Like most GMs I enjoy tinkering with and embellishing systems. However, I've noticed that, most of the time, when I want to add a class or class option to 5e I find the system has already accounted for it in some way with existing options, backgrounds, feats, or some combination of the above. I'm impressed.
Lately when I go to other forums and see people trying to add this or that character concept they feel is 'missing' from the class lineup I tend to get confused at what seems to be unnecessary or premature (in the sense that they haven't given the existing mechanics a chance to express the concept) work.
How do you folks feel about the selection? Do you think there are any glaring gaps that need filling?
More sorcerer variants would have been nice, as I like the class very much, but the variants are lacklustre.
Swordmages. You can build a whole bunch of different half-caster half-warrior types, but the actual flavour and combat style of 4e swordmages is very difficult to recreate.
I think martial characters (and rangers) are a bit underserved in terms of non-combat options as well. I understand WotC's idea of not getting into a supplement treadmill with 5e but I think a player's companion with a focus on this stuff would have been useful.
Quote from: soviet;852850Swordmages. You can build a whole bunch of different half-caster half-warrior types, but the actual flavour and combat style of 4e swordmages is very difficult to recreate.
I think martial characters (and rangers) are a bit underserved in terms of non-combat options as well. I understand WotC's idea of not getting into a supplement treadmill with 5e but I think a player's companion with a focus on this stuff would have been useful.
The Sword Coast Adventurers guide coming in Nov. contains some more class variants i think.
Little in the way of pet users (Summoners, Sha'irs, Shamans, etc.) and non-magical variants (even the martial classes have high magical representation). A less "magical" range of paladin, ranger, barbarian, and bard would be nice. Backgrounds thankfully do a lot of the flavorful lifting from old class kits, which is nice, but some lynchpin class features loom too large for backgrounds to really be enough differentiation (Rogue Sneak Attack and Paladin Simte I am looking at you...).
It's got a lot of what folks might want, and waaaay more than I personally need. But since you can always pare options, I'd say more is better. It's nice not to have to invent the extra wheels.s
Yeah, more melee variants. I grant with magic being pumped up, it's hard to make melee attractive, but it really seems like every party relies mostly upon ranged combat. It isn't just magic, though, since the archery feat is identical to the two-handed fighting feat (except better).
I'm half tempted to start making monsters with their own personal spheres of darkness or simple "ranged attack immunity".
Quote from: MoracaiMore sorcerer variants would have been nice, as I like the class very much, but the variants are lacklustre.
I can see that, but I'm having trouble imagining what conceptual ground would be left for such a sorcerer since many of the other classes have already trod the obvious turf; the storm sorcerer they provided in UA for instance feels redundant with the storm cleric's presence, and either a fey or demonic sorcerer would feel redundant next to the warlock.
Quote from: Opaopajr;852859Little in the way of pet users (Summoners, Sha'irs, Shamans, etc.)
I thought the impression was that the summoning spells we do have are too strong?
It's an action economy thing, and thus why I don't expect them to produce much if any. Adventure League is the bread and butter word of mouth; it sits next to MtG for FLGS space, and dedicated (read: niche) retailers are important in WotC's business plan. Pets would screw up that field by letting forth the deluge, hence why the Ranger beastmaster is rather tame.
However, they did release Aarakocra in the EE:PC, while also not letting it be AL legal. So there is hope for new classes that would break the rather even paradigm. I find flight so much more grotesque than pet dependent extra action economy; third dimension tactics wipes out whole adventure swaths.
Quote from: Opaopajr;852859Little in the way of pet users (Summoners, Sha'irs, Shamans, etc.) and non-magical variants (even the martial classes have high magical representation).
There was a "Pact of the Sha'ir" for Warlocks in the closed playtest material for Princes of the Apocalypse, but it did not make it to the actual book.
That's interesting. Warlocks would be a solid choice to place the archetype, though I'd have to check the class core features to see if it would cause challenges elsewhere.
Big one for me is that almost every class dips into magic, if at least through an archetype, and it gets into oversaturation. I mean, yeah, I could port Birthright into it and just cap non-blooded spellcasters at 3rd lvl spells, or run low/no- magic faux historical games with just two or three class+archetypes. Yet with those martial options then I get into rewriting core class features, like Second Wind or Sneak Attack, and sometimes I just wanna be creatively lazy and not have to deal with it.
Quote from: Moracai;852847More sorcerer variants would have been nice, as I like the class very much, but the variants are lacklustre.
The unearthed arcana articles on the WOTC site added at east one more sorcerer option. Favoured Soul and Storm.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;852924I can see that, but I'm having trouble imagining what conceptual ground would be left for such a sorcerer since many of the other classes have already trod the obvious turf; the storm sorcerer they provided in UA for instance feels redundant with the storm cleric's presence, and either a fey or demonic sorcerer would feel redundant next to the warlock.
I don't see it that way. To me a dude who loans his god's power to lightning the shit out of his enemies is kinda lame when compared to a dude who controls storm through his own sheer will.
Sure, they aren't mechanically that much different, but the concept behind mechanics is vastly different.
Quote from: Omega;852989The unearthed arcana articles on the WOTC site added at east one more sorcerer option. Favoured Soul and Storm.
Thanks! I haven't followed those because I am not going to run (probably play neither) 5e anytime soon.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;852841How do you folks feel about the selection? Do you think there are any glaring gaps that need filling?
Quote from: Moracai;852847More sorcerer variants would have been nice, as I like the class very much, but the variants are lacklustre.
Same here. The variety of sorcerer bloodlines is one of a few things I genuinely like about Pathfinder, despite not being a fan of hyper-crunchy systems. Not crazy about Dragon and Wild sorcerers; however, I did love the Storm sorcerer (from some free to download official supplement or other; the one with the minotaurs).
Quote from: Opaopajr;852859Little in the way of pet users (Summoners, Sha'irs, Shamans, etc.) and non-magical variants (even the martial classes have high magical representation). A less "magical" range of paladin, ranger, barbarian, and bard would be nice. Backgrounds thankfully do a lot of the flavorful lifting from old class kits, which is nice, but some lynchpin class features loom too large for backgrounds to really be enough differentiation (Rogue Sneak Attack and Paladin Simte I am looking at you...).
Opa, you and I should share a game table one of these days. We agree on far too much.
Of course, non-magical variants are always nice. I'm always happy to see non-spellcasting Bards and Rangers.
But the lack of a good summoner class is, to my eyes, the only really glaring omission. What happened to the
monster summoning family of spells? Not a lot of summoning options for Conjurer Wizards, or even for Warlocks who get a measly familiar at most. I really, honestly feel a fantasy RPG without rules for magicians who summon and bind demons is a fucking travesty.
Quote from: The Butcher;853025But the lack of a good summoner class is, to my eyes, the only really glaring omission.
I'm a little confused here because my group's druid keeps summoning bears and shit and they really make a difference. I'm a little nervous about when he reaches the level where he can start conjuring pixies and their spell selection.
Quote from: The Butcher;853025I really, honestly feel a fantasy RPG without rules for magicians who summon and bind demons is a fucking travesty.
Well there is the Gate spell, and to a lesser extent Conjure Celestial (which can be flipped to Conjure Fiend with minimum effort, not sure why that options isn't there already).
Also, the Warlock with a fiend patron represents many common demon summoning/binding tropes (in the classic sense of summoning the demon to grant you power, not to fight on your behalf).
I really like the core classes and races as they are and don't feel the need for more character classes and options.
They're all very flexible.
All in all, I'm pretty happy with 5E.
Will I get expansion books and stuff... ? Well probably I suppose, if only for a good read (RPGs on the whole are dirt cheap when you compare the amount of hours of fun you get out of them for your $$s) , but I might not use additional stuff.
Action economy is one of those recent discussion topics of The Balance (/lightning /horse whinney). I would at least like to see representation for villain tropes. But I understand why they are keeping a tight grip on such things. Already people are squealing about Moon Druids, Necromancers and the like, so summoned creatures, genie pacts, and or spirit pacts will likely just be more oil on a grease fire.
I may be sad that they don't put out more settings, but I understand why they hold tightly to the product they do put out. Splat treadmill and the subsequent minigame of how to break it does the game no favors. Any new stuff I'd try to keep to UA playtesting and campaign optional material. Don't feed the Gaming Den as it were.
Quote from: Opaopajr;853227Already people are squealing about Moon Druids...
What's your take on the moon druid situation?
I'd hardly go with "already," Moon Druids were recognized as problematic quite some time ago. If they had about 80 less hit points per short rest, it'd help a little bit.
My Moon Druid just made 6th level. He was awesome at 2nd-3rd level (kept a slightly lower level party alive by killing everything almost alone and then healing the other party members who had dropped). But then at 5th level with comparable level characters, he didn't stand out. The CR1 beasts weren't really tough enough: typically fairly low AC and lower attack bonus than he got as himself -- many other characters got a lot tougher going from 4th level to 5th level than he did. But now he's 6th level and it's CR2 beasts, so life is good again.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;853255What's your take on the moon druid situation?
I am of the opinion that if that is the worst problem they have (which it was way too soon to tell a year ago, still a bit premature a year in) WotC got off easy, all else considered. I also think there are other contenders for "problematic" things. I am no fan of things like Sharpshooter ignoring cover, for example.
For AL for Season 1 you were restricted to the beasts in PHB Appendix, which really toned things down. Season 2 is/was such a crunch-fest it sort of didn't matter, as adventures were mainly geared for high tank/bloat and go nova builds and very narrow, almost railroads. Which is a pity as some cool social setting leverage came into the scene with Mulmaster (and which they are trying again with Hillsfar).
Over levels it begins to level off, especially around tier-ups, like lv 5 as Rawma was talking about. Sadly a lot of the cool recon, exploration ideas didn't really pan out too many opportunities last AL season (I sat out most of it because too much of it seemed silly). Then again, a lot of finesse stuff tends to be sidelined by any Organized Play (like PC illusionists unfortunately).
I think the real genius of the 5E PHB is how classes, class subtypes, feats and backgrounds work. They all link up totally seamlessly in play, they're sufficiently balanced to avoid a character build arms race, but most importantly between the number of classes, class subtypes, feats and backgrounds you can come up with an insanely diverse range of character types. Want your character to have mildly different skills than your standard member of that class? Pick a background. Want them to diverge from the norm in a somewhat more potent way than that? Pick a suitable feat. Want to make a whole swathe of changes that diverge from the classic conception of a class whilst still recognisably staying in the same class category? The class subtypes might have you covered. Can't get what you wanted out of a particular class? Take a look around, one of the other classes might do you better.
The great thing about this is how it not just offers a heap of choices, but also lets you come up with some great homebrew stuff without wrecking the game or having to spend ages about it. Backgrounds are trivially easy to homebrew and have a fairly low impact on the game. Feats are more substantial, but there's enough examples in the book to help you judge whether a new feat is a) even necessary and b) balanced against the existing feats. Subclass has an even bigger impact than feats, but the way the different subclasses are built is transparent enough that it isn't too much work to come up with new ones.
Conversely, cooking up a whole new class is a huge task, but at the same time it seems to me that it'd be very, very rare that you'd want to do it; you'd only need to go that far if you can't get to where you want with suitable homebrewed backgrounds, feats or subclasses. (For the same reason, I rarely see people multiclassing in 5E, because it's usually both easier and more sensible to take a single class and appropriate feats/backgrounds.)
On the whole, I think they've hit a fantastic balance between providing enough choice to make character creation feel like it has enough options whilst at the same time avoiding a 3.X-style character build arms race.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;853255What's your take on the moon druid situation?
Couple of months ago over on RPGG there was a one guy ranting on and on and on and on about how broken the moon druid was.
One of his examples? Strapping a keg of gunpowder to a moon druid in spider form to sneak in and blow up every enemy because they cant be killed by it. We dissected this six ways to Sunday and still this git wouldn't shut up.
Kefra plays a moon druid and so far her damage output in bear form is less than Jannets but better than mine in melee and about comprable to my (rarely used) eldritch blast. She would be about on par if she could ever spot a giant scorpion.
And that is the huge limiter on the moon druid or druid in general. Aint seen it? Cant be it. At level 9 she got access to nothing new as we have so far never come across any dinosaurs, giant scorps, or orcas.
Quote from: Omega;853472Couple of months ago over on RPGG there was a one guy ranting on and on and on and on about how broken the moon druid was.
One of his examples? Strapping a keg of gunpowder to a moon druid in spider form to sneak in and blow up every enemy because they cant be killed by it. We dissected this six ways to Sunday and still this git wouldn't shut up.
Yeah, git is all sorts of wrong it's not even worth dissecting. Very "received knowledge" complaint rather than an even basic reading of the rules and informed complaint. HP bloat can be a thing, but that sort of ill informed criticism doesn't help.
And yes, aside from damage spillover, "animals seen" is a strong limiter. Unless the AL FR campaign has Disney safari tours to Chult (druid circle discount! inquire within!), or the campaign equivalent, I put little stock into such complaints. Seeing the damage output of a party can be in a round, it didn't pass the faint test much then, still isn't my biggest concern now.
In my experience with the system so far, moon druids seem to have quite a power boost advantage from levels 2 to 4 or 5. After that, their power levels off quite smoothly and they are closer in line with the rest of the party.
The only other time when they might become problems again is level 20 with unlimited uses, but I haven't seen that in actual play.
A-lot of players seem to forget, or try to, that druids do not get access to flight capable forms until level 8.
The new Circle of the Hive (some alternate spells) and Circle of the Swarm (limited to insect forms. And access to ones not availible to regular shifters) druids are interesting though.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;853153Well there is the Gate spell, and to a lesser extent Conjure Celestial (which can be flipped to Conjure Fiend with minimum effort, not sure why that options isn't there already).
Also, the Warlock with a fiend patron represents many common demon summoning/binding tropes (in the classic sense of summoning the demon to grant you power, not to fight on your behalf).
Fair enough on the Warlock. But Gate is a 9th level spell, and Conjure Celestial is a Cleric spell. I want wizards summoning eldricht abominations out of Lovecraft and hellish nightmares out of a Medieval demonology grimoire.
Quote from: Opaopajr;853227Already people are squealing about Moon Druids, Necromancers and the like, so summoned creatures, genie pacts, and or spirit pacts will likely just be more oil on a grease fire.
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Arsonist_a8fe71_2258591.jpg)
Quote from: Warthur;853310Conversely, cooking up a whole new class is a huge task, but at the same time it seems to me that it'd be very, very rare that you'd want to do it; you'd only need to go that far if you can't get to where you want with suitable homebrewed backgrounds, feats or subclasses. (For the same reason, I rarely see people multiclassing in 5E, because it's usually both easier and more sensible to take a single class and appropriate feats/backgrounds.)
I haven't come up with anything I would want a new class for; but there seems to be room for expanded options within some classes (like more pacts for warlocks).
I have seen a lot of multiclassing of a modest sort; people treating one level (or occasionally several) of a complementary class as a sort of enhanced feat.
Quote from: rawma;853812I have seen a lot of multiclassing of a modest sort; people treating one level (or occasionally several) of a complementary class as a sort of enhanced feat.
I have only seen multi-classing at the very lowest levels of play. In the first campaign I started, it was open multi-classing. We were trying to get a sense of how everything worked and playing with all the bits & pieces as an experiment.
A couple players opted for multi-class options and now that the campaign is at 5th level, one player has switched characters to a single classed character of a different class and the other wants to retire the multi-classed character and bring in a new one.
In subsequent games, for flavor reasons, I decided that multi-classing could only be done with sufficient downtime. 250 days and 250 gp just like learning a tool or language. The players all had single classed characters when we entered a campaign break at 5th level. An entire year of game time passed and I was advancing everyone to level 7 for the next part of the campaign. There was sufficient downtime for anyone that wanted to take one or both of their 2 levels in a 2nd class.
Not a single player chose to multi-class. Some of the players were a bit disappointed at not being able to multi-class sooner, yet when they had the opportunity, still didn't take it. To me this reinforced my supposition that most multi-classing desires were short sighted and not well thought out.
So I was reading up on tropes for fantasy classes and this entry came up:
Quote from: allthetropesThe Gambler: The Gambler is a fairly rare variation more often seen in video games than in pen and paper settings. The Gambler is a rogue who has a set of magical powers that rely more on chance than usual. They may have to draw a card, spin a roulette, roll magical dice, or activate a magical slot machine to get a desired effect which may be positive or negative depending on their luck. Very likely to attack with playing cards in lieu of throwing knives.
This is actually something I wouldn't mind having in 5e. If it could be done non-magically then it would be an interesting counterpart to the wild sorcerer. I'll have to think about it.
Sounds rather like the Deadlands character type (Huckster?) — magicians who hide their foci and practices under gambling trappings, mostly playing cards.
Quote from: The Butcher;856571Sounds rather like the Deadlands character type (Huckster?) — magicians who hide their foci and practices under gambling trappings, mostly playing cards.
Yep, that would be the huckster, a magician who literally gambles with manitous (demons) for magical power. I played one in a Deadlands Reloaded game a few years ago, and it was one of the most fun characters I've ever had. There's nothing like dealing a hand of cards to see if your character is about to throw down a really nasty spell or suffer some truly awful backlash.
I think backgrounds are the real answer to letting 5e cover all kinds of stuff, rather than piling on new classes.
Quote from: RPGPundit;857413I think backgrounds are the real answer to letting 5e cover all kinds of stuff, rather than piling on new classes.
Please god not backgrounds as 2e "Kits"! Backgrounds are great for fleshing out the characters pre-adventuring history and how they got to where they are now.
The class paths work fine for adding new "classes" without actual class bloat.
Quote from: Omega;857417Please god not backgrounds as 2e "Kits"! Backgrounds are great for fleshing out the characters pre-adventuring history and how they got to where they are now.
The class paths work fine for adding new "classes" without actual class bloat.
I actually think backgrounds are an elegant solution to the problem that 2E kits were trying to solve (namely, helping to make different characters of the same class feel distinct). If you look back at the first wave of 2E "Complete" books - Fighter, Priest, Thief and Wizard - it actually turns out that a lot of the kits ended up overlapping between the books - you had your noble kit, your Amazon kit, your street rat kit, and so on and so forth.
The clever thing about 5E backgrounds is that they simultaneously are much more rigorously constructed when it comes to what they actually give you (so you don't get into the 2E thing where some kits are miles better than others) and they divorce kit from class, allowing you to get just as much variety as the old 2E kit system but with a tiny fraction of the page count.
In fact, I'd say that 5E backgrounds are so superior to 2E kits that I'm seriously considering offloading my 2E "Complete" series books - I tend not to use them for much other than the kits, and given the choice between running 2E with kits and nonweapon proficiencies in place and running 5E I'd tend to go for 5E simply because its backgrounds and skill system are, to my mind, better tools for the job.
Quote from: Warthur;857425I actually think backgrounds are an elegant solution to the problem that 2E kits were trying to solve (namely, helping to make different characters of the same class feel distinct). If you look back at the first wave of 2E "Complete" books - Fighter, Priest, Thief and Wizard - it actually turns out that a lot of the kits ended up overlapping between the books - you had your noble kit, your Amazon kit, your street rat kit, and so on and so forth.
The clever thing about 5E backgrounds is that they simultaneously are much more rigorously constructed when it comes to what they actually give you (so you don't get into the 2E thing where some kits are miles better than others) and they divorce kit from class, allowing you to get just as much variety as the old 2E kit system but with a tiny fraction of the page count.
In fact, I'd say that 5E backgrounds are so superior to 2E kits that I'm seriously considering offloading my 2E "Complete" series books - I tend not to use them for much other than the kits, and given the choice between running 2E with kits and nonweapon proficiencies in place and running 5E I'd tend to go for 5E simply because its backgrounds and skill system are, to my mind, better tools for the job.
I agree completely. Even better, much of the information in the background is geared around character personality and beliefs. The skills and special features are nice but don't add too much mechanical claptrap.
I always saw kits as caught between incomplete classes and base-class flavor.
The whole overlapping of them atop optional classes was just a clusterfuck. Peasant Hero or Myrmidon Fighters didn't really need Samurai Paladins or Amazon Rangers in the mix. (Forgive if there's some forgotten alignment clash in those latter, but you get the point.) Settings that needed new classes, like Maztica with its Knights and Weavers/Shapers, got instead halfway measure kits that ended up back editing so much it might as well have been a new optional class from scratch.
That said, they are great templates on where to go to fashion your own optional class interpretations, and for that I'll always keep my Complete books.
Backgrounds are great for tight setting flavor. But there really is no substitute for several of those "hard mechanic" (new ability/feat) "quasi-class" kit powers into strictly bonus NWPs and a "soft mechanic" (setting-based) power. There really is a big difference between a concept of "Criminal Contacts" and "Duelist" feat. And so many 2e kits are scattershot between that hard and soft mechanical spectrum.
Quote from: Omega;857417Please god not backgrounds as 2e "Kits"! Backgrounds are great for fleshing out the characters pre-adventuring history and how they got to where they are now.
The class paths work fine for adding new "classes" without actual class bloat.
I guess I should clarify a bit: my point is that you should strongly consider what really NEEDS to be a whole new class. Consider first whether the "new class" you're thinking of couldn't just be an existing class with a specific background.
If it's trickier than that, figure out if it can't just be an existing class with a new set of class options.
I think that if you look at that, there's really very few things that need to be a whole new full-blown class.
Class bloat has been a problem in D&D games for quite a long time. I think it's wise to try to limit that.
This discussion makes me think of that thread about the Monk from a while back, how some people wanted to make a kung fu fighter Bruce Lee type and couldn't.
Given that backgrounds are being looked at here (along with subclasses/feats/classes) what would be the best way to represent that? I don't think it would be a background since that just gives you some skills.
Quote from: rawma;853812I haven't come up with anything I would want a new class for; but there seems to be room for expanded options within some classes (like more pacts for warlocks).
I have seen a lot of multiclassing of a modest sort; people treating one level (or occasionally several) of a complementary class as a sort of enhanced feat.
1-3 level dip is the norm, because D&D always front loads classes.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;858185This discussion makes me think of that thread about the Monk from a while back, how some people wanted to make a kung fu fighter Bruce Lee type and couldn't.
Given that backgrounds are being looked at here (along with subclasses/feats/classes) what would be the best way to represent that? I don't think it would be a background since that just gives you some skills.
Still can't. Bruce Lee was not a 'Monk' in the over focused class, he was a Fighter, with a custom version the Tavern Brawler Feat, where instead of getting wrestling moves, his barehanded damage got hiked a die upwards at a certain level. Mr. Lee had a wide range of both open hand and weapon techniques that were never covered by any version of the 'Monk'. And is a prime example as to why the Monk is a bad class, simply because very few people actually read it, instead envision what they want out of it.
Bruce Lee should probably just be an NPC.
D&D fails to perfectly model specific pop culture reference as RAW PC, film at 11.
Quote from: The Butcher;858880D&D fails to perfectly model specific pop culture reference as RAW PC, film at 11.
We're not talking about modeling specifically, more like making a character LIKE in this case, Bruce Lee. The issue is that the class that people assume should doesn't even bother coming close to give a passing nod.
lol I was just reading a "character creation for beginners" thing here and it literally mentions Bruce Lee: http://imgur.com/gallery/Bhbem/new
As you can see it's the first thing everyone thinks of when they think of the Monk.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;858919We're not talking about modeling specifically, more like making a character LIKE in this case, Bruce Lee. The issue is that the class that people assume should doesn't even bother coming close to give a passing nod.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/42525015.jpg)
Seriously, though. It's a character class that kills dragons with bare-handed strikes. How much more Bruce Lee does it have to get?
Quote from: The Butcher;858943Seriously, though. It's a character class that kills dragons with bare-handed strikes. How much more Bruce Lee does it have to get?
Well, some survivability would be nice. Without having to rely on mobility, because it's the only class in the entire game that needs it, otherwise it gets mulched.
Unlike Bruce Lee who could stand toe to toe with foes bigger than he was.
Men, I've seen Monks do just fine in the game. Sure we were doing pre-made adventures but overall the player who used the monk said he felt like he was playing a Kung-Fu stylized warrior. Obviously YMMV.
Quote from: Batman;859051Men, I've seen Monks do just fine in the game. Sure we were doing pre-made adventures but overall the player who used the monk said he felt like he was playing a Kung-Fu stylized warrior. Obviously YMMV.
And every monk I've seen played has ended up dead, dead, dead. Simply because the players had no idea how they were meant to be played. As in, keep moving, or you will get mulched.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;859055And every monk I've seen played has ended up dead, dead, dead. Simply because the players had no idea how they were meant to be played. As in, keep moving, or you will get mulched.
Well, what if the DM just told them that's how to play it, is there a problem then.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;859055And every monk I've seen played has ended up dead, dead, dead. Simply because the players had no idea how they were meant to be played. As in, keep moving, or you will get mulched.
I'd say that a Monk is good with 1-on-1 and maybe 1-on-2 but any more and you're asking to take a dirt nap.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;859050Well, some survivability would be nice. Without having to rely on mobility, because it's the only class in the entire game that needs it, otherwise it gets mulched.
Unlike Bruce Lee who could stand toe to toe with foes bigger than he was.
Let's hear a little from the man himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqHSbMR_udo), huh?
Call me crazy, but I don't see Bruce Lee's style (or other martial arts style) as being particularly static - in fact, I'd say mobility is key to it. I don't see that it's a problem that a class is more useful in combat by staying mobile, any more than it's a problem for wizards to try to stay out of melee or a problem for fighters to make human shields of themselves. My 5E thief relies a lot on mobility and he does just fine in combat.
Quote from: Warthur;859076Let's hear a little from the man himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqHSbMR_udo), huh?
Call me crazy, but I don't see Bruce Lee's style (or other martial arts style) as being particularly static - in fact, I'd say mobility is key to it. I don't see that it's a problem that a class is more useful in combat by staying mobile, any more than it's a problem for wizards to try to stay out of melee or a problem for fighters to make human shields of themselves. My 5E thief relies a lot on mobility and he does just fine in combat.
...
Look. The issue with the Monk is that it's a high mobility class in a game system that punished mobility. That's my issue. And worse, the game doesn't tell players that it's a high mobility class either. Expecting them to think that they can go toe to toe with multiple foes, like some other classes.
We still talking 5E? My thief is crazy-mobile and I don't think the system is punishing him for it.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;859126...
Look. The issue with the Monk is that it's a high mobility class in a game system that punished mobility. That's my issue. And worse, the game doesn't tell players that it's a high mobility class either. Expecting them to think that they can go toe to toe with multiple foes, like some other classes.
Interesting. I played a Monk during playtest, and it was pretty obvious that was his schtick. And Unarmored MV bonus is right there on the class progression chart. I think you may have a point in that it doesn't explicitly make a bigger deal of that facet (and perhaps it should). Seeing as how you can break up movement, it would **seem** that mobility would be quite useful. But I can't see where you can hit, then disengage (which, I guess would make the class OP?). What would you suggest be done to improve the Monk's use of Mobility as the class' main feature? (curious--as I like the class a great deal).
Quote from: Warthur;859135We still talking 5E? My thief is crazy-mobile and I don't think the system is punishing him for it.
Because at second level you get Cunning Action, which gives you a Bonus Action to Dash, Disengage or Hide.
The Monk doesn't doesn't get that, so unless they nail their target in one hit, they have to waste an action Disengaging, or take an opportunity attack to the face. Which with their lower AC (and the odds of a campaign giving them a Bracer or Defense, is actually pretty low, if you roll for magic toys) means lot's of Ouchie, also due to their lower HD count.
So no, the game does not actually show that the Monk is a high mobility class, it's more of a positional killer, without the benefits.
Either way, it's just one class out of a, in my personal opinion, a complete class list. Nothing needs to be added for me.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;859153Because at second level you get Cunning Action, which gives you a Bonus Action to Dash, Disengage or Hide.
The Monk doesn't doesn't get that, so unless they nail their target in one hit, they have to waste an action Disengaging, or take an opportunity attack to the face. Which with their lower AC (and the odds of a campaign giving them a Bracer or Defense, is actually pretty low, if you roll for magic toys) means lot's of Ouchie, also due to their lower HD count.
So no, the game does not actually show that the Monk is a high mobility class, it's more of a positional killer, without the benefits.
Either way, it's just one class out of a, in my personal opinion, a complete class list. Nothing needs to be added for me.
How would you fix it? Since you are one of the people honing in on its flaws.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;859166How would you fix it? Since you are one of the people honing in on its flaws.
Assuming removing it is out of the question...
I'd give D10 HD to start. Allow it wear light armour, but keep the Wisdom based Unarmoured Defense ability (like the Barbarian), and rereading the class I have to revise my statement. They do have an ability to disengage for 'free' technically. It's Step of The Wind, something I must apologize to players and everyone hear, it costs a Chi point, but it's the same thing as Cunning Action, save for the Hide ability.
I wonder why no one caught it at my games. Then again, Flurry of Blows is the more obvious ability that people would want to use (rolling dice is cooler than saying, "I get out of reach." even if it turns out to be less useful.)
Still, I hold that it would need a D10 HP, allowed to wear light armour, at the very least.
Oh, and allow them to 'dual wield' their own fists/feet for free.
Some of the powers are also a bit... Well, not as useful as I'd like, to keep it on par with a damage dealer, like a Rogue. Will have to think on that.
But I would like to apologize for not seeing that it does have an inherent mobility ability, similar to the Rogue. Sorry for missing that.
IIRC Monk's first Ki abilities (2nd lvl) are:
1) bonus act and 1 ki to Dodge.
2) bonus act and 1 ki to flurry of blows.
3) bonus act and 1 ki to Dash and double long jump +DEX.
Given that Martial Arts from lvl 1 already grants 1 unarmed strike after a monk weapon (or unarmed) strike that's already two strikes and a getaway option. Monk Weapon (1d6+DEX) plus Unarmed (1d4+DEX) plus bonus act and +1 ki for Dodge. That's really good.
From my experience I routinely rate Dodge better than Disengage because it lasts until the start of your next turn. Only problem is it is limited by the number of ki points. But I am ok with that as bonus act Dodge or Flurry is strong.
If you really want to make a low level Martial Arts monk sing in melee I would take the Mobility feat. That "first target you attempt to attack cannot OA you this turn" is solid. Hit doesn't even have to land, just attempt to hit.
That said, range and cover is often better until you get more levels and HP. DEX and WIS are favored, to add CON for HP bloat really strains point buy into MAD territory. Monks do more combat status effect shenanigans later on, which is great in a group, and they really do better in exploration.
I think what people mean by "Bruce Lee" is more like your standard kung fu action movie where one martial artist wades into a crowd and starts beating a nonstop wave of minions left and right by tossing them around and into each other and so on.
That or a great 1 on 1 fighter I guess.
Quote from: Warthur;859076Let's hear a little from the man himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqHSbMR_udo), huh?
Call me crazy, but I don't see Bruce Lee's style (or other martial arts style) as being particularly static - in fact, I'd say mobility is key to it. I don't see that it's a problem that a class is more useful in combat by staying mobile, any more than it's a problem for wizards to try to stay out of melee or a problem for fighters to make human shields of themselves. My 5E thief relies a lot on mobility and he does just fine in combat.
In real life, you are correct about mobility. In Aikido, part of your Black Belt test is handling 5 attackers at once. The secret is to become the attacker, move to meet one of them, and pick them off one at a time. That way, you're only dealing with one of them at a time. ;) That's the biggest hurdle people face in that test, is moving into the attacker(s). That's actually one of the basics of Aikido--move into the attack.
Quote from: Tod13;859204In real life, you are correct about mobility. In Aikido, part of your Black Belt test is handling 5 attackers at once. The secret is to become the attacker, move to meet one of them, and pick them off one at a time. That way, you're only dealing with one of them at a time. ;) That's the biggest hurdle people face in that test, is moving into the attacker(s). That's actually one of the basics of Aikido--move into the attack.
In 5 vs 1 scenario using any style if you don't go on the offensive then you are pretty much done.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859176IIRC Monk's first Ki abilities (2nd lvl) are:
1) bonus act and 1 ki to Dodge.
2) bonus act and 1 ki to flurry of blows.
3) bonus act and 1 ki to Dash and double long jump +DEX.
Quite right.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859176Given that Martial Arts from lvl 1 already grants 1 unarmed strike after a monk weapon (or unarmed) strike that's already two strikes and a getaway option. Monk Weapon (1d6+DEX) plus Unarmed (1d4+DEX) plus bonus act and +1 ki for Dodge. That's really good.
The extra strike from the basic Martial Arts feature also requires a bonus action, so you have to choose between it and any of the ki point options.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859176From my experience I routinely rate Dodge better than Disengage because it lasts until the start of your next turn. Only problem is it is limited by the number of ki points. But I am ok with that as bonus act Dodge or Flurry is strong.
I agree. Dodge as a bonus action is great. What's more, if you are deprived mobility due to whatever circumstance (e.g. the path is blocked by opponents) then this feature lets the monk be harder to hit in place while still attacking. For the Bruce Lee simulationist folks this would seem like a plus. Ironic, no?
For anyone who's played 5e and has felt the sting of disadvantage, and yet doesn't see the value in Patient Defense (the proper name for the Monk bonus Dodge feature), I dunno. At that point I start to wonder not if they've actually played a Monk, rather if they've played the game at all. (n.b. hyperbole)
Quote from: Opaopajr;859176If you really want to make a low level Martial Arts monk sing in melee I would take the Mobility feat. That "first target you attempt to attack cannot OA you this turn" is solid. Hit doesn't even have to land, just attempt to hit.
I haven't see this is in play, but I like the cut of your jib.
As I've finally fully reread (I need several passes to actually get all the information, more than the average person) and I have to say that I still think that if you MUST have the monk in the game setting, they'd be best served with a D10 hit die. And I don't know what to do with the whole MAD issue, but it's a personal bugbear.
Other than that, I fully admit that my previous reading was incorrect.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;859442As I've finally fully reread (I need several passes to actually get all the information, more than the average person) and I have to say that I still think that if you MUST have the monk in the game setting, they'd be best served with a D10 hit die. And I don't know what to do with the whole MAD issue, but it's a personal bugbear.
Other than that, I fully admit that my previous reading was incorrect.
It's ok, there is a lot of stuff out there to remember and play with. Trying to GM it all was a bit of a learning curve, especially things like Sorcerer Metamagic or other technical details. Thanks for your reply here; we all dance with the devil of pride.
I actually can see the argument about d10 or subsuming the class mostly into the Fighter class as an archetype. But I think the big issue would be those who want the mystical Monk, like shadow or elements archetype. I really don't know if it could be all subsumed into the Fighter class.
But if the Wizard can have 8 archetypes within it, why not the Fighter? The question would be what to lose and where to consolidate. I think Martial Arts could be subsumed as a Fighting Style, as a start.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859452It's ok, there is a lot of stuff out there to remember and play with. Trying to GM it all was a bit of a learning curve, especially things like Sorcerer Metamagic or other technical details. Thanks for your reply here; we all dance with the devil of pride.
I actually can see the argument about d10 or subsuming the class mostly into the Fighter class as an archetype. But I think the big issue would be those who want the mystical Monk, like shadow or elements archetype. I really don't know if it could be all subsumed into the Fighter class.
But if the Wizard can have 8 archetypes within it, why not the Fighter? The question would be what to lose and where to consolidate. I think Martial Arts could be subsumed as a Fighting Style, as a start.
If I ever run a OA style game, I will make Martial Arts as a Fighting Style and keep the Monk for the more esoteric 'styles' (Cuz the Elemental one makes for a great Avatar: The Last Airbender ripoff.)
I'm also considering turning the 'Armoured Defense' stuff that both the Barbarian and Monk have, as a Feat, but you'd get to pic any non-Dex stat to choose from for your AC bonus. Maybe give a +1 to that particular stat as well, as long as it doesn't break 20.
Which goes back to this threads title, instead of making a whole new class, you can make tweaks, using the stuff that's already there or from a previous edition and boom, you more or less got what you may need.
It's an interesting exercise on class and archetype editing.
I mean, maybe there's a way to consolidate Ki pool and Battlemaster HD pool. It does mean the Monk 2nd lvl features will have to be consolidated elsewhere or otherwise dropped. But IIRC Battlemaster starts with a number of dice that seems close to the Monk's 3rd lvl Ki pool.
I don't think it should be too hard to cobble together a consolidation among us here if we tried.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;859442As I've finally fully reread (I need several passes to actually get all the information, more than the average person) and I have to say that I still think that if you MUST have the monk in the game setting, they'd be best served with a D10 hit die. And I don't know what to do with the whole MAD issue, but it's a personal bugbear.
Other than that, I fully admit that my previous reading was incorrect.
I'd be hard-pressed to argue against the d10 thing. I mean, it's been working fine for us with the d8, but I sure wouldn't see a d10 as egregious.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859452It's ok, there is a lot of stuff out there to remember and play with.
So true.
I sort of like starting a new game/edition with some ignorance about the classes. I just started playing in a 3rd 5e campaign (my time is now a bit over-committed, but I'm not going to look a game-gift-horse in the mouth, or something), and decided to try out a bard. Haven't looked at it beyond the 3rd level college stuff. I don't worry about "trap" classes or builds, because I rarely play a game where that sort of thing is an issue, and the discovery of the class through play rather than spreadsheet is so much fun. Ignorance can make for bliss in some cases.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859452But if the Wizard can have 8 archetypes within it, why not the Fighter? The question would be what to lose and where to consolidate. I think Martial Arts could be subsumed as a Fighting Style, as a start.
This something of a tangent, but I look at the Wizard and wonder how they ended up letting them be generalists with specialists benefits, which seems to encroach so much on the territory of the other casters. When a 2nd level evocation wizard gets something that is arguably better (opinions vary, of course) than the spell point fueled careful spell of the Sorcerer, and when the wizard gets spell back on one short rest as well, yadda yadda. It doesn't fundamentally bother me, but eyebrows do raise a bit.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;859517I'd be hard-pressed to argue against the d10 thing. I mean, it's been working fine for us with the d8, but I sure wouldn't see a d10 as egregious.
They just take a lot of damage, on a bad roll, or bad luck when they can't disengage safely. Similar to a Fighter, but the Fighter can soak it with both armour and HP. Front Line combat types SHOULD get a D10 in case they really need to stand toe to toe. Just my thing.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;859517This something of a tangent, but I look at the Wizard and wonder how they ended up letting them be generalists with specialists benefits, which seems to encroach so much on the territory of the other casters. When a 2nd level evocation wizard gets something that is arguably better (opinions vary, of course) than the spell point fueled careful spell of the Sorcerer, and when the wizard gets spell back on one short rest as well, yadda yadda. It doesn't fundamentally bother me, but eyebrows do raise a bit.
It's kinda literary accurate. I mean, in a lot of fantasy novels, the 'wizard' types are often named after their 'school'. Enchanters, Oracles (AKA Diviners), Witches (Abjurers/Transmuters) so on and so forth. The fact that Wizards are originally in D&D as generalists is literally opposite from Fantasy sources.
I'll be honest, I don't like the way wizards are written up like generalists with specialist benefits. There's never a reason not to take certain spells as you level (Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fireball due to lack of fog of war initiative, etc). Your school label is essentially irrelevant as you only get benefits, never restricted from anything like before with opposing schools.
Outside of scribing faster certain spells you mainly check the school features for synergy with planning your spell acquisition per level. It's very "what have you done for me lately" and chargen planning. And learning new spells on your own is not as important as it used to be with how generous you get spells per level.
There is quite a bit about magic that I do not like in this edition: infinite cantrips, not natively interruptable by physical combat, lenient material component rules, lenient somatic component rules, generous spellbook start, generous spells per level, fast early leveling frontloading massive spell list, generous writing of spells (i.e. Find Familiar, Find Steed), etc. White washing away much of the challenge of a school specialist just adds to the list.
But of all of WotC's editions, 5e is the least shitty in my opinion. Which is remarkable considering my lack of faith in them at the time. It's actually enjoyable and easy with which to tinker.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859536I'll be honest, I don't like the way wizards are written up like generalists with specialist benefits. There's never a reason not to take certain spells as you level (Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fireball due to lack of fog of war initiative, etc). Your school label is essentially irrelevant as you only get benefits, never restricted from anything like before with opposing schools.
Outside of scribing faster certain spells you mainly check the school features for synergy with planning your spell acquisition per level. It's very "what have you done for me lately" and chargen planning. And learning new spells on your own is not as important as it used to be with how generous you get spells per level.
There is quite a bit about magic that I do not like in this edition: infinite cantrips, not natively interruptable by physical combat, lenient material component rules, lenient somatic component rules, generous spellbook start, generous spells per level, fast early leveling frontloading massive spell list, generous writing of spells (i.e. Find Familiar, Find Steed), etc. White washing away much of the challenge of a school specialist just adds to the list.
But of all of WotC's editions, 5e is the least shitty in my opinion. Which is remarkable considering my lack of faith in them at the time. It's actually enjoyable and easy with which to tinker.
I'm with you. Despite my gripes with a few of the design points and default dial settings, I really like 5e, though.
It's amazing how much having individual fog-of-war "fixes" things in 5e for me. I haven't really found a solution to the infinite cantrip thing.
But enough thread jacking for me!
Quote from: Natty Bodak;859539I'm with you. Despite my gripes with a few of the design points and default dial settings, I really like 5e, though.
It's amazing how much having individual fog-of-war "fixes" things in 5e for me. I haven't really found a solution to the infinite cantrip thing.
But enough thread jacking for me!
No way! I want to know how you (and others) have implemented fof-of-war in 5e.
Quote from: The Butcher;859543No way! I want to know how you (and others) have implemented fof-of-war in 5e.
We basically use the Speed Factor option presented in the DMG, but without the, uh ... Speed factors.
The net of it:
Everybody declares their action.
Roll initiative and keep it to yourself and wait for your number to be called (usually calling out groups of five) - or if we are remote the gm just rolls for everyone online.
On your turn, use your bonus action and move action as you like, and either do your declared action or nothing.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
A couple of considerations for spellcasting. If you declare to cast a spell with a time of 1 action, then if you are damaged prior to your initiative you make a concentration check. If you fail your action is wasted but the slot is unused.
With the spells that last until the start/end of your next turn, you may find that casters can randomly get more or less time out of them. Since there doesn't seem to be much cheese to be done with this system when initiative is rerolled each round, we allow anyone who rolls higher on the next round to choose to stay with their old slower initiative if they want the full run time of the spell.
That's the gist of it. We may have to tweak as this group levels and we encounter things we didn't foresee, but it feel good to us.
I think Opa had a system as well, which is probably better thought it than ours.
Nope, it sounds like yours might be better thought out. I was talking about introducing old school spell interrupt from physical combat. But yours is the same with a spoonful of sugar (brilliant add about preserving the spell slot), so it'll make the medicine go down.
Not personally so hot on selecting last init over new, especially for spellcasters, but I chalk that up to extra frosting atop the medicine. Not what I'd want, but I can see how it'll sweeten the pitch. I feel people neglect Ready action as is, but it really is not that big a deal. As for squeezing extra magic juice out of something like Shield? I'm on the "tough titty" faction — for I am cruel and my viking horns are sharp.
Fun part of fog of war is when opponents engage in melee when you're still trying to take advantage of range AoEs. Fireball target is line of sight, first thing it hits. So getting in the way can bring the Fireball AoE dangerously closer. Fog of war screws with tactics big time. Good times, good times.
:Citation:
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can’t see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
(D&D 5e Basic, August 2014. p. 80.)
Best be sure to ignore Speed Factors! DEX needs nary an ounce more love! Gleefully remove its init benefit.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859554Nope, it sounds like yours might be better thought out. I was talking about introducing old school spell interrupt from physical combat. But yours is the same with a spoonful of sugar (brilliant add about preserving the spell slot), so it'll make the medicine go down.
Not personally so hot on selecting last init over new, especially for spellcasters, but I chalk that up to extra frosting atop the medicine. Not what I'd want, but I can see how it'll sweeten the pitch. I feel people neglect Ready action as is, but it really is not that big a deal. As for squeezing extra magic juice out of something like Shield? I'm on the "tough titty" faction — for I am cruel and my viking horns are sharp.
If you mess with the Opa you get the horns!
At one point we were all on the same page and on board for not having any initiative choice in the matter. If you went last in round 2, and then first in round 3, sure it means your "until the start of your next turn" spell is worth less, but hey, you get to go twice back to back, etc. Sometimes those spells will be worth more (offset by going later, relatively speaking) and sometimes they'll be worth less, and that was just how the cookie crumbled.
Then someone floated the idea of allowing the caster to choose the previous initiative if nobody acted between their last initiative and their next initiatve, and we agreed to give it a try. I was glad to see Delay go, and this sorta kinda brings it back. If I had my druthers I would ditch that part of it, and we very well may the next time we do a check point on how things are working. On the other hand, nothing super annoying has come from it, so then again maybe not.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859554Fun part of fog of war is when opponents engage in melee when you're still trying to take advantage of range AoEs. Fireball target is line of sight, first thing it hits. So getting in the way can bring the Fireball AoE dangerously closer. Fog of war screws with tactics big time. Good times, good times.
:Citation:
A Clear Path to the Target
To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover.
If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.
(D&D 5e Basic, August 2014. p. 80.)
Best be sure to ignore Speed Factors! DEX needs nary an ounce more love! Gleefully remove its init benefit.
We kept the Dex bonus for initiative checks, but didn't take a single adjustment offered in the Speed Factor options. Way too fiddly.
Was thinking of allowing any class that has the Two Weapon Fighting Style to be allowed to have normal (non-light) one handed weapon in his/her main hand, but a light in their off hand. Unless they take the Dual Wielder Feat, of course.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;859549The net of it:
Everybody declares their action.
Roll initiative and keep it to yourself and wait for your number to be called (usually calling out groups of five) - or if we are remote the gm just rolls for everyone online.
On your turn, use your bonus action and move action as you like, and either do your declared action or nothing.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
Declaring before initiative is always popular. Should get our group to do this.
How would you feel about rolling initiative, calling people to declare
inverse of intiative order (losers go first, winners go last
and get to act on losers' declarations) and then resolving in initiative order? Too complicated?
Quote from: The Butcher;859595How would you feel about rolling initiative, calling people to declare inverse of intiative order (losers go first, winners go last and get to act on losers' declarations) and then resolving in initiative order? Too complicated?
If you are using spell interruption that just means casters who roll low won't commit to a spell.
I would stick to declaration prior to initiative determination. No guts no glory.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;859613If you are using spell interruption that just means casters who roll low won't commit to a spell.
I would stick to declaration prior to initiative determination. No guts no glory.
I tend to agree.
Weird, I could have sworn someone else mentioned these issues earlier and was roundly lambasted that they weren't a problem. Hrm.
It's so weird to see the same people unwilling to concede there's a problem so we can consider fixes now cede the point and...consider fixes.
Quote from: Doom;859644Weird, I could have sworn someone else mentioned these issues earlier and was roundly lambasted that they weren't a problem. Hrm.
It doesn't surprise me that you feel that way. It seemed clear at the time that you couldn't separate criticism on certain points with agreement on others.
Quote from: Doom;859644Weird, I could have sworn someone else mentioned these issues earlier and was roundly lambasted that they weren't a problem. Hrm.
I was one of your few supporters on several points in that topic, and I stated that repeatedly and clearly several times there. I disagreed with some things yet agreed with others, yet instead you were so incensed you were lashing out at everyone indiscriminantly. But please persist on your grudge with your glossed over readings.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;859591Was thinking of allowing any class that has the Two Weapon Fighting Style to be allowed to have normal (non-light) one handed weapon in his/her main hand, but a light in their off hand. Unless they take the Dual Wielder Feat, of course.
Should be OK, as it mostly opens up 1d8 dmg weapons. As long as you keep an eye on Lances on Mounts (1d12 one-handed as long as on a mount) you should be fine. Just eye cautiously Halflings on Pterodons dual wielding lances and handaxe!
:p
Quote from: Natty Bodak;859645It doesn't surprise me that you feel that way. It seemed clear at the time that you couldn't separate criticism on certain points with agreement on others.
Actually, a trollpile showed up, and I decided it wasn't worth attempting the conversation. Perhaps a few accounts got hacked, or something.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859648I was one of your few supporters on several points in that topic, and I stated that repeatedly and clearly several times there. I disagreed with some things yet agreed with others, yet instead you were so incensed you were lashing out at everyone indiscriminantly. But please persist on your grudge with your glossed over readings.
I didn't realize I lashed out at you, apologies, and I'm sorry you feel the need to attack some more. I'll take the high road, again.
Quote from: Doom;859653Actually, a trollpile showed up, and I decided it wasn't worth attempting the conversation. Perhaps a few accounts got hacked, or something.
I respectfully decline your invitation to resurrect that bit. I'd appreciate the same amount of letting that dog lie I have afforded you.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859651Should be OK, as it mostly opens up 1d8 dmg weapons. As long as you keep an eye on Lances on Mounts (1d12 one-handed as long as on a mount) you should be fine. Just eye cautiously Halflings on Pterodons dual wielding lances and handaxe!
:p
Would assume some combinations wouldn't be allowed. After all, Dual Wielder in theory allows those types of shenanigans as well. And if the DM says no to Lance and Handaxe on Pterodon with Dual Wielder, then it wouldn't be as OK as my house rule.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;859666Would assume some combinations wouldn't be allowed. After all, Dual Wielder in theory allows those types of shenanigans as well. And if the DM says no to Lance and Handaxe on Pterodon with Dual Wielder, then it wouldn't be as OK as my house rule.
Actually with Dual Wielder you can use two lances on your mount! A human variant fighter with dual wield feat can start 1st lvl mounted and with two lances. Costs money, and many AL adventures are indoors or underground and in the muck, but it can be done. You get to strike twice with reach and then move away usually without OAs (depends on opponent's reach).
Good times, good times.
I personally think it's a typo errata as the lance is 6 lbs, like most heavy weapons. But for that Sir Didymus fan (
Labyrinth) who wants to ride a sheep dog into battle, there's the halfling, mastiff, and lance... Besides, I'd worry about the GM introducing trainable pterodon mounts more.
Quote from: Opaopajr;859814Actually with Dual Wielder you can use two lances on your mount! A human variant fighter with dual wield feat can start 1st lvl mounted and with two lances. Costs money, and many AL adventures are indoors or underground and in the muck, but it can be done. You get to strike twice with reach and then move away usually without OAs (depends on opponent's reach).
Good times, good times.
I personally think it's a typo errata as the lance is 6 lbs, like most heavy weapons. But for that Sir Didymus fan (Labyrinth) who wants to ride a sheep dog into battle, there's the halfling, mastiff, and lance... Besides, I'd worry about the GM introducing trainable pterodon mounts more.
If the GM introduces trainable pterodon mounts, then my house rule doesn't change the level of awesome in any major way. :D