar Aug 12, 2015 9:59:53	OB1, aarakocra get +2 Dex, which is definitely a sign of synergy with light armor. Grabbing a shield and Defense FS puts a light armor user in the 20 AC club, which is plenty for melee attackers. See my previous posts about how to turn that Dex bonus into a very worthwhile AC via Barbarian/Fighter multiclassing. The aarakocra also have great synergy with the Monk, having both Dex/Wis bonuses and an unarmed strike that deals slashing damage. The latter gives aarakocra Monks a distinct advantage of having two types of damage that can be done with unarmed strikes, both bludgeoning and slashing. They may not be the tankiest race out of the box, but a little ingenuity can make them work with certain against-the-grain builds. My personal favorite of such builds is a Fey Tomelock/Lore Bard with the Knight background. He's a barrister knight of the courts with a hawk familiar and team of loyal legal aides as his servants.
#56 LuisCarlos17f Aug 12, 2015 10:03:30	Don't forget if PCs can do something, the enemy nPCs controlled by the DM also can do it.   * Wait a moment! If my memory doesn´t fail, the class "favored soul" from 3.5 had got a class feature about wings, yes, at level 17, and they can wear medium armour...
#57 ZHDarkstar Aug 12, 2015 10:04:22	rampant wrote:
#58 rampant Aug 12, 2015 10:58:53	Disadvantage on con saves? are you crazy?
#59 shintashi Aug 12, 2015 11:51:30	the birdman in my game took thief and then sorcerer to get working on their 500 damage combo, and got 13 base AC as part of the sorcerer package. Since they are dex monsters, bird man has an AC of 17 right now, and it will go to 18 when they hit 8th level and have a dex of 20. They never use their reaction for anything and flying makes it difficult to surround them, so they will likely have reaction to use with that feat, which could take their AC as high as 24. They didn't like that i pointed out their feathers now resembled scales.
#60 ZHDarkstar Aug 12, 2015 12:21:14	rampant wrote:
#61 OB1 Aug 12, 2015 12:34:13	ZHDarkstar wrote:
#62 rampant Aug 12, 2015 12:36:27	Um no my brittle bones makes HIT DIE, the things you use to heal, smaller. NOt the die for the HP total.
#63 Cyber-Dave Aug 12, 2015 12:43:09	rampant wrote:
#64 ZHDarkstar Aug 12, 2015 13:05:15	rampant wrote:
(Reply to #63) rampant	Cyber-Dave wrote:
(Reply to #10) Bloodscythe	rampant wrote:
#67 rampant Aug 12, 2015 13:31:36	That's the trick, you HAVE to invest in dex to use the flight without nuking your AC. For classes that already invest in dex that measn they're giving up nothing, while classes like fighter and pally are giving up offensive and defensive potential. If rogues and monks were taking a similar hit somewhere I wouldn't care, but they don't so I do.
(Reply to #67) Bloodscythe	rampant wrote:
#69 The_Jester Aug 12, 2015 13:47:28	Thoughts: The aarakocra's ability score boosts are Dex and Wisdom. They're slow and have a natural attack that does 1d4. So they're not really optimized for melee characters who will have better weapons and rely on Strength and Con. Heavy armour also doesn't make much sense as you'll likely lose AC compared to medium armour.  Simmilarly, the big power of the aarakocra is flight. Flight is of little advantage to a heavily armoured melee character, who will want to hit enemies and prevent enemies from hitting allies. Being way up in the air prevents both.    That said, for a heavily armoured character, gaining flight can be more advantageous. With hitpoints and AC, the character can ussually stand toe-to-toe with their enemies for longer. So it's easier to fly past the mooks and get to the boss. It's also easy to take advantage of the fast movement to get right up to enemies and keep them much farher away from the squishy ranged characters.    I'm included to say it's a good balancing effort and works as intended.
#70 shintashi Aug 12, 2015 14:33:06	actualy, i could see how a brittle bones flaw could require you to use the next die step down when either/both rolling up hit points or when roling hit points to recover. The latter means you heal slow, the former means you have less hit points. It would work well in 5th edition because you have d6s for wizards instead of d4s. This flaw could be set up to allow a reconstruction of d4 wizards.   5e Unearthed Arcana should let people buy 1 or 2 flaws to take a feat, and then have racial, background, and class recommended flaws.   You would be amazed at how many people actually like the idea of micromanaging their character design with Flaws. Since Feats are optional, Flaws could be equally optional. Humans could also have the exceptional ability to take one extra flaw above and beyond other races, which would in theory allow them to tweak out horribly broken people. I can think of no less than a dozen movies with horribly flawed human villains. But now i feel like i'm campaigning for a whole new rules mechanic. Sorry about that.
(Reply to #67) SleepsInTraffic	rampant wrote:
#72 OB1 Aug 12, 2015 15:21:28	shintashi wrote:
#73 Cyber-Dave Aug 12, 2015 15:41:19	rampant wrote:
#74 rampant Aug 12, 2015 18:00:11	Andf I don't see how the changeover from 4e to 5e changes any of the rule sof good race design I learned in 3e and 4e, with the exception of 5e races being a bit weaker.
#75 Cyber-Dave Aug 12, 2015 18:23:22	rampant wrote:
#76 lawrencehoy Aug 12, 2015 21:06:58	rampant wrote:
#77 rampant Aug 13, 2015 0:18:20	No, but the armor restriction is.   It's a matter of degree in a lot of cases I admit, also I thought the birdman would be easier to fix. I'm not the kind of person who is going to be swayed by arguments like 'other people are doing it'. I want a reason, not an appeal to my withered desire to fit in. Yes many races have elements that lead them towards specific builds, the birdman was the right combination of being both a major offender, and only having to make one significant change so I started with them.   Cyber-dave, the reaosn I consider the 4e tyle approach to be good is that the logic and reasoning behind it makes sense to me, the pros of the system include greater balance and greater effective freedom in character creation and develoment. The advantages of the system people keep saying is 'totally ok' seems to be that it's 'easier', whch is generally a code word for 'not as good'. So if I'm wrong please explain what advantage the other school of design brings to the table.
#78 Core-Earth-Stormer Aug 13, 2015 2:15:38	Flight. You have a flying speed of 50 feet. To use this speed, you can’t be wearing medium or heavy armor.   page 5 elemental evil players companion       No where does it say they can not fly in medium or heavy armor it just says they can not fly at that speed to me that implies  that you as a DM  can rule that player could fly  in medium and heavy armors at differrent movement rates. say 35 feet in medium armor and 25 feet in  heavy armor if they meet the strength requirement for the armor and have proficiency.  if they do not meet the strength requirment  or have proficiency they should suffer all the attendant  negative affects.   However i think medium armors should cost 2x the list price to make for them and heavy armors should cost 5x the book price beyond that i would not punish my players any further
#79 Mecheon Aug 13, 2015 2:19:22	ZHDarkstar wrote:
#80 Orethalion Aug 13, 2015 6:15:35	Mecheon wrote:
(Reply to #80) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#82 Ralif_Redhammer Aug 13, 2015 7:50:19	GUARD #2: Wait a minute -- supposing two Aarakocra carried it together? GUARD #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line. GUARD #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a standard creeper! GUARD #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers? GUARD #2: Well, why not?   Orethalion wrote:
#83 SleepsInTraffic Aug 13, 2015 9:04:11	The problem with your overall "design goals" here rampant is that you wish to make the race a bad choice for every build just so you can have them fly with medium or heavy armor on. All of the limitations you've said would be suitable are in fact limitations that would make the race a trap as compared with taking any other racial option for any build. Hollow bones? Any of the options you've discussed to represent that puts this race at the bottom of the barrel for all builds, and pretty much makes any caster build a no go for the race. Limiting flight to a number of uses a day? Permanent flight is basically the only thing the race has going for itself as far as racial features go, limiting it down to a number of uses per day means that after a few uses the character effectively has no racial bonuses outside of ability scores. How is that any different than the current state of things where putting heavy armor on them means they lose a racial feature. Again that means pretty much any other race would be a better option especially for strength based build as it will come with consistent bonuses and likely bonuses that help it's build out. The problem with your "design goals" here is that you're trying to shoot the racial option in the foot and make it an across the board bad option for all builds in order to make it "support" a few specific builds: great weapon master, polearm master, and strength based sword/axe/mace and board. Even better the race can already support those builds ostensibly, they just give up flight in order to do it. Yeah they aren't the best option for those builds, but again not every race needs to be the best option for every build. It is okay for races to excel in different areas and be bad in other areas. This is why I say, at best, just lift the outright restriction and throw down speed reductions for heavier armor. Any of the other designs here make them an overall bad option for everyone rather than opening them up to be used by everyone.
#84 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 10:30:44	rampant wrote:
#85 rampant Aug 13, 2015 11:44:01	So there's absolutely no reason to lower my standards for race design because nothing I'm looking for is actually incompatible with 5e, it's just that people take the reduced quality of race creation as liscense to reduce the quality of their homebrews and tweaks? I am pefectly aware that the standards are lower, it's not even a 5e thing, quality has been down somewhat since shortly after essentials, possibly earlier depending on when they released the 4e gnoll and minotaur. That doesn't mean I have to descend to that level.   Sleeps raises a valid concern, but doesn't seem to really understand what specifically is under discussion, or what I'm trying to discuss anyway, his critique agains the brittle bones seems based on misreading the word HIt die to mean the total roll not the healing rolls, which to be fair I do occasionally as well, comes from being a 3e/pathfinder player. As for the limited duration flights, well i considered encounter power stuff but that option was quickly discarded, we're looking at forced landings at the end of turns, with or without the ability to circumvent via concentraition. I'd like to see his thoughts on that actually.   As for the part where I'm making them worse for all builds... YES THAT IS ENTIRELY THE POINT! The arakocra is very powerful, that's the only reason I could see for the armor limit in the first place. So I'm trying to make the racial penalty something that will actually penalize the race, rather than a bare few builds. I am not trying to make it bottom barrel, and frankly even if I was nuking their HP totals it wouldn't make them bottom barrel because not only is it permaflight, it's permaflight at 50ft!
(Reply to #85) Bloodscythe	rampant wrote:
(Reply to #85) SleepsInTraffic	rampant wrote:
#88 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 12:45:12	rampant wrote:
#89 awaken_D_M_golem Aug 13, 2015 16:10:11	There aren't any Common Non-Consumables.   So let's say it's "magic" to craft an Armor that has a super quick release button (think of a front clasp that snaps off shoulder straps) and has a slightly magical string on the bottom that disappears into a bag of holding. 50 gp armor ---> 100+ gp armor   Dude is wearing Medium Armor. Dude decides to fly instead. Dude uses Bonus Action to "shlorp" the armor into the bag. Dude jumps and flies. Dude still has an action left.     **     Further out, it's seemed like possible rules booster zones to go :   say a level 1 Air-Elemental casts Feather Fall and something different and better happens for it.  Same dude casts Fly and meany DM says they overlap tough beans. Similarly a Phase Spider has a Teleport but gets advantage on a safe landing part. Or an Earth-Elemental casts Dig on itself, and gets the equivalent of a nice hot bubble bath. etc
#90 Vulf Aug 13, 2015 17:32:01	I'd rather have a Tengu/Kenku race that can't fly at all.   Also, Wood Elf is the alternative, just take the mobility feat, mariner fighting style and 2 levels of rogue and you might as well be flying.
#91 rampant Aug 13, 2015 18:05:33	I have explained multiple times why penalties need to at least try to be build nuetral, what you guys are failing to do is explain what's so different about 5e compare dto 4e that invalidates my argument. Your arguments boil down to 'because other races are already badly designed it doens't matter'. Here's the thing, quite obviously it matters to me. I obviously care more about this than you do, just form starting this thread. What makes you think that your arguments in this vein mean anything to me? Sleeps and Mecha are the only ones offering me decent feedback at this point. I want logical arguments or suggestions like they're giving me. Telling me that 'there's no reason to try harder' is doomed to failure because obviously I'm already trying harder just by starting this post. Nothing in 5e is inherently incompatible with the lessons I've learned about race design since I started playing this game back in early 3.0, I have no reason I know of not to tweak the races to my preferred models. Give me a reason besides 'nobody else cares', or just go away.   Ok sleeps, how about if I nuke the armor limit and just drop the overall flight speed to 40? and maybe removes talons but I'm not sure that counts as enough of an ability to be worth anything.
#92 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 18:08:57	Vulf wrote:
#93 Vulf Aug 13, 2015 18:39:29	These creatures have hollow bones for a reason.   Here is the official explanation for the restriction:   Relevant part at 1:08
#94 rampant Aug 13, 2015 18:11:34	You underestimate the value of 50ft moves speed and altitude control in 5e simplified movement environment, Dave.
#95 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 18:24:29	rampant wrote:
(Reply to #91) bid	rampant wrote:
#97 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 20:01:02	bid wrote:
(Reply to #91) SleepsInTraffic	rampant wrote:
#99 lawrencehoy Aug 13, 2015 22:38:46	rampant wrote:
#100 rampant Aug 13, 2015 23:47:58	@ lawrence Ahoy, as clarification when I said 'care about this' I mean build nuetral design, which I obviously care about more than most of the people on this thread. I make no claims as to whether I care about anything else more.  Ok your contention is that 'build inflencing designs are not bad', this is not exactly what i'm disagreeing with, my specific issue is that 'build specific penalties are bad'. Basically I dislike the armor restriction on birdmen because it's a penalty/restriction that doens't hamper a wide variety of builds and thus fails to compensate for the power fo the aracokra's flight, which IS potent not just for the flight itself which has all sorts of uses, but for the high speed rating. This means that these builds dodge a racial penalty and effectively get off scot free. See a race has to be balanced accross a wide variety of buidls and classes because they can be used with such, and this means that if a wide assortment of builds don't care about your racial penalties then they aren't really penalties, they're punishments for playing the race 'wrong'. You can't balance a race by making it good at one class and bad at another, that just means you're OP at the good class, and UP at the bad class. Both characters violate powercurve in different directions but they don't cancel each other out, even ignoring the fact that most people will play them with the good class in order to reap all that sweet OPness. See balance happens at the character level, which means that everything going into a character has to be balanced, because 5e allows you to mix-and-match class, race, background, and potentially feats all of these things need to be balanced not just as individual items against their peers, but in combination. Now I know that perfect balance is both impossible and probably not worth persuing past a certain point, however there are certain things that should be avoided, and build specific penalties are one of them.   @ bid, Dwarves should have been done differently I've complained about them before, also wouldn't it be dex builds they're pushed away form?. Small races and weapons are another hot button issue but are systemic enough I'm taking a bit longer to develop a counter, I'm probably going to end up releasing specialized weapons for small creatures at some point though. Dragon Born are not pushed away from ranged classes by their breath wepaon not having reach, if anythign having a close range option that has some disance and area of effect on it is attractive so they can ward off swarm rushes, it's also an encounter power so once they find an opportunity to use it thay can switch tracks easily, the real problem with the dragon born breath is that it's exclusively con based rather than using the 4e approach of allowing the player to use the best of a list of possible stats, half-orc is just terrible it's kind of my poster child for why we should be aiming for more build neutral race design. Aility scores... like I said perfect balance is never going to be a thing, however that doens't mean we bring back ability score penalties, furthermore 5e does a very good job of making that +2 strength mean somethign even to wizards and such since strength saves are a thing, not to mention skills.    @ cyber-dave, 1, I am not sayng the game is badly designed, if it was I wouldn't bother, there are aspects I think could have been done better but I think that about every game. .. except maybe Tephra, and even then there are some iffy bits. 2. I have explained this time and a again, races need to be built with build neutrality in mind because if you don't you end up with races that are very good, possibly OP, at certain builds and horrible at others. This is a problem because that's not balance, the OP build is still OP, and the UP build is still UP, being bad at rogues doesn't make it ok to be broken as sorcerors, balance happens at the character level, not at the statistical level. For example you can't balance +5 weapon damage with -5 spell damage. The kinds of characters who get built with such a race wouldn't care about spell damage, and if by some miracle someone made a member of that race as a damage dealing caster they'd be UP and the OPness of their fighter siblings wouldn't magically make them less UP. UP and OP are bad because they disrupt both party dynamic and encounter creation. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned most of this before what part do you not get or agree with?   @ sleeps, well looking at the armor rules it doens't mention a speed drop in armors you're proficient with, unless you try to wear heavy without sufficient strength in which case obviously that penalty would apply to their flight speed.
#101 Cyber-Dave Aug 14, 2015 0:22:54	rampant wrote:
#102 Veleria Aug 14, 2015 0:45:30	This does not prevent any build. A "birdman" fighter can still wear full plate and function as a full fighter in every way. They simply cannot fly which is not inherent to the class. The main benefit of flight is the ability to stay at range as you mentioned this favord archers and casters who wear little armor anyhow. It's not really a restriction at all. It does give the fighter an option if they want to fly to remove the armor to get to out of reach places easily.
#103 rampant Aug 14, 2015 1:21:44	I never said the armor limit was there to balance dex builds I said it looks like it was a limit designed to help balance the race, but that in light of the varioous dex builds and other means of getitng AC that it utterly fails to do so. Even if the armor limit was not intended to act as a racial penalty, that is effectively what it is. 'Loose your racial powers in medium or heavy armor' sounds like a penalty to me. Also A birdman can in fact achieve top end AC and damage alongside flight, the same way everyone else gets high end damage and AC, Play a barbarian.    Even if the Dex builds are balanced, which I'm not convinced they are honestly, because flight + 50ft speed is pretty nuts, that says to me that the non-dex based builds are getting screwed by the lack of armor applying to them when it doens't bother the dex-based guys. That's why I called it a build specific penalty. THe penalty was specific to the builds that didn't spec dex.
#104 lawrencehoy Aug 14, 2015 4:33:37	rampant wrote:
#105 Orethalion Aug 14, 2015 6:05:43	rampant wrote:
#106 rampant Aug 14, 2015 9:10:18	I'm tryong to come up with a better penalty as a replacement, I don't see how that's at all unreasonable.
#107 Cyber-Dave Aug 14, 2015 9:44:04	rampant wrote:
#108 rampant Aug 14, 2015 9:51:26	I am not assuming that you don't get attacked in melee because you have flight, I'm assuming that between flight and a 50 ft move speed you have a brutal advantage in mobility. If I thought flight was immunity to melee attackers I'd have banned the bird-men in my games and left it at that. Also your Model for the barbarian is off, full of a bunch of white room assumptions in fact. If you're looking to abuse the AC feature you can stop pumping strength at 16, or even 14, I'm playing a strength wepaon using paladin right now that's just fine with a 14 at level 5, thank you bounded accuracy, you're actually working as advertised.    Also I'm confused is your point that the armor thing is a fluff limit or that it actually hinders dex builds? If it's a purely fluff limit then why does anyone care if I change it? If it's not then effing SAY SO! As for your point about armor + range weapon user + flight being OP. Nothing is holding back the dex builds from having high AC, and nothing is stopping them form using ranged weapons, rogues and barbarians have a long history of impaling people on thrown objects. The only weapon centric class that can't brutally abuse such techniques is the monk, because they have a very limited weapon selection and their martial arts power only triggers unarmed attacks, however they get unarmored speed which just really makes the whole flight thing take on a whole new dimension of awesome.
#109 Cyber-Dave Aug 14, 2015 16:43:34	rampant wrote:
#110 rampant Aug 14, 2015 11:04:07	1. What the hell does gnosis mean?   2. Whose definition of problem build? My deifnition is any build that doesn't care about armor limits, you're hung up on this AC+Damage+flight thing. Hell a magic user with permanent high speed flight can out do the archers on damage and moility. AC runs a bit lower but there are other defenses. My idea to sub out a new penalty would also apply to the archers.
#111 Cyber-Dave Aug 14, 2015 12:09:28	rampant wrote:
#112 draegn Aug 14, 2015 11:34:02	rampant wrote:
#113 LuisCarlos17f Aug 14, 2015 12:32:40	If PCs can do it, evil enemy nPCs too. Celestial outsiders can be winged warriors with armours, but winged humanoids with armour would be the Iron man's saga of armor wars.    * Who wants to play an armoured birdman when he can rides a flying mount like a pegasus or a griffon, Or to become a half-dragon with natural armour by means of any prestige class?   * Another option is to use a power like psionic construct to create temporally an armour (by psionic ectoplam)   * I am thinking some fool idea about the bionoids from Spelljammer setting, something like biopunk grafts. Or the Darkhawk amulet from marvel comics (armour and flying movement).
#114 rampant Aug 14, 2015 16:51:10	@ Cyber Dave, finally you trot out an argument I can work with. Why didn't you lead with this? What level? and please don't say 20, capstones do horrible things to the game math.   @ dreagna, interesting
#115 Cyber-Dave Aug 14, 2015 17:28:00	rampant wrote:
#116 rampant Aug 15, 2015 0:07:30	You suggested I whip up some example characters and compare them, what level would you suggest becaus ethe numbers change dramatically as you level.
#117 Cyber-Dave Aug 15, 2015 0:57:26	rampant wrote:
#118 Uchawi Aug 15, 2015 5:12:33	Unless the bird men are inherently magical, and the main focus is for the race to be casters, then not wearing heavy armor impacts martial classes. So you can just state that bird men need bird armor, or even let them be scavengers to enchance armor.That goes well with the bird nesting instinct. Or since flight is a big bonus for casters, you could also state that bird men martial types get to add con to their AC as a right of passage and training to survive a predominantly earth bound world.
#119 Vulf Aug 15, 2015 21:12:30	If you are still interested in alternate bird-man ideas, how about a modified version of the Tengu race altered to be more hearty? The Tengu have had several incarnations in past editions, sometimes with human faces, sometimes with bird heads. I don't see a problem with reimagining them again as a 5th edition race to suit your campaign needs. They don't even need to resemble past incarnations. The 5th edition Dragonborn sure don't look like the 4th edition ones! We could even adapt the updated crash rules from 4th edition.   Tengu Traits The clans of Tengu in war torn lands breed aggressive warriors. Being able to fly short distances helps Tengu bring their cultural bladed weapons to bare on their enemies. The Tengu bound along barely touching the ground, though their weight prevents them from staying aloft indefinitely. Ability Score Increase. Your Strength score increases by 1, and your constitution score increases by 2.   Age. Tengu reach maturity by age 20. Tengu  have been known to live longer than 200 years. Alignment. Tengu can be fiercely loyal to their clan, and tend towards a lawful alignment. Adventuring ronin Tengu may lean more chaotic, however. Size. Tengu are medium creatures, and tend to be shorter than 6 feet. While lean, their bodies have powerful muscles for springing into the air. Their bones tend to be sturdier than their avian cousins. Males are typically taller and broader. As a race, the Tengu's weight is comparitive to that of half-elves.   Speed. Your base walking speed is 30 feet. Flight. You have a flying speed of 30 feet. If you are flying higher than 5 feet at the end of your turn, you glide your speed towards the ground, and then fall the rest of the way. A succesful Athletics or Acrobatics check will allow you to land on your feet without taking damage. The DC equals the distance you fall after gliding. Flying in difficult airborne terrain requires a base DC 10 Athletics or Acrobatics check to avoid falling prone, more severe conditions may require a higher check. If you are knocked prone while flying on your turn, you can glide half your speed towards the ground, then fall the rest of the way.   Keen Eyes. You have proficiency in the Perception skill. You also possess Darkvision, allowing you to see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern the full spectrum of color in darkness, only shades of grey tinged with amber.   Tengu Weapon Training.  You are proficient with the longsword, and the glaive Language.  You can speak, read, and write Common, Tengu, and Kao Te Shou.
#120 Vulf Aug 15, 2015 8:27:34	Time for the cheese!   Racial Feat:   Disciplined strike. (Tengu only)   Tengu Clan warriors must master the blade if they are to survive the battlefield.   Increase your strength, constitution, or dexterity attribute by 1. While wielding a longsword or a glaive you gain the following benefit: Once on your turn, when you make a melee weapon attack and hit an enemy that is at less than full hp, you may deal an extra 1d8 damage.
#121 rampant Aug 28, 2015 14:19:48	Current Model Bird man Barbarain can start with 15, 17, 15, 8, 9, 8. THis cna give them an AC of 15 (17 with shield).   at level 4 : 16, 18, 15, 8, 9, 8. THis can give them an AC of 16 (18 with shield).   at level 8 : 16, 18, 17, 8, 9, 8. THis can give them an AC of 17 (19 with shield).   at level 12 : 16, 18, 19, 8, 9, 8. THis can give them an AC of 18 (20 with shield).   at level 16 : 16, 19, 20, 8, 9, 8. THis can give them an AC of 19 (21 with shield).   at level 19 : 17, 20, 20, 8, 9, 8. THis can give them an AC of 20 (22 with shield).   A more balanced approach might start with: 14, 16, 14, 10, 11, 10 for AC 15 (17) Atlevel 19 that's 14, 20, 20, 10, 11, 10  for AC 20 (22) -or- maybe 16, 18, 20, 10, 11, 10 for AC 19 (21)   Assuming No multi-class shenanigans.   A light armored current model Bird man fighter can Start with 14, 16, 14, 10, 11, 10 for AC 15 (17) with a studded leather armor By level 6 they can have 14, 20, 14, 10, 11, 10 for AC 17 (19), with the defense style this can go to 18 (20).   My slower but armor compatible birdman would be no different as a barbarian, except 50ft flight instead of 60ft (barbs get fast movement remember).   But as a fighter they could have an AC of 19 (21) as soon as they can get a set of ful plate. Their damage will be identical, and the lower speed version is easier to get a shot at thanks to having less squares of flight to abuse.      Honestly I don't see the problem with heavy armor the real abuse comes from 50ft speed rating for flight.
#122 Cyber-Dave Aug 28, 2015 15:20:56	So, let me get this straight: you respond to my accusation that you are misrepresenting and misanalyzing the balance of the game due to an overly acute perspective that does not take entire builds into account by providing a set of acute numbers that show NOTHING but the AC achieved without presenting the entire build so that we can see what the birdman you have pasted gives up by being a birdman with that build!? Really? Post the entire build. We need to see stats, equipment, feats taken, etc. Then I will point out what you are overlooking.
#123 rampant Aug 28, 2015 15:45:48	Feats? Hmmmm as popular as they are they are technically an optional rule.   Also why? Everything else would be identical wouldn't it?    What Are you trying to get me to compare here? My birdmen vs. normla birmen? Birdmen vs. forst elves? What?
#124 Cyber-Dave Aug 28, 2015 16:57:53	Feats are only nominally optional, at least in my experience. I am not trying to get you to compare anything. You are wrong that all other details will be the same. I will show you that once you provide me with a birdman build by providing you with a comparison. I will show you what the birdman gives up by being a birdman in praxis as opposed to gnosis. I will then show you how the existing mechanics force the birdman to give that up by using smart, localized mechanics that specifically target problematic builds as opposed to blanket mechanics that pretend that flight symergizes with all capabilities equally; it doesn't.
#125 Elfcrusher Aug 28, 2015 19:03:59	I agree with those who don't think there's a problem: it just doesn't make sense for a slender birdman to be able to fly with heavy armor.   But....   If you really want to tweak it, use modified carrying capacity.  E.g.:  - If the total weight carried in pounds is no more than 3x your Strength, no penalties  - If it's greater than 3x but not greater than 5x, you have to finish your turn on the ground  - Above 5x you can't fly   Or something like that.  (I didn't spend very long checking to make sure those were the right numbers.)     This way high strength birdmen could indeed fly with heavy armor, but they'd still have to watch their overall gear choices.  And, to address rampant's point, it really does affect all classes, because those with light or no armor are also likely to have lower strength scores, and even if they have a larger buffer for gear they're still going to have to think about it.  No flying home with 100 pounds of loot.
(Reply to #124) rampant	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#127 Cyber-Dave Aug 29, 2015 0:07:55	rampant wrote:
#128 Greenstone.Walker Aug 30, 2015 20:37:17	Elfcrusher wrote:
#129 Brock_Landers Aug 31, 2015 2:40:32	Aa Cyber-Dave is saying, it would seem you are viewing 5th Ed through a 4th Ed lens: Homogenisation, this edition is not that.   Back to the Dex Paladin, yeah, no problem with that, at all, and to capture the 4th Ed Avenger deal, I give the option for paladins to forgo all armour and shield proficiency to gain Unarmoured Defence (AC = 10 + Dex modifier + Cha modifier).     In 5th Ed you do no need to max out stats to be effective, at all.
#130 rampant Aug 31, 2015 8:46:00	1. It's not a 4e lense, it's a rational game design lense, just because 4e codified it and for the most part exemplified it doenst make the concerns or techniques unique to 4e.    2. Neither I, nor 4e advocated homogenization. Furthermore this is not homogenization. Ripping the wings off would be homogenization.
#131 Brock_Landers Aug 31, 2015 9:20:45	rampant wrote:
#132 Brock_Landers Aug 31, 2015 9:22:22	rampant wrote:
#133 rampant Aug 31, 2015 11:59:09	I liked it becuse the game design approach was better, you keep putting my cart before my horse, I don't claim 4e's design approach was good because I'm a fan of 4e, I'm a fan of 4e because it's design apporach was good. Furthermore not even 4e was perfect about it, Gnolls and minotaurs for starters. 4e helped codify a lot of tricks to making races more balanced, that doens't mean you have to ignore them in other games the general guidelines such as not tying most of the race's features up in a single ability score, or 'don't try to balance a race by making it bad/good at specific builds/classes' still hold true in 5e, and most race-class games for that matter. There's nothing magical about 5e that says we have to completely ignore everything we learned before it came out.   No 4e did not espouse homogenization, in fact many classes that play a bit overly similarly in 3e and 5e are wildly disparate in 4e. A 4e fighter is a lot different experience than a 4e barbarian, while in 3e or 5e they can get pretty similar at times. Design was more constrained on the races as opposed to 3e, and the same is true for 5e compared to 3e, but there were plenty of tricks to make the classes and races play differently. Some of which were lost in the move to 5e, but 5e still comes out ahead of 3e.
#134 Brock_Landers Sep 01, 2015 0:59:45	rampant wrote:
#135 rampant Sep 01, 2015 9:40:39	You keep using that word, homogenised, i don't htink you know what it means.
(Reply to #123) akr71	rampant wrote:
#137 Elfcrusher Sep 01, 2015 11:24:25	akr71 wrote:
#138 Brock_Landers Sep 01, 2015 15:01:51	rampant wrote:
#139 rampant Sep 01, 2015 19:48:11	Well then stop accusing 4e of being Homogenized. Yes the numbers were stricter but everythign else was so much more variable.
#140 TiaNadiezja Sep 02, 2015 8:32:04	A weakness that never comes up isn't a weakness and does not serve to balance an option. If the designers were actually attempting to put some counterbalance onto flight, they'd have given it a weakness that affected every class instead of one that only affects those that wear heavy armor. Just remove the restriction. Your game won't break.
#141 Ghaliyah Sep 02, 2015 9:50:06	TiaNadiezja wrote:
#142 TiaNadiezja Sep 02, 2015 9:56:25	Ghaliyah wrote:
#143 Brock_Landers Sep 02, 2015 10:24:18	rampant wrote:
#144 rampant Sep 02, 2015 11:56:38	Ok what definition of homogeneity are you using and in what way is it a good thing to anyone?
#145 Brock_Landers Sep 02, 2015 12:03:38	rampant wrote:
#146 rampant Sep 02, 2015 12:04:32	Level playing field, maybe, uniformity, no.
#147 Brock_Landers Sep 02, 2015 12:06:18	rampant wrote:
#148 rampant Sep 02, 2015 12:28:32	In that the races don't have wild swings in power level and stat boosts (just like 5e), and the classes are all on a similar track as far as at-will vs. encounter vs. daily resources. That is no wher enear unfiromity, especially since it allowe dthem to have more variation in their actual abilities making a fighter truly play differently from a ranger on a round by round basis.
#149 Brock_Landers Sep 02, 2015 12:45:40	rampant wrote:
#150 MechaPilot Sep 02, 2015 12:48:02	The 5e races are designed pretty uniformly in that there is a design pattern that most races fall neatly into.  Most races follow the +2/+1 stat boost pattern.  Most races lock up the +1 stat boost inside your subrace choice (oh, and most races have subraces).  Most races get darkvision.  Most races get proficiency with a tool/skill, a couple weapons, or a class of armor.  Most races have advantage on a limited type saving throw (e.g. charm, fear, poison, etc).  Most races have some type of movement ability (not slowed by heavy armor, increased speed, ability to move through the space of larger creatures, etc).  And most races that have spells get their spells two levels behind a caster class (1st level spell at third character level, and so on).  Most races know common + one other language (usually their racial language).   Uniformity of design is far from unformity of function and feel.
#151 MechaPilot Sep 02, 2015 12:52:59	Brock_Landers wrote:
#152 rampant Sep 02, 2015 14:07:31	They did, they just made sure that the class fufilled a priamry role on it's own without any system mastery required. If you wanted to emphasize it or add an additional role you could via feat and power selection. They just made sure that anyone vaguely awake at the wheel would be able to fufill the class's main role first.
#153 MechaPilot Sep 02, 2015 14:17:45	rampant wrote:
#154 rampant Sep 02, 2015 14:35:20	Not every class could cover every role, admittedly, and certainly they were a lot more restricted at release than they were later, but even then they had sub-class mechanics that skewed you to one additional role or another, or emphasized various aspects of your primary. Furthermore while you may complain about having a pre-set primary role for each class it did two very important things:   1. It ensured a proper sphere of focus. A lot of 3e classes suffered from being overly broad, being too narrow, or having no clue what they were trying to do mechanically.   2. Allowed each class to put it's own unique spin on it's role. A Warlord and a Cleric were two very different types of leader class in 4e. If you had to have each class cover each role there would have been temptation to just make the role powers separate from class powers instead of having to write up 4 unique subclasses for every class. By having each class focus on one to start with they allow each class to have a solid identity without having to spend a bunch of time filling in gaps in a  spread sheet.   Ideally yes you could have every class potentially cover any role, but first you have to ensure that every character can at least cover one.   4e was not perfect, it did however do a lot more than people give i credit for.
#155 MechaPilot Sep 02, 2015 15:05:33	rampant wrote:
#156 cassi_brazuca Sep 02, 2015 15:34:50	Considering that I normally divide roles in a different way…   I kind of disagree. Roles are a part of each class’ identity. Basically all the thing of “Wizard can’t heal, Cleric can’t have so powerful spells, rogues can’t tank”, etc. does have its meaning. While having more than one role is possible, allowing all roles for every class for me is going into “homogeneity” camp – 4e didn’t that, and it was a wise choice. Yes, rampant: I just went through 3.X books (didn’t get a real chance to read before, started with 4e) and I noticed the same problem. Versatility and raw power are what made us start the whole “tier X” thing in the first place. Mecha_Pilot. I will talk in 4e terms: I don’t think that every class should have all 4 roles possible. But perhaps classes could have 2 or (in some cases) 3 roles, to be defined at characters creation. For example, the Wizard could have options for being a Controller or Striker, and be focused on that role. Clerics could be Leaders or Defenders. Fighter could be Defenders or Strikers, etc. Talking about their 4e versions, of course. It is a lot less work than “every role for every class” but it does resolve the problem of “why cannot X class do Y role”. In part, but I doubt anyone would chose the Wizard to be a tank without some serious rules-hacking here.   Yes, 4e did a lot more than people give credit for, but here is a little criticism to the past edition: the “Controller” role wasn’t well defined at beginning and even to the last days it wasn’t a clear thing. They should have figured that out at start.
#157 Brock_Landers Sep 02, 2015 23:16:23	MechaPilot wrote:
#158 MechaPilot Sep 02, 2015 23:18:40	Brock_Landers wrote:
#159 Brock_Landers Sep 02, 2015 23:24:19	MechaPilot wrote:
#160 Brock_Landers Sep 02, 2015 23:28:29	MechaPilot wrote:
#161 Dwarfslayer Sep 03, 2015 13:16:33	MechaPilot wrote:
#162 MechaPilot Sep 03, 2015 13:36:33	Dwarfslayer wrote:
#163 Uchawi Sep 03, 2015 15:24:25	Everything being equal, you have to consider innovaton from any race to meet the status quo, whether that is armor, weapons, etc. That is why I stated earlier in the thread the bird men have their own type of armor. It is up to the character how they maintain it, repair it, etc. We need a couple tweets from the developers to match the flavor of this thread.
#164 Elfcrusher Sep 03, 2015 20:06:09	I fully support something that restricts winged, non-magical flight as a function of strength.  Not only for armor, but for other situations that may arise (no pun intended).  As I suggested earlier in the thread, I could see there being a couple of tiers of flight, from "unable to get airborn" to "no restrictions", based on multiples of strength, in the 3-5 range most likely.  That way an 18 or 20 strength Birdman could fly with Heavy Armor and a weapon but little else, and an 8 strength Birdman in leather armor would have to pick and choose gear pretty carefully.
#165 MechaPilot Sep 03, 2015 20:21:28	Elfcrusher wrote:
#166 Rastapopoulos Sep 06, 2015 11:57:32	rampant wrote:
#167 cassi_brazuca Sep 06, 2015 15:41:23	Rastapopoulos wrote:
#168 Elfcrusher Sep 06, 2015 18:57:58	The best part about Aaracockra (sp?) players is all the cool ways you can kill them by knocking them out of the sky   Bolos Net Launchers Hold spells Command  Flesh to Stone (particularly fun over water) Shadow Monks (teleport, Stunning Strike, Slow Fall)
(Reply to #156) Macv12	cassi_brazuca wrote:
#170 cassi_brazuca Sep 07, 2015 9:59:48	A defending rogue goes against the very intent and identity of the class. Wizards could use some buffs back then, but not being able to heal is iconic. And I stand with my previous statement: the “controller” role is just poorly explained or poorly thought. Up to this day I have a hard time explaining it away to new 4e players.   Basically classes have its own identity and function. Roles are part of that function. Yes, perhaps a more Striker Wizard or Fighter, a more “Controller” Rogue (whatever that means currently) are possible, but some combinations are just too odd for tradition’s sake. Making everyone capable of doing all roles is kind of a deal-breaker: why would you have classes if the end result will only depend on more refined choices? Yes, it is kind of an appeal to tradition, but that is what the class system is about.  The question is not if this is possible. The question is if that will be good in the ending. And in my opinion, no, it would not.   The “blink tanking” strategy is an interesting one, but I think some more work is needed to make it work and be a plausible concept.
#171 Ahrimon Sep 07, 2015 15:05:47	We have a rogue with sentinel in our 5e game and he rocks.  Sneak attacks twice a round and with liberal use of poisons dishes out tremendous damage.
#172 cassi_brazuca Sep 07, 2015 18:35:40	Ahrimon wrote:
#173 Elfcrusher Sep 07, 2015 18:49:16	I gotta admit, I don't even see the need for this "Striker" "Controller" nonsense.  I disappeared from D&D about the time of 3.5, took a peek at 4 at one point and decided it wasn't for me, and then came back when I heard about the "Next" playtesting.  And suddenly everybody in the D&D world is talking about 'roles'. Why?   In an MMO you need to have clearly defined roles because you can't hit the pause button every six seconds to discuss next moves.  "You guys DPS and off-tank if you see a need, oh and throw a few healing spells around or maybe debuff M'uru if it seems like the thing to do" just doesn't work.  Everybody has to know exactly what their job is, and they'd better be statistically optimized for it.   But things are way more fluid and dynamic in a tabletop RPG.    Or maybe 'roles' is just one of those things that gives us a way to talk about (that is, argue about) characters when we aren't playing...sort of like posting 20th level builds to discuss, or discussing which way to multiclass...and it's not the influence of MMOs to blame, but the advent of internet discussion boards.
#174 Cyber-Dave Sep 07, 2015 19:13:11	Yea, I think the notion of fixed roles did more to homogenize the game than to aid it. A class should be designed to have its own unique theme, not to fit into one of 4 fixed roles. Additionally, I see no problem with mixing and matching different classes with different feats in order to create different ways of achieving a similar end result. The sentinel rogue idea, for example, is great. I could see myself creating a rogue, assassin or thief with the sentinel feat and playing him like a Sherlock Holmes style detective/thief catcher. Sounds cool to me! The notion that "you shouldn't be able to build a particular character a certain way" doesn't increase diversity, it homogenizes builds within a class.
(Reply to #170) Macv12	cassi_brazuca wrote:
#176 Brock_Landers Sep 07, 2015 23:47:49	Macv12 wrote:
(Reply to #7) moonbeast	lawrencehoy wrote:
#178 Cognomen Sep 08, 2015 9:48:58	I don't really see the problem. Someone playing a birdperson in heavy armor is playing against type and shouldn't expect to have the best of both worlds.   That said, the restriction is against flying while wearing armor, so I think the problem is not so much weight as encumbered movement. Thus, my solution would be land, don armor, walk into dungeon. As a DM, I would think long and hard about adding new types of armor, but I might allow a type of lacquered wood similar to samurai armor, as a high-end light armor. But it would be expensive.
#179 cassi_brazuca Sep 08, 2015 10:29:07	I warn this is the last time I’ll talk about this subject here because I think it’s quite off-topic, but some final comments are here:   Macv12 wrote:
#180 Brock_Landers Sep 08, 2015 14:27:20	cassi_brazuca wrote:
#181 cassi_brazuca Sep 08, 2015 15:30:40	Brock_Landers wrote:
#182 MechaPilot Sep 08, 2015 20:07:47	cassi_brazuca wrote:
#183 rampant Sep 08, 2015 22:41:20	I don't get what you expect to prove with this C-Dave, but I fnally got the time to format this tedious mess.   Basic Birdman barbarian: Level 19 Starting attributes: 14, 16, 14, 10, 11, 10 Ending: 16, 18, 18, 10, 12, 10, 4 attribute boosts + durable feat Gear: Shield, Longsword, Warpick, warhammer, Lots of javelins, lots of hand-axes, lots of throwing hammers (gotta cover the various damage types) AC: 20 HP: 214 Speed: 35/60 Usual basic damage per attack: Melee: 1d8+3 (7.5), Ranged 1d6+3 (6.5) Rage damage Bonus: +4, 11.5 melee, and 10.5 ranged Rage 6 times between long rests Danger sense Reckless attack (advantage on attack rolls in exchange for granting advantage to attackers) Extra attack (1) Feral instinct Brutal crit Relentless Rage Persistent Rage Indomitable might Frenzy Mindless rage Intimidating Rage retaliation   Basic Human barbarian: Level 19 Starting attributes: 15, 15, 16, 10, 11, 10 Ending: 16, 18, 20, 10, 12, 10, 4 attribute boosts + durable feat Gear: Shield, Longsword, Warpick, warhammer, Lots of javelins, lots of hand-axes, lots of throwing hammers (gotta cover the various damage types) AC: 21 HP: 233 Speed: 40 Usual basic damage per attack: Melee: 1d8+3 (7.5), Ranged 1d6+3 (6.5) Rage damage Bonus: +4, 11.5 melee, and 10.5 ranged Rage 6 times between long rests Danger sense Reckless attack (advantage on attack rolls in exchange for granting advantage to attackers) Extra attack (1) Feral instinct Brutal crit Relentless Rage Persistent Rage Indomitable might Frenzy Mindless rage Intimidating Rage retaliation   extreme Birdman barbarian: Level 19 Starting attributes: 15, 17, 15, 9, 10, 9 Ending: 16, 20, 20, 9, 10, 9, 4 attribute boosts + durable feat Gear: Shield, Longsword, Warpick, warhammer, Lots of javelins, lots of hand-axes, lots of throwing hammers (gotta cover the various damage types) AC: 22 HP: 233 Speed: 35/60 Usual basic damage per attack: Melee: 1d8+3 (7.5), Ranged 1d6+3 (6.5) Rage damage Bonus: +4, 11.5 melee, and 10.5 ranged Rage 6 times between long rests Danger sense Reckless attack (advantage on attack rolls in exchange for granting advantage to attackers) Extra attack (1) Feral instinct Brutal crit Relentless Rage Persistent Rage Indomitable might Frenzy Mindless rage Intimidating Rage retaliation   Like this C-dave? I don't want to do the fighter version with it's tons of feats if the format isn't right.