Mike Mearls Beastmaster needs revivify beast.
Simply adding it as a level 2 spell ranger (no component cost) spell would fix the majority of the beastmaster issues.
Though, rangers in generall could use a bit of a boost.
And artificers should be their own class. Not that it's a bad sub-class, it's just not an artificer.
(And battlemaster isn't a warlord, and eldrich knight isn't a swordmage. I also want a 4e shaman, probably as a druid sub-class).
The rest of my errata suggestions are here.
Edit: Done.
I'm curious if the new ranger options will be AL legal when the devs release them.
Nevvur wrote:
Well the bestmaster ranger doesen't work very well with Hunters Mark.
Becouse you deal the extra damage when you hit and not your animal companion.
Maybe the main thing the beastmaster needs is it's own signature spell and have hunters mark be the hunter signature spell.
My own feedback.
Need a way for bards to trade spells for inspiration dice. And rangers to trade spells also. Like paladin w/smite.
Sorcerer subclasses are a procedural drag on play - not fun to stop and look up a bunch of stuff & I end up wishing the random effects don't happen.
Still missing damage on a miss.
Apart from these complaints, I remain broadly satisfied. It's quite a good game.
edwin_su wrote:
My freeform feedback at the end of the Survey:
Overall, Ranged characters feel stronger than Melee characters, which is a problem.
Barb - Frenzy seems a bit weak. Totem seems a bit strong.
Warlock - Eldritch Blast is vastly superior to most weapons and sort of obviates Bladelock builds.
mellored wrote:
Finished the survey. No real complaints so far. Would like to see a little more fluff - campaign worlds, etc.
celondon wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
Damage on a miss has been removed from the core rules, never to return. Good riddance to that nonsense. We won that debate, it's over.
Devilbass wrote:
I'd like to add on and say the Way of the Four Elements Monk needs some cost tweaking.
TenaciousJ wrote:
Being unable to dodge a fireball that egulfs a 20 square foot area is not the same as being unable to ever dodge a 15 pound axe swinging wide.[/quote]Not sure it matters.
You "missed" with the fireball, and still delt damage.
You can "miss" with conjure barrage, and still deal damage.
ect...
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
Damage on a miss, from weapons, was removed because it caused confusion with posions, smites, ect...
Not because it was too dificult to imagineit, just for simplicity.
Also, I know for a fact that they actually do occasionally take one of my ideas. Other people's ideas as well.
Maybe only 1 in 20, but, hey, sometimes i roll a critical.
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
I knew GWF was going to be changed months before the PHB came out, but no, I don't have spies inside Wotc or any insider info this time. Instead, I have faith in them, based on the sound design of the rest of the game, their words, their articles (especially the one about spamming second wind and the article about RAI and RAW recently), that they will fix these things with their yearly frigate of errata.
A fighter can fight for 5 minutes, then rest an hour or two, then fight another 5, rest another hour, and so on, exactly like a regenerating troll in the monster manual.
Why give trolls regeneration ability? They could just have given them the ability every first level fighter has. Same thing.
Not very "scary" or magical to fight a troll that uses its ability to weed you down through guerilla tactics, is it, when every first level fighter can do the exact same thing.
Something to make the Beast Master's pet less fragile is definitely needed.
The other thing is that they need to give up your own attacks for your companion is just nonsensical. I understand the need for balance, but it should make some kind of in-game sense. Barbarians can attack twice at 3rd level with a great axe, why would it be so bad if a ranger can attack and get their companion to attack as well? I know requiring a bonus action would mess with two-weapon fighting, but something needs to be done.
And why do they need to spend an action to get the companion to dash or disengage? Barbarians don't need to dash, then spend an action to get their axe to move up with them.
Also agree that elemental monks need more choices. Something done so they don't burn through their Ki so fast and something that lets them use their elements all the time if they want. It has been discussed allowing them to just substitute elemental damage time without increasing actually damage done. Somewhat useful, doesn't effect balance and is very flavorful.
DaomSlayer wrote:
On paper spamming second wind seems strong, but in play I've found it's fine. Pretty much anytime you can spam it the party just takes a long rest anyway.
I was happy with nearly everything in the survey. I suggested sorcerors should get more metamagics over the 20 levels, but I'm not holding my breath.
DaomSlayer wrote:
Trolls regen HP all day long at rate X.
Fighters regen HP all day long, (while taking short rests) at rate Y.
Same difference. Trolls can maybe travel + regen at the same time, but a fighter can do that in the back of a carriage for a few GP.
In a 24 hour period, all characters can take max 1 long rest, and up to 15 short rests, and still fight in between.
That's 15 d10 + 15 HP that a first level fighter has more at his disposal than any other character, including the character whose schtick is healing (cleric), and the character whose schtick is healing himself! (paladin).
That's 97.5 HP on average. If you're playing optimally, a fighter has approx 10x as many HP as the barbarian next to him. The barbarian's schtick is having more HP than any other class. That's not good.
I am someone that did not like the direction of 4th edition at all, and honestly the Second Wind ability smells of 4th edition. That said I am still fine with it. It gives the fighter a little extra staying power. It bends my suspention of disbelief, but doesn't break it. I think that is a pretty good balance. You want to make the Fighter heroic without going so far that he is a mutant superhero in a fantasy setting. Multiple short rests seems like a corner case that would rarely actually happen.
The Battle Master pushes it even farther and I honestly don't like how it plays. That's fine, I won't play a Battle Master and I can just ignore it if someone else does. A full on Warlord would go so far that I wouldn't have fun playing in a group with one. I just hate the whole concept. If you made the Warlord a Bard archtype and just admitted that he was using magic I would be okay with it, because magic. But don't try to convince me that can produce magical like effects, that aren't actually magic, because he is: "Just so inspiring!" Blargh. 
I initially thought Second Winds was going to be a problem and it is completely out of whack at first level but from that point on though, due to the terrible scaling, I think it's fine. Some levels in, you might as well take a long rest instead of spamming second wind. Also, random encounters are typically a thing. It just means the fighter basically has more hit dice available than other classes which I'm fine with.
LordTwig wrote:
Back on topic (the survey): do you think they asked the right questions?
BoldItalic wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
I like how they're approaching and reacting to the feedback. I congradulate WotC on being quite transparent, for a game developper.
I am a tad worried about one thing though:
- The new options are exactly that—new choices for ranger players to select from, as opposed to a rewrite of thePlayer’s Handbook.
I get that they want everything in the game to be "you can use this if you want to". But I'm reading this like they'll be saying "you can add this class option", and not "you can replace that class option with this variant rule/errata". I'm afraid that could generate some power creep, or make some options obsolete (like the original Weapon Expertise feats in 4e).
I might be wrong, and I'll wait to see what they end up doing before complaining, but I hope they do updates properly.
The problem with Berserker Frenzy is that it doesn't kick in until next round.
Really?
I think I'm going to house rule that.
JessicaT/MTLKnight/Gororoth is back with a Vengeance! And still fails to understand Hit Points...
Effect on a Failure RULZ!
Razorclaw shifters are underpowered. As written, their racial feature is worse than two-weapon fighting, granting them a bonus action attack which deals 1+STR modifier slashing damage, unless the character is a monk, or has the tavern brawler feat.
This feature offers monks no benefit, as their martial arts ability is superior. Tavern Brawler OTOH should be compared against dual wielder as they offer similar benefits in this situation = except that the feat+racial feature doesn't even stack up to Two weapon fighting, which all characters can do (1d6+ABL and 1d6 vs. 1d8+ABL and 1d4+Str). When a racial feature + feat is worse than a "free" option, you know that racial ability needs to be improved.
My suspicion is that the razor claw's unarmed strike was intended to deal 1d4+STR or 1d6+STR damage. That is at least comparable to a monks unarmed strike, and is of benefit to non-monks.
Shirebrok wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
in case of the ranger, it needs some power creep.
Regarding the ranger I am a bit confused why noone brings up the fact that his pet just flat out sucks. That for me is the more serious issue than the fragility of the pet. Basically every time you attack with the pet you are doing LESS damage than if you use you action to make the attack yourself. Never mind that you have already forfeited the huge benefits of being a hunter ranger, whenever you use the pet you are actively hampering your own performance.
IMO the beasts needs a boost in attack power, and the master definitely needs a pet resurrection spell. Until then beatsmaster rangers will continue to be the red-headed step son of D&D5.
abs1nth wrote:
I've removed content from this thread because flaming/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can see the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/policies/web/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from inflammatory comments or content.
edwin_su wrote:
Here's a homebrew version of DOAM for those who want it.
Reliable Style:
When you miss with a melee attack, you can lash out with your boot, elbow, other body part, butt of the weapon, or simply slam armor hard enough to be felt. You deal damage equal to your 1+Str modifier. This still counts as a miss, and does not gain any other damage bonuses, posions, or other effects.
Personally, i like the idea of variant character options.... If you don't like the variant, don't use it. If another person at the same table likes the variant, there is nothing stopping them from using it.
Take the Human for example. Two options. Both equally valid choices.... Choices are good. It is when they release an errata/option than invalidates another option that issues arise.... Such as if they released a beast-handler (class or subclass) which invalidates the beastmaster ranger.
Fixing bugs is one thing, and errata'ing an under/over- powered option is another.... But when the new option is clearly superior, that is when I have issues. Take for example the Tome of Battle classes in 3.5 or the feats in 4E. Rather than fixing the fighting classes or feats, they released new classes/feats which were clearly superior (in most cases). That is power creep...
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty
Mephi1234 wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Done. As a Warlock player, I agree that EB is nice. But that's a problem when everyone else dips a level to take it as well. And when that's about the only thing you can do...it's not as fun performing the same action 95% of the time...same problem Fighters used to have before they started adding in stances and maneuvers and battlemaster options. I'd personally like it if Agonizing Blast had a class level requirement, or if 'locks got enough spell slots to occasionally consider doing something else.
edwin_su wrote:
SailorNash wrote:
My perspective comes from a mechanical standpoint and not flavor, but I like when the mechanics and flavor can be in harmony.
Shifters seem like they were quickly thrown together to support rangers without really doing much to make the racial abilities more broadly useful. Beasthide is really only decent for a character that already has maximum AC from a combination of Dexterity and the best available armor (and maybe not even that for a monk getting AC from another stat). Longstride could stand to have something besides the Dash as a bonus action and Dexterity, since someone maximizing Dexterity is likely to have rogue or monk levels and gain access to bonus action Dashing through class features. Razorclaw would make more sense if it gave unarmed strike proficiency at all times and some bonus damage to unarmed strikes while shifting (like a d4) so it wouldn't seem entirely redundant with martial arts, tavern brawler, or two weapon fighting. All of the subtypes could stand to be give 2 ability points instead of 1 to make them look mechanically attractive compared to the PHB races.
Changelings being locked into Dexterity and Charisma is just odd too. Somehow a creature that can change its appearance at will is less flexible and adaptable than a human or half-elf? Why not just +1 to any 2 (or 3) abilities?
Warforged look the closest to being complete, but IMO they should have +2 Constitution instead of +1 and they should have some racial options for mithril body, adamantine body, small sized scouts, and maybe even the psiforged (spellforged?). My homebrewered Warforged had unarmed strike proficiency and a 1d4 unarmed strike to simulate the 3.5 Warforged slam too.
One more point on the Ranger. Why do Paladins get to prepare spells but Rangers have them known? And Paladins get more spells prepared than Rangers can know in addition. They both have the same spells slots, so it makes no sense to have different methods of determining what spells they can cast and making the Paladin's flat out better.
That ship has probably sailed, but adding automatic spells known depending on the type of Ranger should really be considered.
Gunthar wrote:
mellored wrote:
Of course I asked for more subclasses for sorcerers (even providing rudimentary ideas—because I could). I also requested more warlock invocations with prequisites tied to their pact type, as well as those tied to the patron type. Thought that that may be an easy way to make some of the different pact types more interesting and distinct. I also said that the list of Elemental Disciplines was too narrow, especially for theming a monk around a single element.
On the whole, though, I had good things to say.
DaomSlayer wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
mellored wrote:
Diffan wrote:
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
DOAM is already in the game. Check out the DMG, page 242 under "Success at a Cost." You can miss your attack, do your damage, and suffer a setback as determined by the DM.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Eldrich blast is overrated.
fireball in slot 5 = 26.25 in an AoE. (and warlocks get 4 per short rest).
vs
EB at level 17 = 21 damage.
(assuming 50% hit rate).
The only impressive thing about it is that it takes 2 levels to get. And it remains an solid (not great) attack. Freeing up your other spell slots for utility.
Even if you add hex and foresight, you arn't beating a fighter. (and you should really cast foresight on the fighter).
Quicken + Eldrich Blast can be an issue. But that's more an issue with quicken not counting invocations as "spells".
iserith wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
The disconnect over DOAM is rooted firmly in the misunderstanding about what failure means in the rules. Failure refers to the attack roll or ability check failing to meet or exceed the target number (AC or DC). It does not necessarily mean that the action itself failed outright. That is left for the DM to narrate into outright failure, progress combined with a setback (for ability checks), or success at a cost (for ability checks, attack rolls, or saving throws). Some want to believe that a failed attack roll means that the attack cannot do damage. That is not true - it is entirely up to the DM if it does or does not do damage.
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
seti wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
If people have time to spam short rests..
they have time to spam long rests...
and the sorcerer is the winner.
DaomSlayer wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because troling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
SailorNash wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
No system or game experience, however well designed, is safe from a player willing to abuse the crap out of it for his or her own selfish gain. Such a player has failed to understand the goals of play in this game and is dysfunctional as a result. "I went out of my way to break your game and broke it" isn't being clever. It's playing in bad faith.
I've noticed you really, really like to edit things in and out of your posts after the fact...
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
iserith wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
I dipped warlock, taking not a single attack cantrip. Not even EB. And I'm fine. Just fine.
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
False dichotomy. Why does a spellcaster infallibly fling his oblong wad of bat guano to the exact location every time while the fighting man with the finely-craftted weapon he uses each and every time horribly whiff? "Because, magic" is nonsensical. The target number (AC, or defense, depending) is what is needed for FULL effect. Binary distinctions are far too limiting for many.
Gunthar wrote:
Yep, mechanical resolution is a tool, not a straightjacket.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ooo. Ooo. Logic games. I love them too! I wanna try one.
MtlKnight = JessicaT = Gorgoroth = DaomSlayer.
Yep. You're right. This is fun!
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Ah, the classic, people not knowing the difference between attack rolls (active, targeting) and saving throws (reactive, non targeting) deal.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Ah, I see the little gang forming...run for the hills!
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Wait. Long rest recovers ALL lost hit points. An infinite amount.
Spamming Second Wind only recovers 1d10 + level per hour.
The end result is the same, of course, you heal everything. So...the conceptual problem is that characters shouldn't heal when they are AWAKE?
Odd hair to split, isn't it?
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Synjin wrote:
WTF is "DaoM" anyways? I'm sure I'm gonna go "Of course...duh.", and probably have posted about it myself without realizing it, but can't for the life of me figure the acronym out.
Damage on a miss.
::lurk lurk::
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Lol, I thought it was Doomslayer. Fail at reading I guess.
Got it, thanks!
DemoMonkey wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
Reius wrote:
Reius wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
iserith wrote:
Well, that quieted the thread down right quick...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Reius wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Reius wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
This thread really went downhill in the last 24 hrs. Cant we all just get along?
The new options are exactly that—new choices for ranger players to select from, as opposed to a rewrite of the Player’s Handbook.
Vahnyu wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
DOAM doesn't turn a failed attack roll into a successful attack roll. It just means the DM narrated the result of the adventurer's action as doing damage to the target of the attack.
Gunthar wrote:
iserith wrote:
Stop calling them misses and hits then. Call them successful attack rolls and failed attack rolls. On a failed attack roll, the DM may narrate no damage or some damage. The resolution system never mandates how the DM narrates the results of an adventurer's action (though it's good practice to set the stakes before rolling).
Orethalion wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
iserith wrote:
3rd everyone misses. Everyone. In war especially, where most shots 99% ARENT hits. They're cover fire, or Attacks on a position to force the enemy to give ground, or out of position. A number of us use HP to model that - your ability to hold and defend yourself decreases until - boom you're dead.
However "missing" 99% of the time in agame is beat. Especially when there aren't rules for cover fire or lines of fire. And where miss is defined as "no effect" - you wouldn't want 99% of your play to have no effect. Even if that were more "realistic."
[/quote]
Except you don't miss 99% of the time in armored melee fighting, or in ranged combat either. In ranged combat with cover, etc. sure, the hit rate drops but in D&D with the same attack matrix (or better, with archery style, etc., depending) it generally gives an advantage to ranged in damage. These also are NOT single "attacks", they're multiple swings within the time frame of a round. "Damage on a miss" is an okay-to-decent representation of attrition damage, about as good as we're going to get under the D&D system of not using armor as DR (which also has some issues, but it's a game).
Orethalion wrote:
CCS wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Maybe think of it this way:
If a round is intended to simulate 6 seconds of world time (as opposed to being a game mechanic), then a fight between two trained swordsmen would not have each combatant swinging their sword exactly once over the course of 6 seconds. As such, an attack roll does not refer to a single attack that the swordsman waits 6 seconds before trying to repeat, but to the total result of everything that the swordsman did over the course of 6 seconds: feinting, parrying, bobbing/weaving...
And "everything," in this case, is exhausting. Maybe think of DOAM as simply simulating the fact that it takes energy to fight even if you block the enemy's sword from cutting you? Without DOAM, a two combatants with better armor than swords could go 1000s of rounds without either taking the slightest bit of damage.
Personally, my problem with this is that it would be a boring game experience, but even if simulating a world is the goal rather than playing a game, then it would also be a poor simulation of how physically taxing a several-hour-long swordfight to the death would be. Even just fencing for that long is hard enough, how much harder would it be when the swordsmen are legitimately trying to kill each other?
arderkrag wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
A fireball deals auto-damage, and those caught in it can make a reactionary roll to mitigate the damage, not the same as rolling an attack to see if you hit (hence the HIt entry), but, you could just make all attacks auto-damage, with the recipient able to make a roll to mitigate the damage, like an AC check vs. a static attack number.
Orethalion wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Orethalion wrote:
A fireball probably shouldn't really damage a fully armored knight at all. Armor isn't that good of a conductor with a flash of heat. Turn a gas stove burner on high and run a frying pan across it once. The pan gets slightly warm, but certainly doesn't get hot enough to cook anything. If he has a large shield also deflecting the blast around him....
Lightning bolt, on the other hand... 
Gunthar wrote:
Really, you guys actually reported me saying that the damage on a miss argument is dumb? REALLY, you have so little faith in your own position that you don't want people seeing it called dumb? Wow.
Well, it's a dumb argument. You have an option in the DMG if you want to use it. If you don't, you don't. Arguing for the million and first time that it's badwrongfun for spellcasters to get it and fighters not isn't helping anyone.
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Is there any consistant rule about when something should be a save ?
It is not that area of effect have saves, as there are area of effects like the rangers volly power that uses attack rolls.
nor that energy attacks always have a save as there are spells that use energy but have attack rolls.
Can anybody come up with a rule that explains what we see in the PHB with these effects?
As has already been quoted, page 73 of the player basic rules:
"When you make an attack, your attack roll determines
whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack
roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the
total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the
target’s Armor Class (AC), the attack hits."
Above that:
"Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a
hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has
rules that specify otherwise."
These are direct quotes from the rules. If I rolled a hit, as defined by the rules, and the DM said I did no damage, he would not be following the rules. Likewise if I missed and he said I did half damage it would not be following the rules. If you have something in the rules that says otherwise, please quote it and provide a page number. Otherwise this particular argument is over.
As for the fireball. The wizard doesn't need to hit a target with it, he just fills an area. If you throw a hand grenade you don't need to hit either, just get close. It is then up to the potential victims to get out of the way. Hence a saving throw. Would heavy armor help? Well it might hinder your chance of diving behind cover, but a successful save could be narrated as you turning so your armor takes the brunt of the damage. That is reasonable and falls under the purview of the DM narrating the result. He could not, however, just decide that a full plate wearer always takes have damage because, "Hey, I'm the DM and I narrate the result." He could add it as a house rule of course, but that should include player acceptance as well.
Yeah, but it doesn't appear to say "on a miss, you don't deal any damage."
So, door open, it seems.
LordTwig wrote:
An ommision is not a rule. There is no rule saying that looking really hard at someone doesn't do any damage either. Does that mean if I look real hard at someone I can do damage?
And I left that quote in there because I am not trying to hide something. If there is a specific rule that says you do something other than damage on a successful hit, that would indeed be the result instead of damage. It says nothing about misses however. You either hit and do damage or some other effect based on the specific rule, or you miss and go no further. Nothing happens on a miss. No where on that page is there any indication that anything happens on a miss. You miss and that is it, that action is over.
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
iserith wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Well the DM could say you hit or miss without asking for a roll, no?
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
bawylie wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Play-style difference, let's leave this bee's nest alone.
@ Bawylie or Iserith:
I am picking up some from context and the um... 'banter'.... but I was not around for the playtest.
Could one of you (or both) provide a quick primer for what this process is meant to accomplish, or what problem it is meant to solve, or what makes it a better system, etc.
Here would be great, or via PM if you tihnk that is better.
edit: And perhaps if this is meant as all the time, all misses, misses that are within <3, does it apply to hits >3? etc.
bawylie wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
iserith wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
I was glad they called out ranger in the 1st survey results. I love rangers, but the current incarnations, feel lacking to me. The biggest offender to me is the ability, Primeval Awareness. Ranger expends a spell slot to determine that somewhere within1-6 mile "radius," of you, is some manner of critters.... I swear every time I read that ability, I imagine that meme with what's his face the, "It's Aliens," guy. haha. I would love to have wotc update the wording on that to make the ability of some legitimate use. Maybe give some kind of special Perception Check to determine # and direction of said critters from the ranger. Then it would be perfect in my unprofessional opinion. Otherwise, I just can't wrap my head around the use of seeing that somewhere in some vast distance in some random direction, there's at least 1 and possibly a bazillion critters of such n such type.
As for the beast master one, ever since 4e where you have to waste your own actions for your critters to do something has irritated the bajeebus out of me. I don't understand why beast masters' critters have to use your action, when you could just get a bag of tricks, and call it good. Or a wizard / warlocks' familiar. In my unprofessional opinion I think if it's going to use one of your actions, it should be either bonus or reaction. It still wastes a valuable "time" resource, but not the most important resource, an "action."
And barbarians... I love most of barbarians, except for Frenzy. I don't understand the reason for giving them an exhaustion level. The way I look at it; everyone can use 2 weapons without penalty. So everyone can use a bonus action and get 2 attacks. It just seems like it's punishing a barbarian for using the same weapon to attack twice. I assume this is to try and prevent abuse of the heavy weapon master feat but still. I would much prefer they do something similar to like the war domain cleric. Make it where they can use a bonus action to make another attack 1 + Con modifier times / long rest, or something. Exhaustion is some serious business; highly limiting the ability to the point where it will only be used in the most direst of circumstances.
In semi-related news: I think warforged should have darkvision. Cuz reasons. 
The DOAM argument in this thread actually gave my game a houserule, so thanks for that.
Going All Out:
Once per turn when a player misses with a melee attack they may choose to deal their strength modifier (dex if the weapon is finesse) to their target. Until the the player's next turn the creature they dealt damage to has advantage on one attack roll made against the player.
(Note: on a natural 1 the player may not use this ability.)
This is supposed to be representative of taking advantage of an enemy's surprise by leaving yourself open for an attack.
All players may use it on melee weapon attack rolls.
Seems balanced to me, opinions?
(We have some wrestling fans so we have lists of improvised actions and reactions written already.)
tubadancross wrote:
Why do a few D&D fans care so much about a 4e-based mechanic known as DoaM? Does it really ruin the game to allow weapon-users to have the same ability that many, many spells allow casters to have? Does it really ruin the game to even allow such a thing as an option?
It's not a big deal; you either can imagine how it could happen, or you can't/won't (most likely; won't).
It's like debating wheather or not HP = meat or stamina, or a combination of the two.
Roadrunner pic guy clearly created an account just to troll people who are fans of some 4e combat mechanics.
This s**t is sad. Please, mods. Close this thread!
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
tubadancross wrote:
Not sure if I like this idea or not yet... but its used for skills in lots of games. You have a target # X, if you get that number you succeed, if you get X+5 you succeed easily, X+10 means you get some critical success, X+!5 means you do it without being noticed... If you miss by only 1 or 2, you succeed, but something bad happens. (Break lockpick tools, make noise, a flaw in the item, etc.)
Instead of thinking about this as Doa MISS, just redefine when you miss or hit.
First reduce all AC values by 10 (Or give all weapon attacks +10 to hit...)
Now if you Attack and get:
AC: Do 1/2 Str damage
AC+5: 1+ Str damage
AC+10: Weapon+Str damage
AC+20: 2xWeapon + Str damage
Fully Commit: After any attack, you may increase to the next damage level, but will cause (insert bad thing) to happen.
You could either make the Bad Thing consistent (Ex. always give advantage) or allow for DM determination depending on situation.
Numbers are relative... what they define and represent is relative...
If people want to use optional rules or add house rules for damage on a miss that's fine. It doesn't effect me at all. In my opinion it doesn't add anything except complexity. And it removes the option of wading into a fight and coming out without a scratch. Which should occasionally be possible and is awesome when it happens.
I assume monsters would do DOAM as well?
As for fighting forever and never getting tired, many games have added endurance rules. Generally it requires everyone to keep track of a resource that will only actually be relevant one out of a thousand times. In games that have endurance rules they are almost universally ignored. It is better to just leave it out entirely and let the DM adjudicate tiredness or exhaustion in those one in a thousand cases where it is actually needed.
LordTwig wrote:
mellored wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
There are rules for it...
Miss. If an attack has an effect that occurs on a miss, that information is presented after the "Miss:" notation.
So it's definaly possible.
But so far, only 1 creature that has it.
Piercer:
Drop: Melee Weapon Attack: +3 to hit, one creature directly " underneath the piercer. Hit: 3 (1d6) piercing damage per 10 feet fallen , up to 21 (6d6). Miss: The piercer takes half the normal falling damage for the distance fallen.
But it does actually do damage (to itself) on a miss.
bawylie wrote:
seti wrote:
A little bit more back on topic. I am okay with the Frenzy Barbarian gaining an exhaustion level. In my not so humble opinion the Barbarian has been overpowered since 3rd edition and it needs to be brought back in line. There should be an actual cost for the pure offensive power gained when a Barbarian goes berserk. It shouldn't just be something you do eveytime you get into a fight. It should be something that is awesome on those occasions when you break it out, not something you rely on for your standard DPR.
LordTwig wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
I think we can all agree on one thing:
Either LordTwig or Orethalion must change avatars.
I suggest a South Park Roshambo to settle who has to switch.
iserith wrote:
Confusing errrbody.
I'm all "I KNOW I've talked to Oreth about this before. No wait, this is Twiggy."
I don't remember how I set up my picture and I don't know how to change it. It doesn't seem to be under my account settings.
But back to the Magic comparision. It's not like a card, because only I (and those on my team) can have it. Not only would we have the card that our opponents couldn't, but it would automatically be played at the beginning of the game for no mana cost.
But I explained why it is a bad rule and it is even worse if it is PC only. It reduces the amount of apparent risk of failure. Let me repeat so it is clear... You were probably going to win either way, but if a miss does no damage then the illusion of potential failure is greater and therefore the feeling of accomplishment is greater when you succeed.
Combined with the horrid 1HP minion rule it would be even worse as you would kill them just by declaring an attack. Unless there was an exception for minions? But now you have another rule you have to add. Probably a ton of other exceptions or clarifications as well for things like poison, flaming weapons, etc.
Edit: Found it.
LordTwig wrote:
There are no 1 HP minions. If there were, I assume standard Minion rules from 4E would apply. Meaning, an attack roll that fails to hit the target number can NEVER damage a minion, whatever.
Still and all - what Orethalion said.
By the way. LordTwig, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, for changing your avatar. I suck at rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock.
Orethalion wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I was thinking it might be a lingering after effect. Like whenever you use an elementally aligned technique, all your damage until the end of your next turn would add that element. But idk. I need to read more monk first.
Orethalion wrote: