View Full Version : Zman's 5e Tweaks
Disclaimer: I love 5e, but here are a couple of things that bother me and could use tweaking. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel or rewrite the game. These tweaks are meant to be easy to apply patches that enhance balance and gameplay and open up more options.
Love 5e, but wish it was a touch more balanced? Wish some things made a bit more sense? Wish some options were more viable or others less no brainers? Give Zman's 5e Tweaks a look.
Listed below will be three categories of changes, Add, Remove, or Change To. Everyone else will remain unchanged. Currently, this will only be for the PHB.
Dwarf
*No Changes
Elf
*No Changes
Halfling
*No Changes
Human
Add Skill Versatility: You gain proficiency in two skills of your choice.
Remove Variant Human
Dragonborn
Breath Weapon: Change "You can use your action to exhale..." To "You can use your bonus action to exhale..."
Add "Darkvision: Thanks to your Draconic blood, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60' of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light."
Gnome
*No Change
Half-Elf
Change to Inferior Darkvision: Thanks to your Elf blood, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 30' of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light.
Change to Skill Versatility: You gain proficiency in one skill of your choice.
Half-Orc
Change to Inferior Darkvision: Thanks to your Orc blood, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 30' of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light.
Tiefling
*No Change
Characters can learn a number of additional languages, subject to DM approval, equal to their Intelligence Modifier at game start and when their Intelligence modifier permanently increases. Alternatively, these languages can be learned throughout the course of the game with no penalty.
In addition, at game start a character learns a number of additional skills, chosen from their class list, equal to their Intelligence Modifier. Anytime a character's Intelligence modifier increases they learn learn a number of additional skills, these are not bound by their class list.
Each character starts the game with one Feat.
Alert
*No Change
You gain a +5 bonus to initiative.
You can’t be surprised while you are conscious.
Other creatures don’t gain advantage on attack rolls against you as a result of being hidden from you.
Athlete
*No Change
Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
When you are prone, standing up uses only 5 feet of your movement.
Climbing doesn’t halve your speed.
You can make a running long jump or a running high jump after moving only 5 feet on foot, rather than 10 feet.
Actor
*No Change
Increase your Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You have advantage on Charisma (Deception) and Charisma (Performance) checks when trying to pass yourself off as a different person.
You can mimic the speech of another person or the sounds made by other creatures. You must have heard the person speaking, or heard the creature make the sound, for at least 1 minute. A successful Wisdom (Insight) check contested by your Charisma (Deception) check allows a listener to determine that the effect is faked.
Charger
Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
When you use your action to Dash, you can use a bonus action to make one melee weapon attack or to shove a creature. If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line immediately before taking this bonus action, you either gain a +5 bonus to the attack’s damage roll (if you chose to make a melee attack and hit) or push the target up to 10 feet away from you (if you chose to shove and you succeed).
Crossbow Expert
Gain proficiency with all Crossbows.
You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
When you use the Attack action and attack with a one- handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.
Defensive Duelist
*No Change
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13 or higher
When you are wielding a finesse weapon with which you are proficient and another creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC for that attack, potentially causing the attack to miss you.
Dual Wielder
*No Change
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one- handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
Dungeon Delver
Gain proficiency with Thieve's Tools
You have advantage on Wisdom(Perception) and Intelligence(Investigation) checks made to detect the presence of secret doors.
You have advantage on saving throws made to avoid or resist traps.
You have resistance to the damage dealt by traps.
You can search for traps while traveling at a normal pace, instead of only at a slow pace.
Durable
Gain Advantage on Death Saving Throws.
Increase your Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution modifier (minimum of 2).
Elemental Adept
*No Change
Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell
When you gain this feat, choose one of the following damage types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. Spells you cast ignore resistance to damage of the chosen type. In addition, when you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals damage of that type, you can treat any 1 on a damage die as a 2. You can select this feat multiple times. Each time you do so, you must choose a different damage type.
Grappler
Increase your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Prerequisite: Strength 13 or higher
You have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling.
You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, you and the creature are both restrained until the grapple ends.
Creatures that are one size larger than you don’t automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple.
Great Weapon Master
On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.
Once per turn before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.
Healer
Increase your Wisdom score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Gain advantage on Wisdom(Medicine) checks.
When you use a healer’s kit to stabilize a dying crea- ture, that creature also regains 1 hit point.
As an action, you can spend one use of a healer’s kit to tend to a creature and restore 1d6 + 4 hit points to it, plus additional hit points equal to the creature’s max- imum number of Hit Dice. The creature can’t regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest.
Heavily Armored
*No Change
Prerequisite: Proficiency with medium armor
Increase your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You gain proficiency with heavy armor.
Heavy Armor Master
Prerequisite: Proficiency with heavy armor
Increase your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
When you wear heavy armor you can add 1 to your AC if you have a Dexterity of 12 or higher.
While you are wearing heavy armor, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage that you take from non magical weapons is reduced by 3.
Inspiring Leader
Increase your Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Prerequisite: Charisma 13 or higher
You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions, shoring up their resolve to fight. When you do so, choose up to six friendly creatures (which can include yourself) within 30 feet of you who can see or hear you and who can understand you. Each creature can gain temporary hit points equal to your level + your Charisma modifier. A creature can’t gain temporary hit points from this feat again until it has finished a short or long rest.
Keen Mind
Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You have advantage on Intelligence checks and Intelligence Saving Throws.
You always know which way is north.
You always know the number of hours left before the next sunrise or sunset.
You can accurately recall anything you have seen or heard within the past month.
Lightly Armored
*No Change
Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You gain proficiency with light armor.
Linguist
Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You learn three languages of your choice.
You can learn a new language by studying or being exposed to it for three days.
You can ably create written ciphers. Others can’t decipher a code you create unless you teach them, they succeed on an Intelligence check (DC equal to your Intelligence score + your proficiency bonus), or they use magic to decipher it.
Lucky
You have 1 luck point. Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and then choose whether the attack uses the attacker’s roll or yours. If more than one creature spends a luck point to influence the outcome of a roll, the points cancel each other out; no additional dice are rolled. You regain your expended luck point when you finish a short or long rest.
Mage Slayer
*No Change
When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.
When you damage a creature that is concentrating on a spell, that creature has disadvantage on the saving throw it makes to maintain its concentration.
You have advantage on saving throws against spells cast by creatures within 5 feet of you.
Magic Initiate
*No Change
Choose a class: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. You learn two cantrips of your choice from that class’s spell list.
In addition, choose one 1st-level spell from that same list. You learn that spell and can cast it at its lowest level. Once you cast it, you must finish a long rest before you can cast it again.
Your spellcasting ability for these spells depends on the class you chose: Charisma for bard, sorcerer, or warlock; Wisdom for cleric or druid: or Intelligence for wizard.
Martial Adept
You learn two maneuvers of your choice from among those available to the Battle Master archetype in the fighter class. If a maneuver you use requires your tar- get to make a saving throw to resist the maneuver’s effects, the saving throw DC equals 8 + your profi- ciency bonus + your Strength or Dexterity modifier (your choice).
If you already have superiority dice, you gain two more; otherwise, you have two superiority dice, which are a d6. This die is used to fuel your maneuvers. A superiority die is expended when you use it. You regain your expended superiority dice when you finish a short or long rest.
Medium Armor Master
Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Prerequisite: Proficiency with medium armor
Wearing medium armor doesn’t impose disadvantage on your Dexterity (Stealth) checks.
When you wear medium armor, you can add 3, rather than 2, to your AC if you have a Dexterity of 16 or higher.
Mobile
*No Change
Your speed increases by 10 feet.
When you use the Dash action, difficult terrain doesn’t cost you extra movement on that turn.
When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not.
Moderately Armored
*No Change
Prerequisite: Proficiency with light armor
Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You gain proficiency with medium armor and shields.
Mounted Combatant
*No Change
You have advantage on melee attack rolls against any unmounted creature that is smaller than your mount.
You can force an attack targeted at your mount to tar- get you instead.
If your mount is subjected to an effect that allows it to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.
Observant
*No Change
Increase your Intelligence or Wisdom score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
If you can see a creature’s mouth while it is speaking a language you understand, you can interpret what it’s saying by reading its lips.
You have a +5 bonus to your passive Wisdom (Perception) and passive Intelligence (Investigation) scores.
Polearm Master
*No Change
When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage.
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
Resilient
*No Change
Increase the chosen ability score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You gain proficiency in saving throws using the chosen ability.
Ritual Caster
*No Change
Prerequisite: Intelligence or Wisdom 13 or higher
You have learned a number of spells that you can cast as rituals. These spells are written in a ritual book, which you must have in hand while casting one of them.
When you choose this feat, you acquire a ritual book holding two 1st-level spells of your choice. Choose one of the following classes: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. You must choose your spells from that class’s spell list, and the spells you choose must have the ritual tag. The class you choose also determines your spellcasting ability for these spells: Charisma for bard, sorcerer, or warlock; Wisdom for cleric or druid; or Intelligence for wizard.
If you com e across a spell in written form, such as a magical spell scroll or a wizard’s spellbook, you might be able to add it to your ritual book. The spell must be on the spell list for the class you chose, the spell’s level can be no higher than half your level (rounded up), and it must have the ritual tag. The process of copying the spell into your ritual book takes 2 hours per level of the spell, and costs 50 gp per level. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it.
Savage Attacker
Increase your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Once per turn when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack, you can reroll the weapon’s damage dice and use either total.
Sentinel
When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn. When combined with a reach weapon, the creature may move 5' to enter melee range with you.
Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn’t have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.
Sharpshooter
Double the short range of your ranged weapon attacks.
Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and count three-quarters cover as half cover.
Once per turn before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.
Shield Master
*No Change
If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
If you aren’t incapacitated, you can add your shield’s AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you.
If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half dam- age, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect.
Skilled
Increase your Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You gain proficiency in any combination of three skills or tools of your choice.
Skulker
Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.
When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn't reveal your position.
Dim light doesn’t impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight.
Spell Sniper
When you cast a spell that requires you to make an attack roll, the spell’s range is doubled.
Your ranged spell attacks ignore half cover and count three-quarters cover as half cover.
You learn one cantrip that requires an attack roll. Choose the cantrip from the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard spell list. Your spellcasting ability for this cantrip depends on the spell list you chose from: Charisma for bard, sorcerer, or warlock; Wisdom for cleric or druid; or Intelligence for wizard.
Tavern Brawler
*No Change
Increase your Strength or Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You are proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes.
Your unarmed strike uses a d4 for damage.
When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or an improvised weapon on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target.
Tough
*No Change
Your hit point maximum increases by an amount equal to twice your level when you gain this feat. Whenever you gain a level thereafter, your hit point maximum increases by an additional 2 hit points.
Warcaster
*No Change
You have advantage on Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage.
You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
When a hostile creature’s movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reac- tion to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
Weapon Master
Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You gain proficiency with all Simple and Martial Weapons.
Close Quarters Archer
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls nor does a target benefit from cover for being engaged in melee.
When you make a ranged attack against a hostile creature within 5 feet of you, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not.
When you make a ranged attack against a hostile creature within 5 feet of you, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with a piece of ammunition or part of your ranged weapon. The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals piercing or bludgeoning damage.
Cunning Opportunist
When a creature that is within 5 feet of you attacks an an ally instead of you, you can use your Reaction to make an attack of opportunity on them. The attack must use a finesse or a light weapon.
Dueling Master
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you wield a one handed weapon or versatile weapon and no other weapons or a shield.
While you wield a one handed weapon or versatile weapon and no other weapons or a shield, you can use a bonus action to make an additional attack. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
Expertise
Increase your Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Pick one of your skill proficiencies. You roll an an additional die when rolling any ability check that uses the chosen proficiency taking the higher result. When you have Advantage, roll a third dice and take the highest, when you have disadvantage Expertise cancels Disadvantage in the same way Advantage does.
Fighting Style Expert
Increase your Dexterity or Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Gain one Fighting Style available to Fighters.
Intuitive Defense
Increase your Wisdom score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Gain Unarmored Defense: While you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier.
Light Armor Master
Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Increase the AC granted by light armors by 1.
Powerful Persona
Increase your Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Gain Unarmored Defense: While you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Charisma modifier.
Spell Savant
Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a Maximum of 20.
Gain an additional spell slot of the highest level available to you. If your highest level spell slot increases your Spell Savant spell slot increases to match your new highest level spell slot. This spell slot cannot be 6th level or higher. Once you cast it, you must finish a long rest before you can cast it again.
Spellslinger
Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a Maximum of 20.
Add your Spellcasting modifier to the damage roll of any spell you cast.
Tactician
Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Gain Unarmored Defense: While you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Intelligence modifier.
Thrown Weapon Expert
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your thrown weapon attack rolls.
Your thrown weapon attacks ignore half cover and treat three-quarters cover as half cover.
You can draw weapons with the thrown property as a free action and can make as many attacks in a round as you have attacks and weapons available.
As a bonus action you may draw and throw a light thrown weapon so long as you have at least one free hand.
Unarmored Fighter
Increase your Dexterity Score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
While Unarmored your AC is equal to 13 + your Dexterity Modifier.
???Volatile Spellcaster
When you cast a spell that deals damage you can choose to increase the size of the damage die one step(d4>d6>d8>d10>d12>2d8). This increased damage die only affect the spell on the round it is cast, any damage caused by a volatile spell on subsequent rounds is unaffected. Upon choosing to cast a volatile spell that is not a cantrip, roll a d20, on a roll of a 1 gain one level of exhaustion, on a roll of a 20 cast the spell at its next highest level.
Classes
Path of the Berserker
Frenzy
Add "While in a Frenzy, every attack is a Reckless Attack."
Remove "When your rage ends, you suffer one level of exhaustion(as described in appendix A).
Path of the Totem Warrior
Totem Spirit
Bear: Change "While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage." To "While raging, you have resistance to all damage except Radiant, Necrotic, and psychic damage."
Expertise
Change " Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of the chosen proficiencies." to "You roll an an additional die when rolling any ability check that uses either of the chosen proficiencies taking the higher result. When you have Advantage, roll a third dice and take the highest, when you have disadvantage Expertise cancels Disadvantage in the same way Advantage does.
*No Change
Wild Shape
Add "You must return to your natural form before transforming into another form unless you are expending a use of Wild Shape to maintain your form. You cannot revert to your natural form and take another form within the same turn, you must wait until your next turn to assume a new shape."
Add "You may transform into another form without expending a use of Wild Shape, doing so increases your exhaustion level by 1 unless you pass a DC5 Constitution Saving throw. Each time you transform without expending a use of Wild Shape before taking a long rest the Save DC increases by 5."
ArchDruid
Change to "At 20th level you can use your Wild Shape an unlimited number of times to transform into any beast that has a challenge rating of 2 or lower.
Circle of the Moon
Combat Wild Shape: Add "Additionally, while you are transferred by Wild Shape, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to your first melee damage roll per turn and to your AC, up to a maximum of AC 20."
Circle Forms: Change to "The rites of your circle grant you the ability to transform into more dangerous animal forms. Starting at 2nd level, you can transform into a beast with a challenge rating as high as 1/2(you ignore the Max CR column of the Beast Shapes table, but must abide by the other limitations there).
Starting at 4th level, you can transform into a beast with a challenge rating as high as your Druid level divided by 4, rounded down.
Starting at 10th level, you can transform into a Beast with a challenge rating as high as your Druid level divided by 3, rounded down.
Fighting Style
Archery: Change to "You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls and a +1 to Weapon Damage rolls you make with ranged or thrown weapons."
Dueling: Change To "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or a versatile weapon in two hands, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
Great Weapon Fighting: Change to "When you roll a weapon die for an attack with a melee weapon you are using in two hands, you can can reroll the die and must use the new roll. The weapon must have the versatile or two handed property for you to gain this benefit."
Lvl 10: Add "Ability Score Improvement"
Way of the Four Elements
Breath of Winter: Change to "...4 ki points..."
Clench of the North Wind: Change to "...2 ki points..."
Eternal Mountain Defense: Change to "...3 ki points..."
Fangs of the Fire Snake: Change to "... and if you spend 1 ki point when the attack hits, it also deals an extra 2d10 fire damage."
Fist of Four Thunders: Change to "...1 ki point..."
Fist of Unbroken Air: Change to "...1 ki point..."
Flames of the Phoenix: Change to "...3 ki points..."
Gong of the Summit: Change to "...2 ki points..."
Mist Stance: Change to "...3 ki points..."
Ride the Wind: Change to "...3 ki points..."
River of Hungry Flame: Change to "...4 ki points..."
Rush of the Gale Spirits: Change to "...1 ki point..."
Shape of the Flowing River: *No Change
Sweeping Cinder Strike: Change to "...1 ki point..."
Water Whip: Change "action" to "bonus action"
Wall of Rolling Earth: Change to "...5 ki points..."
Fighting Style
Dueling: Change To "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or a versatile weapon in two hands, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
Great Weapon Fighting: Change to "When you roll a weapon die for an attack with a melee weapon you are using in two hands, you can can reroll the die and must use the new roll. The weapon must have the versatile or two handed property for you to gain this benefit."
Divine Smite
Change to "Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot, derived from your paladin levels, to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 6d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend."
Fighting Style
Archery: Change to "You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls and a +1 to Weapon Damage rolls you make with ranged or thrown weapons."
Dueling: Change To "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or a versatile weapon in two hands, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
Foe Slayer
Change "Once on each of your turns, you can add..." to "You can add..."
Beast Master
Animal Companion: Change " You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action." to "You can use your bonus action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action."
Exceptional Training: Change to "Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn’t attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action on its turn."
Expertise
Change " Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of the chosen proficiencies." to "You roll an an additional die when rolling any ability check that uses either of the chosen proficiencies taking the higher result. When you have Advantage roll a third dice and take the highest, when you have disadvantage Expertise cancels Disadvantage in the same way Advantage does."
Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher
Add "In addition to the number of spells listed in the Spells Known column of the Sorcerer's table you know additional spells equal to your Cha Modifier."
Font of Magic
Sorcery Points: Change "Regain all of your sorcery points when you finish a long rest." To "Regain 2 expended sorcery points whenever you finish a short rest."
Sorcerous Restoration: Change to "At 20th level, you regain 4 additional expended sorcery points whenever you finish a short rest."
Wild Magic
Wild Magic Surge: Replace with "Starting when you choose this origin at 1st level, your Spellcasting ability can unleash surges of untamed magic. Once per turn, roll a d20 immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st or higher. If you roll a 20, the spell slot is not expended. If you roll a 1, roll on the Wild Magic Surge table to create a magical effect. If that effect is a spell it is too wild to be affected by your Metamagic, and if it normally requires concentration, it doesn't require concentration in this case, the spell lasts for its full duration."
Path of the Chain
Add "Add your proficiency bonus to the familiar's AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saves or skills it is proficient in. It's hit point maximum equals the hit point number in its stat block or four times your Warlock level, whichever is higher."
Change "Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its reaction." To "Additionally, as a bonus action, you can instruct your familiar to make one attack with its reaction."
Path of the Blade
Add "Gain proficiency in Medium Armor. Your hit point maximum increases by 1 and increases by 1 again whenever you gain a level in this class."
Pact of the Tome
Add "In addition to adding the spells on your Patron's expanded spell list to the Warlock spell list treat them as additional spells known for you."
Eldritch Invocations
Agonizing Blast: Change to "When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit. Apply this bonus damage only once per target. When you reach 11th level in Warlock you may apply this bonus damage up to twice per target."
Repelling Blast: Change to "When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line. Apply this effect only once per target."
*No Change
Spells
*This seems like quite a project and IMO only the most broken spells need to be addressed. I'm inclined to leave this be.
Thoughts?
House Rules/Varient Rules
Add "Upon reaching 11th level, if your have the Extra Attack class feature you may make two attacks with your bonus action when attacking with a different light weapon in your other hand.
Dropping to 0 Hit Points
Add "Regaining Hit Points: When a character that has been dropped to 0 Hit Points and regains hit points that character gains 1 level of exhaustion."
Add "Breather: A Breather is a period of brief respite between encounters so long as the character is not in imminent danger. A character can spend one Hit Dice. A character cannot benefit from another Breather until they've finished a Short or Long Rest."
Short Rest: Change to "A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 5 minutes long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds and is not in immediate danger."
Long Rest: Remove "At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points."
Flanking: Change grants Advantage to a +1 Bonus o hit for each ally flanking the enemy to a maximum of +5.
Threatened Space: Moving through a threatened space costs double movement. You may choose to move through threatened space without doubling the movement cost, doing so provokes an Attack of Opportunity.
Ranged Attacks into Close Combat: A creature engaged in melee is granted half cover against ranged attacks.
Point Buy: 42 Points
6:0
7:1
8:2
9:3
10:4
11:5
12:6
13:7
14:9
15:11
16:14
It is essentially a PHB Pointbuy of 30, but adjusted to start at 6, and offer a 16 option.
Change Log
3-21-16 Added
Dragonborn
Breath Weapon: Change "You can use your action to exhale..." To "You can use your bonus action to exhale..."
3-22-16 Added
DragonBorn
Add "Darkvision: Thanks to your Draconic blood, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60' of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light."
3-22-16 Changed to
Paladin
Divine Smite "...to a maximum of 5d8."
3-22-16 Added
Ranger
Exceptional Training: Change to "Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn’t attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action on its turn."
3-22-16 Removed
Skills
Removed the automatic skills from Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Sorcerer, Wizard, etc
3-23-16 Added
Warlock
Path of the Chain
Add "Add your proficiency bonus to the familiar's AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saves or skills it is proficient in. It's hit point maximum equals the hit point number in its stat block or four times your Warlock level, whichever is higher."
Change "Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its reaction." To "Additionally, as a bonus action, you can instruct your familiar to make one attack with its reaction."
Path of the Blade
Add "Gain proficiency in Medium Armor. Your hit point maximum increases by 1 and increases by 1 again whenever you gain a level in this class."
Pact of the Tome
Add "Gain an additional spell slot."
3-23-16 Added
Sorcerer
Wild Magic
Wild Magic Surge: Replace with "Starting when you choose this origin at 1st level, your Spellcasting ability can unleash surges of untamed magic. Once per turn, roll a d20 immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st or higher. If you roll a 20, the spell slot is not expended. If you roll a 1, roll on the Wild Magic Surge table to create a magical effect. If that effect is a spell it is too wild to be affected by your Metamagic, and if it normally requires concentration, it doesn't require concentration in this case, the spell lasts for its full duration. Alternatively, you can choose to roll on the Wild Magic Surge table and the level of the spell just cast increases by a d4 to a maximum of 9th level."
3-24-16 Changed To
Sorcerer
Wild Magic Surge: Replace with "Starting when you choose this origin at 1st level, your Spellcasting ability can unleash surges of untamed magic. Once per turn, roll a d20 immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st or higher. If you roll a 20, the spell slot is not expended. If you roll a 1, roll on the Wild Magic Surge table to create a magical effect. If that effect is a spell it is too wild to be affected by your Metamagic, and if it normally requires concentration, it doesn't require concentration in this case, the spell lasts for its full duration."
3-24-16 Added
New Feats
Dueling Master
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you wield a one handed weapon or versatile weapon and no other weapons or a shield.
While you wield a one handed weapon or versatile weapon and no other weapons or a shield, you can use a bonus action to make an additional attack. You don't add your add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
3-24-16 Changed
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
Dueling: Change To "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or a versatile weapon in two hands, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
4-8-16 Changed to
Warlock
Pact of the Tome
Add "In addition to adding the spells on your Patron's expanded spell list to the Warlock spell list treat them as additional spells known for you."
4-8-16 Changed to
Warlock
Eldritch Invocations
Agonizing Blast: Change to "When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit. Apply this bonus damage only once per target. When you reach 11th level in Warlock you may apply this bonus damage up to twice per target."
4-8-16 Added
Sorcerer
Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher
Add "In addition to the number of spells listed in the Spells Known column of the Sorcerer's table you know additional spells equal to your Cha Modifier."
4-8-16 Added
Druid
ArchDruid
Change to "At 20th level you can use your Wild Shape an unlimited number of times to transform into any beast that has a challenge rating of 2 or lower.
Circle of the Moon
Combat Wild Shape: Add "Additionally, while you are transferred by Wild Shape, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to your first melee damage roll per turn and to your AC, up to a maximum of AC 20."
Circle Forms: Change to "The rites of your circle grant you the ability to transform into more dangerous animal forms. Starting at 2nd level, you can transform into a beast with a challenge rating as high as 1/2(you ignore the Max CR column of the Beast Shapes table, but must abide by the other limitations there).
Starting at 4th level, you can transform into a beast with a challenge rating as high as your Druid level divided by 4, rounded down.
Starting at 10th level, you can transform into a Beast with a challenge rating as high as your Druid level divided by 3, rounded down.
4-20-16 Added
House Rules/Varient Rules
Add "Upon reaching 11th level, if your have the Extra Attack class feature you may make two attacks with your bonus action when attacking with a different light weapon in your other hand.
Dropping to 0 Hit Points
Add "Regaining Hit Points: When a character that has been dropped to 0 Hit Points and regains hit points that character gains 1 level of exhaustion."
Add "Breather: A Breather is a period of brief downtime, at least 30 seconds long. A character can spend one Hit Dice. A character cannot benefit from another Breather until they've finished a Short or Long Rest."
Short Rest: *No Change
Long Rest: Remove "At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points."
Flanking: Change grants Advantage to a +1 Bonus o hit for each ally flanking the enemy to a maximum of +5.
Threatened Space: Moving through a threatened space costs double movement.
Ranged Attacks into Close Combat: A creature engaged in melee is granted half cover against ranged attacks.
4-30-16 Changed to
Fighter and Paladin
Great Weapon Fighting: Change to "When you roll a weapon die for an attack with a melee weapon you are using in two hands, you can can reroll the die and must use the new roll. The weapon must have the versatile or two handed property for you to gain this benefit."
4-30-16 Added New Feat
Fighting Style Expert
Increase your Dexterity or Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Gain one Fighting Style available to Fighters.
7-5-16 Changed to
Languages/Intelligence
Characters can learn a number of additional languages, subject to DM approval, equal to their Intelligence Modifier at game start and when their Intelligence modifier permanently increases. Alternatively, these languages can be learned throughout the course of the game with no penalty.
In addition, at game start a character learns a number of additional skills, chosen from their class list, equal to their Intelligence Modifier. Anytime a character's Intelligence modifier increases they learn learn a number of additional skills, these are not bound by their class list.
7-9-16 Change to
Sharpshooter
Change "Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover." To "Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and count three-quarters cover as half cover."
Change "Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls." to "Double the short range of your ranged weapon attacks."
Change "Before you make an attack..." To "Once per turn before you make an attack..."
7-11-16 Change to
Druid
Wild Shape
Add "You must return to your natural form before transforming into another form unless you are expending a use of Wild Shape to maintain your form. You cannot revert to your natural form and take another form within the same turn, you must wait until your next turn to assume a new shape."
Add "You may transform into another form without expensing a use of Wild Shape, doing so increases your exhaustion level by 1 unless you pass a DC5 Constitution Saving through. Each time you transform without expending a use of Wild Shape before taking a long rest the Save DC increases by 5."
7-12-16 Change to
Dropping to 0 Hit Points
Add "Regaining Hit Points: When a character that has been dropped to 0 Hit Points and regains hit points that character gains 1 level of exhaustion."
Add "Breather: A Breather is a period of brief respite between encounters so long as the character is not in imminent danger. A character can spend one Hit Dice. A character cannot benefit from another Breather until they've finished a Short or Long Rest."
Short Rest: Change to "A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 5 minutes long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds and is not in immediate danger."
Long Rest: Remove "At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points."
7-12-16 Added
Point Buy: 42 Points
6:0
7:1
8:2
9:3
10:4
11:5
12:6
13:7
14:9
15:11
16:14
It is essentially a PHB Pointbuy of 30, but adjusted to start at 6, and offer a 16 option.
7-12-16 Added to Bard/Rogue
Expertise
Change " Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of the chosen proficiencies." to "You roll an an additional die when rolling any ability check that uses either of the chosen proficiencies taking the higher result. When you have Advantage roll a third dice and take the highest, when you have disadvantage Expertise cancels Disadvantage in the same way Advantage does.
7-13-16 New Feats
Added Cunning Opportunist
When a creature that is within 5 feet of you attacks an an ally instead of you, you can use your Reaction to make an attack of opportunity on them. The attack must use a finesse or a light weapon.
Added Powerful Persona
Increase your Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Gain Unarmored Defense: While you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Charisma modifier.
Added Tactician
Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Gain Unarmored Defense: While you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Intelligence modifier.
Changed Unarmored Fighter
Increase your Dexterity Score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
While Unarmored your AC is equal to 13 + your Dexterity Modifier.
Removed Unarmored Master
Increase your Dexterity Score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
While Unarmored you gain a +1 bonus to your AC.
7-12-16 Change to
Paladin
Divine Smite
Change to "Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot, derived from your paladin levels, to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 6d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend."
7-13-16 New Feats
Added Intuitive Defense
Increase your Wisdom score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Gain Unarmored Defense: While you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier.
7-15-16 Add
Sorcerer
Font of Magic
Sorcery Points
Change "Regain all of your sorcery points when you finish a long rest." To Regain spent sorcery points equal to half of your sorcery points as shown in The Sorcerey Points Column of the Sorcerer Table, rounded down, when you finish a short rest and all your spent sorcery points when you finish a long rest."
7-15-16 Change to
Classes
Path of the Berserker
Frenzy
Add "While in a Frenzy, every attack is a Reckless Attack."
Remove "When your rage ends, you suffer one level of exhaustion(as described in appendix A).
Path of the Totem Warrior
Totem Spirit
Bear: Change "While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage." To "While raging, you have resistance to all damage except Radiant, Necrotic, and psychic damage."
Grod_The_Giant
2016-03-21, 03:40 PM
Generally I like. Specific suggestions:
I like the throwing weapon feat.
I'd make Barbarians' auto-skill Athletics; all Barbarians are strong but they don't necessarily have to be hunter/gatherers.
Since you're giving just about everyone an auto-skill (which I like; there are some skill taxes), Bards should get Performance.
For the Beastmaster, do you not get a 7th level feature anymore, as Exceptional Training was folded into the base ability?
Paladins should probably get Religion as an auto-skill as well.
Rogue should probably get Acrobatics or Stealth as an auto-skill.
Warlocks could use Arcana as an auto skill. And while I like the clarification on Agonizing Blast, I don't like that it's still basically an Invocation tax. I'm really tempted to just give them EB and AB for free instead of making players waste very limited choices for their class' main schtick.
EDIT: Weapon Master could still probably stand to grant a +1 Str or Dex.
Generally I like. Specific suggestions:
I like the throwing weapon feat. Thank you, I felt it filled a niche and was definitely a choice many characters could consider.
I'd make Barbarians' auto-skill Athletics; all Barbarians are strong but they don't necessarily have to be hunter/gatherers. Very good point, Auto Skills were a recent thought and I've been mulling them over. I agree.
Since you're giving just about everyone an auto-skill (which I like; there are some skill taxes), Bards should get Performance.And how I didn't think to give them Performance, haha, I was stuck mulling over giving them Arcana.
For the Beastmaster, do you not get a 7th level feature anymore, as Exceptional Training was folded into the base ability?Thanks for pointing this one out, can't believe I forgot about the 7th level ability. I will think of something, I was considering just giving it to them with no associated action cost. Thoughts?
Paladins should probably get Religion as an auto-skill as well.I was considering this as well, but are all Paladins necessarily religious? Even Paladins for a "cause" or Palainds of nature etc?
Rogue should probably get Acrobatics or Stealth as an auto-skill.I was considering this as well.
Warlocks could use Arcana as an auto skill. And while I like the clarification on Agonizing Blast, I don't like that it's still basically an Invocation tax. I'm really tempted to just give them EB and AB for free instead of making players waste very limited choices for their class' main schtick.Not sure if Agonizing Blast should be automatic, for Evocation Wizards it is a required subclass, or it is for specific elements for Dragon Sorcerers. EB as granulated force damage already is the best attack cantrip in the game. An invocation to make it better seems fair though I see your point.
EDIT: Weapon Master could still probably stand to grant a +1 Str or Dex.Doesn't it already grant a +1 Str or Dex? My copy says it does. I could clarify that portion wasn't removed.
I appreciate the feedback Grod.
Rakoa
2016-03-21, 04:31 PM
After a quick skim, I can confirm I like most of these changes. My biggest question is....what is an "ass" crossbow? :smalltongue:
Talamare
2016-03-21, 04:34 PM
Posting early to be able to edit later!
How about giving Elves back their Low Light vision from 3.5?
Why do they even have Dark Vision, they don't live underground
Quintessence
2016-03-21, 05:14 PM
Did a half-elf kick you in the shin and steal your lunch money or something?
After a quick skim, I can confirm I like most of these changes. My biggest question is....what is an "ass" crossbow? :smalltongue:
Haha, glad you like them. And an "ass" crossbow is what happens when I have comical fails while typing on a tablet!
Posting early to be able to edit later!
How about giving Elves back their Low Light vision from 3.5?
Why do they even have Dark Vision, they don't live underground
I considered it, I really did and it is one thing that I'm still thinking about.
Did a half-elf kick you in the shin and steal your lunch money or something?
Well, they happen to be my favorite race and are the only race that gets +2 to a stat and +1 to two different stats of their choice. The Skill Proficiencies and Darkvision changes are to make them true hybrids of Elf and Human. I don't see the changes and hugely negative and balanced.
Lalliman
2016-03-21, 05:22 PM
I fundamentally disagree with auto-skills, because they discourage refluffing and creative character concepts. It's essentially saying "I can't imagine X so it should be illegal." Okay, cleric, druid and wizard are hard to argue against, but I find it easy to imagine a barbarian without survival, or a monk without stealth, or a sorcerer without arcana (their magic is innate, they don't need to understand it).
Other than that it looks great though. There's a few things in there that I didn't think were considered underoverpowered (Divine Smite?), but overall it does a good job at making the strong weaker and the weak stronger. What's up with Unarmored Fighter and Unarmored Master though? Doesn't one of the two suffice?
Also, under thrown weapon expert, you wrote "the thrown peppery". :smallbiggrin:
I fundamentally disagree with auto-skills, because they discourage refluffing and creative character concepts. It's essentially saying "I can't imagine X so it should be illegal." Okay, cleric, druid and wizard are hard to argue against, but I find it easy to imagine a barbarian without survival, or a monk without stealth, or a sorcerer without arcana (their magic is innate, they don't need to understand it).
Other than that it looks great though. There's a few things in there that I didn't think were considered underpowered (Divine Smite?), but overall it does a good job at making the strong weaker and the weak stronger. What's up with Unarmored Fighter and Unarmored Master though? Doesn't one of the two suffice?
Also, under thrown weapon expert, you wrote "the thrown peppery". :smallbiggrin:
This is the same argument I had withmyself actually, autoskills in my rough draft were only Religioun for Cleric, Nature for Druid, and Arcana for Wizard. Then it grey as I felt if I was giving free skills that it should lean towards each one. I'm tempted to revert back to just Cleric, Druid, and Wizard and since it was mentioned and I missed it, Performance for Bard.
Fixed the Tablet Typo, haha.
And Divine smite leads Paladins to throwing out tons of extra damage. And to be fair, Paladins are super solid even if their smites are 1d8 less, plus it makes the smite spells far more viable of an alternative, before they were just overshaded by standard smiting. I'm glad you feel it does a good job with those relatively small balance issues, that was what I was going for. A simple patch that does the job.
Edit: Forgot about the two Unarmored Fighter Feats. The first is for characters that want to competently fight without armor and do not have access to Unarmored Defense from Monk or Barb, Mage Armor, or Draconic Resilience. It purely allows them to fulfill the concept, nobody wants to be running around at 10+Dex, haha. Could also be used for a character that fears being outside of their armor and had an odd Dex. The second is for the character that would want to expand upon that character or one of the other forms of going unarmored. I could have rolled them into one with a Feat that granted +1 Dex, and grants +1 to AC while unarmored or sets armor to 12+Dex whichever is higher. Either way would have worked.
Corran
2016-03-21, 05:59 PM
Hmmm, I would expect to see some changes in dragonborn (especially n their breath weapon), as it always striked me as an underpowered race.
I am also not sure about reducing smite by 1d8, but since you did it, why didnt you let it cap at 5d8 which is more in accordance to the paladin's spell levels?
I was also kind of expected some tweak in dual wielder, as I find it on the very weak side of the ''weapon feats''.
And I dont agree with the change in the feat weapon master, as this feat may only become useful (and that's debatable) if we ever get to see any exotic weapons, that will be superior to whatever weapons we already have.
I agree that with the free feat the variant human is a very common choice (perhaps that was intentional), but I think that even a slightly improved version of the normal human will render this race a very uncommon choice.
on reading with the rest of the tweaks....
Icewraith
2016-03-21, 06:40 PM
I don't think the damage reduction on divine smite is at all good. Remember, Paladins are spending a spell slot, as a long rest half caster, to activate that thing, and it's only getting them +2d8 on a weapon attack or +4d8 if they save it for a crit. It doesn't have a rider effect so it needs to be better on a per spell slot basis than the smite line of spells. As you've written it (1d8), you're spending a precious long rest spell slot gained at second level for slightly more average bonus damage than a 1st level rogue's one per turn no resource cost 1d6 sneak attack.
It's just not worth that cost.
JellyPooga
2016-03-21, 06:49 PM
On the subject of auto-skills; I don't like the idea:
- For one; the Rogue gets a little hosed. He barely stands out as a skill-monkey as it is and all those "X, plus choose 2" Classes are encroaching, let alone the Ranger and Monk who also both get four proficiencies under these tweaks. If you want to keep the bonus skills for everyone else, the Rogue needs some compensation.
- Second; as pointed out by an earlier post, it restricts character concepts. Why does my Druid have to have Nature? Can he not be an Urban Druid, growing up in the slums, chillin' with the dire rats in the sewers and getting in touch with his spiritual side from the grime and filth of the city streets? What about the Cleric that is a chosen warriorof his god, but doesn't know a lot about him, perhaps even resents being chosen? Should he have Religion? Admittedly, I've got nothing for the Wizard; they should totally be forced to have Arcana. Not so much Sorcerers, though.
For me, the "required" skills that are normally associated with a Class have been subsumed into Backgrounds;
- The Cleric that knows all about Religion? He was an Acolyte, right? That's where he learned his Cleric-ing, so it makes sense that he's also learned in languages and has ties to the Church.
- On the other hand; the Cleric that was just some mercenary that got hit with some divine mojo one day and since then has had this voice in his head telling him what to do, but mostly it just gives him a headache and a foul temper...he's got the Soldier background, but happens to be using the Cleric Class. He's got no religious background, so it doesn't make sense that he would know anything about it...but he does know a lot about soldiering and wields the power of the deity that blessed him (whether he likes it or not).
JumboWheat01
2016-03-21, 07:02 PM
After a quick skim, I can confirm I like most of these changes. My biggest question is....what is an "ass" crossbow? :smalltongue:
It's obviously a large, siege weapon designed to launch donkeys over (or through) a wall.
I'll have to show some of these ideas to my DM-buddy, see what he thinks about them. We pretty much stick to RAW.
Estralita
2016-03-21, 07:29 PM
So, do you want to change the rules we're playing by in Heroes for Hire? I notice some of these seem to affect Pau'la directly...
Grod_The_Giant
2016-03-21, 07:40 PM
- For one; the Rogue gets a little hosed. He barely stands out as a skill-monkey as it is and all those "X, plus choose 2" Classes are encroaching, let alone the Ranger and Monk who also both get four proficiencies under these tweaks. If you want to keep the bonus skills for everyone else, the Rogue needs some compensation.
As I've argued many a time in many an edition, it's not just-- perhaps even not mostly-- the number of skills you get that makes you a "skill monkey," it's the class features you get that work with them. Bard is better, because Bard is better at just about everything in 5e, but the Rogue still gets Expertise (necessary to actually feel competent), Reliable Talent, and assorted specials based on your subclass. If you want to buff, give him Stealth and Acrobatics.
- Second; as pointed out by an earlier post, it restricts character concepts. Why does my Druid have to have Nature? Can he not be an Urban Druid, growing up in the slums, chillin' with the dire rats in the sewers and getting in touch with his spiritual side from the grime and filth of the city streets? What about the Cleric that is a chosen warriorof his god, but doesn't know a lot about him, perhaps even resents being chosen? Should he have Religion? Admittedly, I've got nothing for the Wizard; they should totally be forced to have Arcana. Not so much Sorcerers, though.
I mean, I'd argue that said Druid would still be using Nature for urban wildlife, but eh. Maybe a similar note to Backgrounds, where "this is what we said, but you and the DM can customize it to taste?"
Overall, I'd say that if you don't use auto-skills for all, at least give the classes you didn't touch +1 proficiency off their base list.
Talamare
2016-03-21, 07:56 PM
I fundamentally disagree with auto-skills
Woah! I agree with this 1000%, my Monk doesn't stealth. PERIOD!
He is an Iron Fist style, he doesn't believe in being fast or flashy. He believes those styles are for show, and real combat must be slow and calculated.
No forced skills.
Hmmm, I would expect to see some changes in dragonborn (especially n their breath weapon), as it always striked me as an underpowered race.
I am also not sure about reducing smite by 1d8, but since you did it, why didnt you let it cap at 5d8 which is more in accordance to the paladin's spell levels?
I was also kind of expected some tweak in dual wielder, as I find it on the very weak side of the ''weapon feats''.
And I dont agree with the change in the feat weapon master, as this feat may only become useful (and that's debatable) if we ever get to see any exotic weapons, that will be superior to whatever weapons we already have.
I agree that with the free feat the variant human is a very common choice (perhaps that was intentional), but I think that even a slightly improved version of the normal human will render this race a very uncommon choice.
on reading with the rest of the tweaks....
IMO Dragonborn aren't great, but I valued Resistance to a common type, also having an AoE damage option is good. Probably should up the damage a bit, but I don't see it wildly out of whack.
Haha, for some reason I had 3.5e and 4th level spells stuck in my head. I'll definitely up the cap.
Dual Wielder was weak, both Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master have been brought down a bit. Adding +1 Damage per attack, +1 AC, and relieving the nuisance of drawing two weapons. A bit of extra damage and +1 AC is decent.
We have no indication of Exotic Weapon Proficiency being a requirement in 5e, what I changed it to makes it strictly better. If Exotics came out we'd require support elsewhere etc.
The variant human feat was a throwback to 3.5e. Humans aren't bad, not having a +2 is rough, but having extra skills will help slightly and Half Elf is a touch less versatile. I'm open to other suggestions for boosting Human?
I don't think the damage reduction on divine smite is at all good. Remember, Paladins are spending a spell slot, as a long rest half caster, to activate that thing, and it's only getting them +2d8 on a weapon attack or +4d8 if they save it for a crit. It doesn't have a rider effect so it needs to be better on a per spell slot basis than the smite line of spells. As you've written it (1d8), you're spending a precious long rest spell slot gained at second level for slightly more average bonus damage than a 1st level rogue's one per turn no resource cost 1d6 sneak attack.
It's just not worth that cost.
I disagree. Let's compare them.
Thunderous Smite
1st Level Slot
Prepared Spell
Bonus Action Casting
Expended on first hit
2d6 Thunder Damage
Rider of Str or fall Prone
Divine Smite
1st Level Slot
Spontaneous expenditure, no preparation opportunity cost
No action cost
D8 Radient
Bonus D8 Radient vs Undead and Fiends
Now, this probably falls slightly in favor of Thunderous Smite, and its 2.5 damage for no spontaneous use and a prepared slot.
Against Branding and Blinding Smite at 2nd and 3rd levels Divine Smite deals more damage and riders are a wash situationally. Staggering Smite at 4th deals less damage for a better rider. At 5th Banishing Smite is better thanks to its Roder and damage die.
The fact we now have a trade off and the spell Smites are viable is a good day thing, un modified we see much much less use and preparation of them.
Requiring no prepared slot, no bonus action prior to use, and the ability to use it after you've rolled a Crit is very powerful.
On the subject of auto-skills; I don't like the idea:
- For one; the Rogue gets a little hosed. He barely stands out as a skill-monkey as it is and all those "X, plus choose 2" Classes are encroaching, let alone the Ranger and Monk who also both get four proficiencies under these tweaks. If you want to keep the bonus skills for everyone else, the Rogue needs some compensation.
- Second; as pointed out by an earlier post, it restricts character concepts. Why does my Druid have to have Nature? Can he not be an Urban Druid, growing up in the slums, chillin' with the dire rats in the sewers and getting in touch with his spiritual side from the grime and filth of the city streets? What about the Cleric that is a chosen warriorof his god, but doesn't know a lot about him, perhaps even resents being chosen? Should he have Religion? Admittedly, I've got nothing for the Wizard; they should totally be forced to have Arcana. Not so much Sorcerers, though.
For me, the "required" skills that are normally associated with a Class have been subsumed into Backgrounds;
- The Cleric that knows all about Religion? He was an Acolyte, right? That's where he learned his Cleric-ing, so it makes sense that he's also learned in languages and has ties to the Church.
- On the other hand; the Cleric that was just some mercenary that got hit with some divine mojo one day and since then has had this voice in his head telling him what to do, but mostly it just gives him a headache and a foul temper...he's got the Soldier background, but happens to be using the Cleric Class. He's got no religious background, so it doesn't make sense that he would know anything about it...but he does know a lot about soldiering and wields the power of the deity that blessed him (whether he likes it or not).
I agree with most of this and have been going back and forth. Loving the feedback guys.
It's obviously a large, siege weapon designed to launch donkeys over (or through) a wall.
I'll have to show some of these ideas to my DM-buddy, see what he thinks about them. We pretty much stick to RAW.
Haha, good one!
So, do you want to change the rules we're playing by in Heroes for Hire? I notice some of these seem to affect Pau'la directly...
Haha, I generally would not adopt sweeping changes like this without thorough discussion and if the geoup agreed to adopt them they'd get the opportunity to adjust their characters. I wouldn't worry.
I am curious as to your thoughts on the hose this that would affect your character?
Talamare
2016-03-21, 08:32 PM
IMO Dragonborn aren't great, but I valued Resistance to a common type, also having an AoE damage option is good. Probably should up the damage a bit, but I don't see it wildly out of whack.
Make it cost a Bonus Action like how it was in 4e
Right now, I NEVER want to use my Breath, Using it costs the place of a better spell or attack.
Make it cost a Bonus Action like how it was in 4e
Right now, I NEVER want to use my Breath, Using it costs the place of a better spell or attack.
Bonus action breath weapon, sold. That's the idea I was waiting for.
EvanescentHero
2016-03-21, 08:48 PM
Throw darkvision on the dragonborn as well. Dragons and even kobolds have it, and it's a minor boost to a race many people seem to find underpowered.
Throw darkvision on the dragonborn as well. Dragons and even kobolds have it, and it's a minor boost to a race many people seem to find underpowered.
They should have it. I'm not a fan how literally most races have it. Good suggestion I forgot about.
JumboWheat01
2016-03-21, 09:02 PM
They should have it. I'm not a fan how literally most races have it. Good suggestion I forgot about.
It's almost a tax for playing a human or the awesomeness that is the halfling.
It's almost a tax for playing a human or the awesomeness that is the halfling.
One of the reasons I shortened the range of Halfelves and half Orc's Darkvision. Make torches and light more necessary, haha.
Mjolnirbear
2016-03-21, 09:13 PM
Disclaimer: I love 5e, but here are a couple of things that bother me and could use tweaking. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel or rewrite the game. These tweaks are meant to be easy to apply patches that enhance balance and gameplay and open up more options.
Love 5e, but with it was a touch more balance? Wish some things made a bit more sense? Wish some options were more viable or others less no brainers? Give Zman's 5e Tweaks a look.
Listed below will be three categories of changes, Add, Remove, or Change To. Everyone else will remain unchanged. Currently, this will only be for the PHB.
Dwarf
*No Changes
Elf
*No Changes
Halfling
*No Changes
Human
Add Skill Versatility: You gain proficiency in two skills of your choice.
Remove Variant Human
Dragonborn
Breath Weapon: Change "You can use your action to exhale..." To "You can use your bonus action to exhale..."
Gnome
*No Change
Half-Elf
Change to Inferior Darkvision: Thanks to your Elf blood, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 30' of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light.
Change to Skill Versatility: You gain proficiency in one skill of your choice.
Half-Orc
Change to Inferior Darkvision: Thanks to your Orc blood, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 30' of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light.
Tiefling
*No Change
Characters can learn a number of additional languages, subject to DM approval, equal to their Intelligence Modifier at game start and when their Intelligence modifier permanently increases. Alternatively, these languages can be learned throughout the course of the game with no penalty.
Each character starts the game with one Feat.
Alert
*No Change
Athlete
*No Change
Actor
*No Change
Charger
Add Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Crossbow Expert
Add Gain proficiency with all Crossbows.
Defensive Duelist
*No Change
Dual Wielder
*No Change
Dungeon Delver
Add Gain proficiency with Thieve's Tools
Durable
Add Gain Advantage on Death Saving Throws.
Elemental Adept
*No Change
Grappler
Add Increase your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Great Weapon Master
Change "Before you make a melee attack..." To "Once per turn before you make a melee attack..."
Healer
Add Increase your Wisdom score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Add Gain advantage on Wisdom(Medicine) checks.
Heavily Armored
*No Change
Heavy Armor Master
Add When you wear heavy armor you can add 1 to your AC if you have a Dexterity of 12 or higher.
Inspiring Leader
Add Increase your Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Keen Mind
Add You have advantage on Intelligence checks and Intelligence Saving Throws.
Lightly Armored
*No Change
Linguist
Add You can learn a new language by studying or being exposed to hit for three days.
Lucky
Change "You have 3 luck points.... You regain your expended luck points when you finish a long rest." To "You have 1 luck point.... You regain your expended luck point when you finish a short or long rest."
Mage Slayer
*No Change
Magic Initiate
*No Change
Martial Adept
Change "If you already have superiority dice, you gain one more; otherwise, you have one superiority die, which is a d6." to "If you already have superiority dice, you gain two more; otherwise, you have two superiority dice, which are a d6."
Medium Armor Master
Add Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Mobile
*No Change
Moderately Armored
*No Change
Mounted Combatant
*No Change
Observant
*No Change
Polearm Master
*No Change
Resilient
No Change
Ritual Caster
*No Change
Savage Attacker
Add Increase your Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Sentinel
Change "...the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn." To "the creature's speed b comes 0 for the rest of the turn. When combined with a reach weapon, the creature may move 5' to enter melee range with you.
Sharpshooter
Change "Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and three-quarters cover." To "Your ranged weapon attacks ignore half cover and count three-quarters cover as half cover."
Change "Before you make an attack..." To "Once per turn before you make an attack..."
Shield Master
*No Change
Skilled
Add Increase your Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Skulker
Add Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Spell Sniper
Change "Your ranged spell attacks ignore half and three-quarters cover." To "Your ranged spell attacks ignore half cover and count three-quarters cover as half cover."
Tavern Brawler
*No Change
Tough
*No Change
Warcaster
*No Change
Weapon Master
Change "You gain proficiency with four weapons..." To "You gain proficiency with all Simple and Martial Weapons."
Light Armor Master
Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Increase the AC granted by light armors by 1.
Thrown Weapon Expert
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your thrown weapon attack rolls.
Your thrown weapon attacks ignore half cover and treat three-quarters cover as half cover.
You can draw weapons with the thrown property as a free action and can make as many attacks in a round as you have attacks and weapons available.
As a bonus action you may draw and throw a light thrown weapon so long as you have at least one free hand.
Unarmored Fighter
Increase your Dexterity Score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
While Unarmored your AC is equal to 12 + your Dexterity Modifier.
Unarmored Master
Increase your Dexterity Score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
While Unarmored you gain a +1 bonus to your AC.
Classes
Skills: Change to "Survival. Choose two from..."
Path of the Berserker
Frenzy: Remove "When your rage ends, you suffer one level of exhaustion(as described in appendix A).
*No Changes
Skills: Change to "Religion. Choose two from..."
Skills: Change to "Nature. Choose two from..."
Wild Shape
Add "You must return to your natural form before transforming into another form unless you are expending a use of Wild Shape to maintain your form. You cannot change revert to your natural form and take another form within the same turn, you must wait until your next turn to assume a new shape."
Fighting Style
Archery: Change to "You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls and a +1 to Weapon Damage rolls you make with ranged or thrown weapons."
Great Weapon Fighting: Change "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die..." to "When you roll a 1 or a 2 on a weapon damage die..."
Skills: Change to "Acrobatics and Stealth. Choose two from..."
Lvl 10: Add "Ability Score Improvement"
Way of the Four Elements
Breath of Winter: Change to "...4 ki points..."
Clench of the North Wind: Change to "...2 ki points..."
Eternal Mountain Defense: Change to "...3 ki points..."
Fangs of the Fire Snake: Change to "... and if you spend 1 ki point when the attack hits, it also deals an extra 2d10 fire damage."
Fist of Four Thunders: Change to "...1 ki point..."
Fist of Unbroken Air: Change to "...1 ki point..."
Flames of the Phoenix: Change to "...3 ki points..."
Gong of the Summit: Change to "...2 ki points..."
Mist Stance: Change to "...3 ki points..."
Ride the Wind: Change to "...3 ki points..."
River of Hungry Flame: Change to "...4 ki points..."
Rush of the Gale Spirits: Change to "...1 ki point..."
Shape of the Flowing River: *No Change
Sweeping Cinder Strike: Change to "...1 ki point..."
Water Whip: Change "action" to "bonus action"
Wall of Rolling Earth: Change to "...5 ki points..."
Divine Smite
Change to "Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 1d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 4d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend."
Fighting Style
Great Weapon Fighting: Change "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die..." to "When you roll a 1 or a 2 on a weapon damage die..."
Skills: Change to "Survival. Choose three from..."
Fighting Style
Archery: Change to "You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls and a +1 to Weapon Damage rolls you make with ranged or thrown weapons."
Foe Slayer
Change "Once on each of your turns, you can add..." to "You can add..."
Beast Master
Animal Companion: Change " You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action." to "You can use your bonus action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action."
*No Change
Skills: Change to "Arcanna. Choose to from..."
Eldritch Invocations
Agonizing Blast: Change to "When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit. Apply this bonus damage only once per target."
Repelling Blast: Change to "When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line. Apply this effect only once per target."
Skills: Change to "Arcana. Choose two from..."
Spells
*This seems like quite a project and IMO only the most broken spells need to be addressed. I'm inclined to leave this be.
Thoughts?
For auto-skills, I just give everyone a free knowledge proficiency. It gives them flexibility and another skill.
I edited Polearm Master to include all the polearm including spears and tridents; also the extra attack requires welding the weapon with both hands.
I like the Darkvision changes.
I think I'll be incorporating quite a few changes that you've made here. I like it.
For auto-skills, I just give everyone a free knowledge proficiency. It gives them flexibility and another skill.
I edited Polearm Master to include all the polearm including spears and tridents; also the extra attack requires welding the weapon with both hands.
I like the Darkvision changes.
I think I'll be incorporating quite a few changes that you've made here. I like it.
Auto Skills is definitely the most hotly debated tweak.
I forgot to add spear and tridents to Polearm Master, even though I often include them already. I don't necessarily agree with the two handed requirement.
Glad you like and are planning on using my work.
SharkForce
2016-03-21, 10:33 PM
that throwing feat doesn't currently allow darts with the bonus action. dunno if that's intentional or not.
that throwing feat doesn't currently allow darts with the bonus action. dunno if that's intentional or not.
Good catch. A simple change to Light or Finesse.
Ruslan
2016-03-21, 10:54 PM
Inspiring Leader
Add Increase your Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
So, after playing with Inspiring Leader for a while, both as player and DM, I can attest that this feat is totally awesome without any additional buffing. It's a total game-changer. Around level 6, on a charisma-based character, it's between +9 and +11 hit points to everyone. It's pretty much the equivalent of giving everyone in the party +2 Con. No, wait, it's better, because hp lost this way can be refreshed every short rest with no expenditure of resources.
BTW, like what you did with the other feats, especially Keen Mind and Savage Attacker.
Also, if you're giving most classes a free skill (Cleric=Religion, Wizard=Arcana, etc), this is in its core a good idea, but the Bard missed out on Perform for some reason...
PeteNutButter
2016-03-21, 10:55 PM
I can pile on the no free skill train.
A few suggestions. While your changes attempt to address overpowered combinations, they also nerf core classes. No ability should be made inherently better through multiclassing. MCing should be about gaining diversity, not better at something than the core class would be. Overall 5e did a good job at balancing classes and abilities with that in mind, but the few outliers are common problems. Smite and EB are the most obvious culprits.
The nerf to EB has some scary consequences. The warlock is so reliant on the EB, since he only has 2 spells for the bulk of his playtime, all he does is spam EB. Nerfing that could make the class even more useless. This is another one of those NERF the class because its so attractive to MC into. I'd suggest a modification of what Grod_the_Giant suggested.
Don't nerf EB, make it a warlock ability that scales with warlock levels only. The cantrip isn't broken, what's broken is that it is a cantrip. So that taking two levels of a class gives nearly its full power, that scales with your character to max, as you go back into whatever other class you preferred.
Nerfing paladin smites is also a bad idea. It is not at all overpowered without multiclassing. The limits on the number of spells per long rest are harsh enough to make the paladin really have to think hard before blowing slots on smites. Without them he is just a bad fighter. Maybe he is slightly harder to hit with spells, but otherwise still weak on the damage front. The problem comes in when he gets an excess of spell slots from multiclassing. Smites for days is an issue. As much as I love my paladorc, I have to say it is imbalanced. You wouldn't expect a rogue/monk to deal more sneak attack dice than a pure rogue, so a paladin sorcerer should not be able to smite harder than a paladin.
It destroys any paladin MC, but I'd say just require the paladin to have the ability to prepare paladin spells of the level with which he is smiting. He could still smite with higher/more slots via multiclassing but not more damage earlier than a pure paladin.
I would also add where is the love for the sorcerer? While a popular class to MC into, it is severely lacking in comparison to the wizard as a pure class. Wild magic's dependence on the DM, breaks it, the other are options are good, but don't give anything like the wizard specialists. Metamagic is good, but quicken is nerfed by the bonus action spell rule, (again favoring MC into warlock). Twin can be good for buffs, but otherwise wizards can do nearly anything else better.
Wizards can sculpt without resources, can recover some spells on short rest starting at level 1. Wizards by default get more spells "known" in their spellbook, and can pick up more as they go. Then on any given day the wizard can choose (from his massive book) to prepare MORE spells than the sorcerer even knows.
I'd give them an earlier chance to recover some sorcery points on a short rest, like a wizard, and/or give them more sorcery points. If they had a bigger pool of sorcery points they could even create slots higher than they have spells for. This already exists to a minor extent (a lvl 6 sorcerer can create 4th lvl slots, at 7th lvl he can make 5th lvl slots).
Rangers... please just let them prepare spells like EVERY other divine caster. :smallbiggrin: Why oh why do they have spells known?
Talamare
2016-03-22, 03:04 AM
We should make Warlocks Int casters, they were more or less Int casters in 4e
Steampunkette
2016-03-22, 03:15 AM
The only changes I dislike are the proposed Warlock changes. I feel like they shouldn't be penalized for not having multiple targets to attack. There are no spells in the game that work less effectively against fewer targets, no abilities that do so, either. It goes against the spirit of the rules to place that nerf on warlocks, I feel.
Everything else? Fantastic.
So, after playing with Inspiring Leader for a while, both as player and DM, I can attest that this feat is totally awesome without any additional buffing. It's a total game-changer. Around level 6, on a charisma-based character, it's between +9 and +11 hit points to everyone. It's pretty much the equivalent of giving everyone in the party +2 Con. No, wait, it's better, because hp lost this way can be refreshed every short rest with no expenditure of resources.
BTW, like what you did with the other feats, especially Keen Mind and Savage Attacker.
Also, if you're giving most classes a free skill (Cleric=Religion, Wizard=Arcana, etc), this is in its core a good idea, but the Bard missed out on Perform for some reason...
Inspiring leader does grant a solid amount of Temp HP. It basically gives out 5-25HP/Party Member after every rest. At the level range you are talking about it truly is at its sweet spot, at later levels it loses almost 50% of its relative bonus. Still great, just not as great. IMO a +1 Cha makes it even more of an attractive option and the feet reliant on Cha makes sense to have it give a +1Cha. I'll definitely think about removing the change.
I'm very likely to just nix the autoskills.... I'd be tempted to give out more skills for every class, but then you run into the problem of diluting the skill monkeys like Rogues.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-22, 07:17 AM
Beast Master just broke the action economy of the game with that change.
Some of the changes are perfectly innocuous house rules, some I already implemented myself, but Beast Master operating off of a bonus action sends his potential DPR straight to the top, well past the Fighter.
I can pile on the no free skill train.
A few suggestions. While your changes attempt to address overpowered combinations, they also nerf core classes. No ability should be made inherently better through multiclassing. MCing should be about gaining diversity, not better at something than the core class would be. Overall 5e did a good job at balancing classes and abilities with that in mind, but the few outliers are common problems. Smite and EB are the most obvious culprits.
The nerf to EB has some scary consequences. The warlock is so reliant on the EB, since he only has 2 spells for the bulk of his playtime, all he does is spam EB. Nerfing that could make the class even more useless. This is another one of those NERF the class because its so attractive to MC into. I'd suggest a modification of what Grod_the_Giant suggested.
Don't nerf EB, make it a warlock ability that scales with warlock levels only. The cantrip isn't broken, what's broken is that it is a cantrip. So that taking two levels of a class gives nearly its full power, that scales with your character to max, as you go back into whatever other class you preferred.
Nerfing paladin smites is also a bad idea. It is not at all overpowered without multiclassing. The limits on the number of spells per long rest are harsh enough to make the paladin really have to think hard before blowing slots on smites. Without them he is just a bad fighter. Maybe he is slightly harder to hit with spells, but otherwise still weak on the damage front. The problem comes in when he gets an excess of spell slots from multiclassing. Smites for days is an issue. As much as I love my paladorc, I have to say it is imbalanced. You wouldn't expect a rogue/monk to deal more sneak attack dice than a pure rogue, so a paladin sorcerer should not be able to smite harder than a paladin.
It destroys any paladin MC, but I'd say just require the paladin to have the ability to prepare paladin spells of the level with which he is smiting. He could still smite with higher/more slots via multiclassing but not more damage earlier than a pure paladin.
I would also add where is the love for the sorcerer? While a popular class to MC into, it is severely lacking in comparison to the wizard as a pure class. Wild magic's dependence on the DM, breaks it, the other are options are good, but don't give anything like the wizard specialists. Metamagic is good, but quicken is nerfed by the bonus action spell rule, (again favoring MC into warlock). Twin can be good for buffs, but otherwise wizards can do nearly anything else better.
Wizards can sculpt without resources, can recover some spells on short rest starting at level 1. Wizards by default get more spells "known" in their spellbook, and can pick up more as they go. Then on any given day the wizard can choose (from his massive book) to prepare MORE spells than the sorcerer even knows.
I'd give them an earlier chance to recover some sorcery points on a short rest, like a wizard, and/or give them more sorcery points. If they had a bigger pool of sorcery points they could even create slots higher than they have spells for. This already exists to a minor extent (a lvl 6 sorcerer can create 4th lvl slots, at 7th lvl he can make 5th lvl slots).
Rangers... please just let them prepare spells like EVERY other divine caster. :smallbiggrin: Why oh why do they have spells known?
It looks like there is vocal agreement nixing autoskills.
Now, to EB and Smite you are being overly dramatic.
EB is the best Cantrip in the game, it deals force, and is granulated i.e. Multiple attacks not all or none. Compare it to Firebolt, same damage with a better type and granulated. Now, when EB gets to add Cha to damage which is not unique, Dragon Sorcerers can do it at 6th for their damage type, Evokers can do it at 10th level. Right now, Warlocks with EB not only get to add their modifier sooner, they get to add it to every die of damage, that is a 55% to 91% increase in average damage compared to standard EB and to standard Firebolt.
How much does my change affect EB vs single targets?? Let's run the math assuming 16Cha base and Cha ASIs at 4th and 8th which maximizes the the comparison. Well also assume a 50% hit rate on attacks.
Levels Standard vs Tweaked
1. D10(2.75) vs D10(2.75) = +0 Damage Difference
2-3. D10+3(4.25) vs D10+3(4.25) = +0 Damage Difference
4. D10+4(4.75) vs D10 +4(4.75) = +0 Damage Difference
5-7. 2x(D10+4)(9.5) vs 2D10+.75(4)(8.5) = +1 Damage Difference(112%)
8-10 2x(D10+5)(10.5) vs 2D10+.75(5)(9.3) =+1.2 Damage Difference((113%)
11-16 3x(D10+5)(15.75) vs 3D10 +.875(5)(12.625) =3.125 Damage Difference(125%)
17-20 4x(D10+5)(21) vs 4D10 + .9375(5)(15.6875) =5.3125 Damage Difference(133%)
So in summary my changes deal 100% un modified damage from levels 1-4, 89% from levels 5-10, 80% from levels 11-16, and 75% from levels 17-20.
Against low AC enemies the difference grows, against high AC enemies the difference shrinks. This is hardly world ending differences in damage. And if we compare it to competing attacks it still out damages Firebolt cast by an Evokers or Dragon Sorcerer thanks to granularity before mentioning the superior damage type.
About Smite, I've already contrasted it with the smiling spells showing that it is more balanced,me specially as it is spontaneous and can be applied after hits and after critical hits. 1d8 less damage less on a smite doesn't end the world. Also, I have already agreed that the max should be 5d8 in line with the spell levels of the Paladin.
I agree that Sorcerer, especially Wild sorcerer needs something, but I'm not sure a change is absolutely necessary. Sorcerer is viable and IMO it's really only Wild Magic Sorcerer that needs help due to the DM fiat rule. I'm open to suggestions. Your Wizard comparison can't assume Evoker, Wizards to have their own difficulties and choices to make. I acknowledge Wizards are strong, but I'm not convinced the problems are stark enough to require action.
Ranger casting is makes them the divine class that casts like a Sorc. I'm not convinced that change is needed, if I was doing a full rewrite I would do it, but not for this.
The only changes I dislike are the proposed Warlock changes. I feel like they shouldn't be penalized for not having multiple targets to attack. There are no spells in the game that work less effectively against fewer targets, no abilities that do so, either. It goes against the spirit of the rules to place that nerf on warlocks, I feel.
Everything else? Fantastic.
See above about EB. The alternative is only once her casting, my wording was an attempt to boost EB's uses, otherwise it would have been Merced further. Is disagree it is against the spirit of the rules, allowing Cha to each die of damage is against the spirit of the rules in terms of dealing damage and spell damage.
We should make Warlocks Int casters, they were more or less Int casters in 4e
I disagree, that doesn't make any sense to me and that kind of change would be too big for this project.
Beast Master just broke the action economy of the game with that change.
Some of the changes are perfectly innocuous house rules, some I already implemented myself, but Beast Master operating off of a bonus action sends his potential DPR straight to the top, well past the Fighter.
I'm not convinced this is the case. Beast master is stuck at max two attacks Dueling or Archery after 5th as TWF competes for bonus action, the Animal Companion gets two attacks at 11th. The damage of each of these attacks isn't great, but that is countered by the inherent bonuses which is canceled by the inherent disadvantage of having an easily killed animal companion.
The Beastmaster does net an extra attack from 3rd-19th level, but that requires a bonus action which is the same number of attacks the Fighter would have with TWF. Fighter has other advantages like Action Surge, Better Fighting Styles, better defenses, more feats, etc. before you factor in the Subclasses.
I'm not convinced that this change makes the Beastmaster the undisputed king of damage. I'd love to hear your argument in support of it breaking damage.
Joe the Rat
2016-03-22, 08:25 AM
Also, the Hunter Archetype can take Hordebreaker to gain a situational extra attack, so the strike counts wouldn't be that different.
Where Beast Master gets the advantage is being in two places at once - or if you prefer, has his minion acting in sync with his actions, rather than waiting for its own initiative count to come up.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-22, 08:29 AM
I'm not convinced this is the case. Beast master is stuck at max two attacks Dueling or Archery after 5th as TWF competes for bonus action, the Animal Companion gets two attacks at 11th. The damage of each of these attacks isn't great, but that is countered by the inherent bonuses which is canceled by the inherent disadvantage of having an easily killed animal companion.
The Beastmaster does net an extra attack from 3rd-19th level, but that requires a bonus action which is the same number of attacks the Fighter would have with TWF. Fighter has other advantages like Action Surge, Better Fighting Styles, better defenses, more feats, etc. before you factor in the Subclasses.
I'm not convinced that this change makes the Beastmaster the undisputed king of damage. I'd love to hear your argument in support of it breaking damage.
Sure.
First, I'll be operating off of RAW, only taking into account this single change. That means the only fighting styles the Fighter has over the Beast Master are Protection and Great Weapon Fighting.
It's important to remember that proficiency gets added to every damage roll, and some beast companions make multiple rolls.
Level 20, Greatsword Fighter
Damage=D
D=4(2d6+5)
D=4 (8.3+5)
D=4 (13.3)
D=53.2
Lv 20 Archer Ranger
2 attacks, 1d10+5
D=2 (5.5+5)
D= 21
Flying Snake
D=2 (7+3d4+6)
D=2 (7.5+13)
D=2 (20.5)=41
Average Beast Master Damage for Flying Snake is 62, well past average Greatsword Fighter damage, though not as high as his spike damage. This is without Hunter's Mark, which adds 7 damage, but uses a single bonus action and can be cast ahead of initiative.
And the Giant Poisonous Snake adds still more damage.
You're essentially giving an extra attack to a class that already peaks quite high.
Oh, and the Ranger and his companion hit more oftwn, so it skews even more in their favor. Not to mention Flyby essentially removes the threat to the AC 20 snake for quite a lot of encounters.
Also, part of your fix copies the seventh level feature. What replaces that? And it throws out the old "Wolf gives me advantage while I give wolf advantage," strategy. Baby and bathwater, yo.
Sure.
First, I'll be operating off of RAW, only taking into account this single change. That means the only fighting styles the Fighter has over the Beast Master are Protection and Great Weapon Fighting.
It's important to remember that proficiency gets added to every damage roll, and some beast companions make multiple rolls.
Level 20, Greatsword Fighter
Damage=D
D=4(2d6+5)
D=4 (8.3+5)
D=4 (13.3)
D=53.2
Lv 20 Archer Ranger
2 attacks, 1d10+5
D=2 (5.5+5)
D= 21
Flying Snake
D=2 (7+3d4+6)
D=2 (7.5+13)
D=2 (20.5)=41
Average Beast Master Damage for Flying Snake is 62, well past average Greatsword Fighter damage, though not as high as his spike damage. This is without Hunter's Mark, which adds 7 damage, but uses a single bonus action and can be cast ahead of initiative.
And the Giant Poisonous Snake adds still more damage.
You're essentially giving an extra attack to a class that already peaks quite high.
Oh, and the Ranger and his companion hit more oftwn, so it skews even more in their favor. Not to mention Flyby essentially removes the threat to the AC 20 snake for quite a lot of encounters.
So, the Ranger gets to use their Archtype but the Fighter does not? A BattleMaster can blow those numbers out of the water. A Champion does as well. We can't forget that the Fighter can also benefit from feats, has a bonus action to use, also the Beatmaster is 80HP away from losing a huge amount of its damage output. The fighter still has Action Surge and can be fit to a much higher degree from any magic weapon.
Also, you assume that every enemy makes its save against the Poison. Actually it's the Giant snake that has a save, wow Flying snake is nasty and a better choice.
While the Animial Companion is alive the Beastmaster does top tier damage, but that damage can disappear if the Animal Companion is killed. That is a risk reward situation. 8 hour replacement is a big downside that cannot be ignored.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-22, 09:04 AM
So, the Ranger gets to use their Archtype but the Fighter does not? A BattleMaster can blow those numbers out of the water. A Champion does as well. We can't forget that the Fighter can also benefit from feats, has a bonus action to use, also the Beatmaster is 80HP away from losing a huge amount of its damage output. The fighter still has Action Surge and can be fit to a much higher degree from any magic weapon.
Champion can reliably get a crit in every eight attacks, so we'll add another 8.3 damage every two rounds, which still doesn't make the difference. Battle Master would get another 26 damage, though, so I'll cede that point. It's still soaking up resources while the Ranger uses none. To me, the Fighter, not the Ranger, should be able to outpace others in the damage department without resource use, while others can match them through resources.
As for feats, Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter balance each other out, so meh.
I left out Action Surge since it's a nova power. That's the Ranger's average damage, not nova damage.
Also, you assume that every enemy makes its save against the Poison. Actually it's the Giant snake that has a save, wow Flying snake is nasty and a better choice.
Even with the save it's 6 poison damage for the giant poisonous snake, but yeah, flying snake is sweet.
While the Animial Companion is alive the Beastmaster does top tier damage, but that damage can disappear if the Animal Companion is killed. That is a risk reward situation. 8 hour replacement is a big downside that cannot be ignored.
Yeah, but here's the thing: Beast Masters can near that damage level already, simply by utilizing their spells and animal companions. Hunter's Mark or Hail of Thorns with a single Ranger attack and two Flying Snake attacks is near-fighter damage with a minor resource drain, and it makes you feel like the Ranger and beast are completely in sync. I don't think we need that fix.
Champion can reliably get a crit in every eight attacks, so we'll add another 8.3 damage every two rounds, which still doesn't make the difference. Battle Master would get another 26 damage, though, so I'll cede that point. It's still soaking up resources while the Ranger uses none. To me, the Fighter, not the Ranger, should be able to outpace others in the damage department without resource use, while others can match them through resources.
As for feats, Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter balance each other out, so meh.
I left out Action Surge since it's a nova power. That's the Ranger's average damage, not nova damage.
Even with the save it's 6 poison damage for the giant poisonous snake, but yeah, flying snake is sweet.
Yeah, but here's the thing: Beast Masters can near that damage level already, simply by utilizing their spells and animal companions. Hunter's Mark or Hail of Thorns with a single Ranger attack and two Flying Snake attacks is near-fighter damage with a minor resource drain, and it makes you feel like the Ranger and beast are completely in sync. I don't think we need that fix.
Champion also gets an initiative boost and a massive health boost via regeneration and a second fighting style which likely boosts defense.
Nova Damage is very relevant when it's twice per short rest.
GWM and Sharpshooter do not balance each other out RAW as the Fighter has twice as many attacks or more that benefit it(not so after my tweaks I admit) except when GWM grants a bonus action attack. Fighter has more Feat/ASI choices resulting in greater HP and greater AC.
You never answered the point that the Ranger can quite easily lose its Animal Companion. That is a huge negative you ignore. You treat it as an always on, I treat it as a renewable resource. You seem to feel the Fighter should put out top tier damage without resource use while others should be able to achieve stock fighter via resource allocation. I'm saying with renewable resource use the Ranger beats stock fighter and does not compete when the fighter uses resources. IMO that is what is desired. It also solves the early game problem of the Ranger being little but a spectator for his Animal Companion.
Hunters Mark is good, except that it requires a bonus action to switch to a new target that is an opportunity cost.
We also haven't addressed survivability i.e. AC and HP and how the Fighter maintains damage output throughout its HP and and the Ranger has the potential to lose a significant amount of damage output with only ~1/3-1/2 HP loss, and that damage reduction is crippling i.e. Minimum 8hrs to recover.
supergoji18
2016-03-22, 09:32 AM
I support the love for sorcerers bandwagon!
At the very least they should get more spells known. For some reason the whole +1 per level thing just stops at one point, and it is extremely restricting. I suggest removing that.
Also, giving them some exclusive spells could be awesome, like how Warlocks get Hex and Eldritch Blast exclusive to them, or Bards get Vicious Mockery exclusive to them. Also, more metamagic options (and perhaps being able to pick 1 more metamagic) would do wonders for this class.
JumboWheat01
2016-03-22, 09:39 AM
I support the love for sorcerers bandwagon!
At the very least they should get more spells known. For some reason the whole +1 per level thing just stops at one point, and it is extremely restricting. I suggest removing that.
Also, giving them some exclusive spells could be awesome, like how Warlocks get Hex and Eldritch Blast exclusive to them, or Bards get Vicious Mockery exclusive to them. Also, more metamagic options (and perhaps being able to pick 1 more metamagic) would do wonders for this class.
Perhaps something that would let them re-train their spells even if they hit the level cap. Maybe something they can do during their downtime, like spending all spell points for a day in order to retrain a spell. Preventive during standard adventuring, but during downtime or "days off" while they wait for others to heal, it would let them customize themselves a little more.
I'd also like to say that Warlocks could probably use some spell love. They're the only class that has features who unlock spells to choose, rather than simply giving them spells. I know it's not the best to compare, considering the magical sources and styles, but Clerics, Druids and even Paladins get all the spells their features give them, and have them prepared all the time. Warlocks have their spells compete with a limited spell selection that they have, being learned casters rather than prepared.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-22, 09:59 AM
Champion also gets an initiative boost and a massive health boost via regeneration and a second fighting style which likely boosts defense.
Nova Damage is very relevant when it's twice per short rest.
GWM and Sharpshooter do not balance each other out RAW as the Fighter has twice as many attacks or more that benefit it(not so after my tweaks I admit) except when GWM grants a bonus action attack. Fighter has more Feat/ASI choices resulting in greater HP and greater AC.
You never answered the point that the Ranger can quite easily lose its Animal Companion. That is a huge negative you ignore. You treat it as an always on, I treat it as a renewable resource. You seem to feel the Fighter should put out top tier damage without resource use while others should be able to achieve stock fighter via resource allocation. I'm saying with renewable resource use the Ranger beats stock fighter and does not compete when the fighter uses resources. IMO that is what is desired. It also solves the early game problem of the Ranger being little but a spectator for his Animal Companion.
Hunters Mark is good, except that it requires a bonus action to switch to a new target that is an opportunity cost.
We also haven't addressed survivability i.e. AC and HP and how the Fighter maintains damage output throughout its HP and and the Ranger has the potential to lose a significant amount of damage output with only ~1/3-1/2 HP loss, and that damage reduction is crippling i.e. Minimum 8hrs to recover.
I mean, survivability is not much of an issue in practice. Take the example above. I can switch out the archer ranger with a duelist ranger, add one point to the average damage and keep the target from being able to attack the flying snake. And there are plenty of encounters in which flyby keeps them safe all by itself. Or take the Wolfrider. A halfling with Mounted Combatant keeps his wolf up, and the Wolf makes 2 attacks with advantage at an average of 12 damage each while the Ranger gets in with his Dueling Lance with advantage (by help or prone) for 17 damage with Hunter's Mark. Under normal rules, that's a total of 41 average damage per turn at the cost of one slot per hour.
Under yours, without Hunter's Mark, it's an average of 51 damage without any resource expenditure, and with advantage for at least half the attacks.
And yeah, GWF boosts Fighter damage quite a bit, depending on enemy AC. I don't think having to fall back on that while every other martial watches the Ranger leave them in the dust is fair. I mean, the a Ranger would get all that damage, plus spellcasting, while the Paladin does half as much damage without smiting and the Barbarian does a bit more than that? And a poor monk is a solid ten points below what a Ranger does when the Ranger isn't putting any effort into it and the monk is spending chi? And non-GW Fighters get no help at all?
I think the action economy of the Beast Master is fine as is. The only house rule fixes I'd suggest would be to add proficiency to save DCs and allow multiattack from the start, with Bestial Fury adding a single extra attack. That creates a wider range of potential creatures and makes the creatures already available more potent without creating insane average Ranger damage.
Edit: I'd like to clarify my point, which is that the current rules allow a Beast Master to deal mid-to-high damage on average with the expenditure of a few resources, while still being a half-caster. This fix allows them to deal Fighter damage without spending any resources while still being a half-caster, which I think is a mistake.
PeteNutButter
2016-03-22, 10:16 AM
It looks like there is vocal agreement nixing autoskills.
Now, to EB and Smite you are being overly dramatic.
EB is the best Cantrip in the game, it deals force, and is granulated i.e. Multiple attacks not all or none. Compare it to Firebolt, same damage with a better type and granulated. Now, when EB gets to add Cha to damage which is not unique, Dragon Sorcerers can do it at 6th for their damage type, Evokers can do it at 10th level. Right now, Warlocks with EB not only get to add their modifier sooner, they get to add it to every die of damage, that is a 55% to 91% increase in average damage compared to standard EB and to standard Firebolt.
How much does my change affect EB vs single targets?? Let's run the math assuming 16Cha base and Cha ASIs at 4th and 8th which maximizes the the comparison. Well also assume a 50% hit rate on attacks.
Levels Standard vs Tweaked
1. D10(2.75) vs D10(2.75) = +0 Damage Difference
2-3. D10+3(4.25) vs D10+3(4.25) = +0 Damage Difference
4. D10+4(4.75) vs D10 +4(4.75) = +0 Damage Difference
5-7. 2x(D10+4)(9.5) vs 2D10+.75(4)(8.5) = +1 Damage Difference(112%)
8-10 2x(D10+5)(10.5) vs 2D10+.75(5)(9.3) =+1.2 Damage Difference((113%)
11-16 3x(D10+5)(15.75) vs 3D10 +.875(5)(12.625) =3.125 Damage Difference(125%)
17-20 4x(D10+5)(21) vs 4D10 + .9375(5)(15.6875) =5.3125 Damage Difference(133%)
So in summary my changes deal 100% un modified damage from levels 1-4, 89% from levels 5-10, 80% from levels 11-16, and 75% from levels 17-20.
Against low AC enemies the difference grows, against high AC enemies the difference shrinks. This is hardly world ending differences in damage. And if we compare it to competing attacks it still out damages Firebolt cast by an Evokers or Dragon Sorcerer thanks to granularity before mentioning the superior damage type.
About Smite, I've already contrasted it with the smiling spells showing that it is more balanced,me specially as it is spontaneous and can be applied after hits and after critical hits. 1d8 less damage less on a smite doesn't end the world. Also, I have already agreed that the max should be 5d8 in line with the spell levels of the Paladin.
I agree that Sorcerer, especially Wild sorcerer needs something, but I'm not sure a change is absolutely necessary. Sorcerer is viable and IMO it's really only Wild Magic Sorcerer that needs help due to the DM fiat rule. I'm open to suggestions. Your Wizard comparison can't assume Evoker, Wizards to have their own difficulties and choices to make. I acknowledge Wizards are strong, but I'm not convinced the problems are stark enough to require action.
Ranger casting is makes them the divine class that casts like a Sorc. I'm not convinced that change is needed, if I was doing a full rewrite I would do it, but not for this.
Admittedly I'm being overly dramatic, but I stand firm in my opinion on EB. Smite is longer issue. You comparing EB to firebolt etc, is exactly why you shouldn't nerf it. EB is the warlock. If it is equal in power to a sorcerer casting firebolt, then why even play a warlock? The big question is why do you feel this is necessary? Are warlocks breaking your game? Or is it sorcerer warlocks that are breaking your game? The fighter should still out damage the EB, any day, unless the warlock can cast more than one a round(read MC warlocking). A fire dragon sorcerer with elemental adept hits everything just as hard unless they are immune to fire. Oh and he has a ****ton more spells, and quicken, and twin etc.
As for sorcerer buffs, I was comparing the sorcerer to the evoker since I've seen most sorcerers tend to blast. Evokers might not add cha or int to dmg but they can sculpt for free and eventually maximise a spell which is leaps and bounds better than empower. The wizard is even better at doing everything else, since his specializations actually give him benefits to spellcasting beyond that one damage roll per spell +cha from dragon sorcs. Double undead count with animate dead, super strong adjuration wards, portent is just amazing... etc. Wizards make better blasters, and that's what sorcerers do best. Wizard are also better at everything else. Why play a sorcerer? If you've played a sorcerer in 5e you would know that weak feeling of limited options, plus little advantage. "The wizard can do all this, and change it tomorrow and I have only my lvl+1 spells known... but I can add cha to one fire dmg roll!" My suggested changes are to give them more staying power than the wizard, as opposed to the less they currently have do to arcane recovery. If they have more sorcery points, and can get some back once per day on short rest, it would feel like the class had the raw blast for days power it used to have in previous editions. "The wizard can do all that fancy stuff, but he is out of spells... I'm not."
Ranger is the sorc of the divine classes... Read above how sorcerers are bad. This is just one more unnecessary nerf that makes no sense for the class. Sorcerers have at least a reason to be the way they are since their magic is internal and wouldn't make sense to change every day. How is a ranger any different than a more fightery druid? There is no reason for flavor or mechanics to punish the ranger in this way.
Smite. Ultimately this is a matter of opinion I guess. You are valuing the no action cost, and decision after the fact higher than the damage. If smite existed in your game like it is, I would probably ONLY smite on a critical or in desperation, because otherwise I am just nerfing my overall damage output per long rest. The smite spells do more damage and have a rider effect. (Would I rather do 3d8 damage after the attack hits or just decide my next attack is going to do 3d8 and might blind them...) If your intent is to drive paladin nova potential down you succeed, but only because smite will largely become unused. I'd just use one smite spell a round and that's that. Sad thing is no one is getting blessed because all those smite spells are concentration.
PeteNutButter
2016-03-22, 10:23 AM
Under yours, without Hunter's Mark, it's an average of 51 damage without any resource expenditure, and with advantage for at least half the attacks.
Advantage for half the attacks? Mounted combat on a medium creature is pretty crap. It only gives advantage on small or tiny enemies. Or are you assuming they are prone? There is also some counter synergy between the wolf's bite being 5ft and attacking at disadv with a lance at that range.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-22, 10:37 AM
Advantage for half the attacks? Mounted combat on a medium creature is pretty crap. It only gives advantage on small or tiny enemies. Or are you assuming they are prone? There is also some counter synergy between the wolf's bite being 5ft and attacking at disadv with a lance at that range.
Good point about the lance range, but I was referring to the wolf having advantage as long as an ally (like its rider) is adjacent to the creature it's attacking. Mounted Combatant is purely for the longevity of the Wolf in that scenario. With RAW, I suppose the Wolf can disengage to let you attack normally, or it can help to wash out the disadvantage. Under these rules, I suppose dropping to a Rapier is simply better.
I support the love for sorcerers bandwagon!
At the very least they should get more spells known. For some reason the whole +1 per level thing just stops at one point, and it is extremely restricting. I suggest removing that.
Also, giving them some exclusive spells could be awesome, like how Warlocks get Hex and Eldritch Blast exclusive to them, or Bards get Vicious Mockery exclusive to them. Also, more metamagic options (and perhaps being able to pick 1 more metamagic) would do wonders for this class.
Perhaps something that would let them re-train their spells even if they hit the level cap. Maybe something they can do during their downtime, like spending all spell points for a day in order to retrain a spell. Preventive during standard adventuring, but during downtime or "days off" while they wait for others to heal, it would let them customize themselves a little more.
I'd also like to say that Warlocks could probably use some spell love. They're the only class that has features who unlock spells to choose, rather than simply giving them spells. I know it's not the best to compare, considering the magical sources and styles, but Clerics, Druids and even Paladins get all the spells their features give them, and have them prepared all the time. Warlocks have their spells compete with a limited spell selection that they have, being learned casters rather than prepared.
These are valid points about the Sorcerer but are crossing into rewrite land something I want to avoid. Right now the Sorcerer lacks some of the flexibility that would be good, but isn't completely outclassed. If anything, I would make a little boost for the Wild Sorcerer. If I were doing a more extensive change I would be addressing much of this.
Steampunkette
2016-03-22, 10:55 AM
EB being more powerful than other cantrips is certainly a thing. But it is more powerful because it is meant to be the Warlock's primary weapon.
Your Wizard has cantrips to fall back on. She'll be throwing Fireballs and Prismatic Rays most of the time and Cantrips when she's either low on spells or saving her big guns.
The Sorceror has cantrips to fall back on. She'll be doing pretty much the same thing as the Wizard, but with more flashy effects and two spells per round whenever possible.
But the Warlock? Casting other spells, and specifically attack spells, is the less common option. She's all about blasting enemies with her main cantrip, and taking class features she specifically has to choose instead of gaining more spells per day through other invocations. While the other arcane casters are running through 3-4 spell slots per fight, the Warlock is tossing off one and saving two more for the next fight before she gets her short rest to recover.
That said, there is one change I would make to Warlock... Make the Eldritch Blast improvements require Pact Boons of Tome or Chain, not Blade. The Bladelock is giving up focus on cantrips in favor of melee weapons, and their invocation options should reflect that. Though I also think Bladelocking should give some kind of small survivability boost as well, maybe a few extra HP or a bonus to AC or both, since they'll be heading into melee much more often without EB Buffs.
Admittedly I'm being overly dramatic, but I stand firm in my opinion on EB. Smite is longer issue. You comparing EB to firebolt etc, is exactly why you shouldn't nerf it. EB is the warlock. If it is equal in power to a sorcerer casting firebolt, then why even play a warlock? The big question is why do you feel this is necessary? Are warlocks breaking your game? Or is it sorcerer warlocks that are breaking your game? The fighter should still out damage the EB, any day, unless the warlock can cast more than one a round(read MC warlocking). A fire dragon sorcerer with elemental adept hits everything just as hard unless they are immune to fire. Oh and he has a ****ton more spells, and quicken, and twin etc.
As for sorcerer buffs, I was comparing the sorcerer to the evoker since I've seen most sorcerers tend to blast. Evokers might not add cha or int to dmg but they can sculpt for free and eventually maximise a spell which is leaps and bounds better than empower. The wizard is even better at doing everything else, since his specializations actually give him benefits to spellcasting beyond that one damage roll per spell +cha from dragon sorcs. Double undead count with animate dead, super strong adjuration wards, portent is just amazing... etc. Wizards make better blasters, and that's what sorcerers do best. Wizard are also better at everything else. Why play a sorcerer? If you've played a sorcerer in 5e you would know that weak feeling of limited options, plus little advantage. "The wizard can do all this, and change it tomorrow and I have only my lvl+1 spells known... but I can add cha to one fire dmg roll!" My suggested changes are to give them more staying power than the wizard, as opposed to the less they currently have do to arcane recovery. If they have more sorcery points, and can get some back once per day on short rest, it would feel like the class had the raw blast for days power it used to have in previous editions. "The wizard can do all that fancy stuff, but he is out of spells... I'm not."
Ranger is the sorc of the divine classes... Read above how sorcerers are bad. This is just one more unnecessary nerf that makes no sense for the class. Sorcerers have at least a reason to be the way they are since their magic is internal and wouldn't make sense to change every day. How is a ranger any different than a more fightery druid? There is no reason for flavor or mechanics to punish the ranger in this way.
Smite. Ultimately this is a matter of opinion I guess. You are valuing the no action cost, and decision after the fact higher than the damage. If smite existed in your game like it is, I would probably ONLY smite on a critical or in desperation, because otherwise I am just nerfing my overall damage output per long rest. The smite spells do more damage and have a rider effect. (Would I rather do 3d8 damage after the attack hits or just decide my next attack is going to do 3d8 and might blind them...) If your intent is to drive paladin nova potential down you succeed, but only because smite will largely become unused. I'd just use one smite spell a round and that's that. Sad thing is no one is getting blessed because all those smite spells are concentration.
The Wizard does not necessarily make a better blaster. They are fairly even. I accept that the Wizard is generally better, but not universally so. The Sorcerer's tricks with Metamagic are unique, powerful, and hugely beneficial. The wizard wishes they could twin Disintegrates. Or for utility and buffing wishes they could Twin Haste etc. A lot of what you are asking requires much heavier of a hand than I would really like to use and is beyond the scope of these tweaks. As far as I am concerned Sorcerer and Wizard are close enough to be viable options and the Wizard does not fully invalidate the Sorcerer.
PS I do play Sorcerers and man the Wizard in the party is certainly envious of Quicken.
A Warlock's EB with my changes is still strictly better than what a blasty Evoker or blasty Dragon Sorcerer can do. Yes, it is the mainstay of the Warlock, if you accept such a limited view of the Warlock. With my changes the Warlock is still a solid damage dealing class that by reducing the shoehorned roll opens other relative and viable options. It also reduces MC abuse.
No Warlock's were not breaking my game and this is not a petty punishment for them, but Warlocks by design invalidate both Sorcerer and Evoker as Blaster options, that is not good. The damage of a Granulated EB with D10+5/Die with a knockback kicker and possibly up to 300/600' means that if you wanted to act as a blaster it sets the bar so high it is the only option. My fix brings it back down a bit, still great relatively speaking as a damage dealing class and does not invalidate other options.
GWJ_DanyBoy
2016-03-22, 11:02 AM
That said, there is one change I would make to Warlock... Make the Eldritch Blast improvements require Pact Boons of Tome or Chain, not Blade. The Bladelock is giving up focus on cantrips in favor of melee weapons, and their invocation options should reflect that. Though I also think Bladelocking should give some kind of small survivability boost as well, maybe a few extra HP or a bonus to AC or both, since they'll be heading into melee much more often without EB Buffs.
Why Bladelocks don't get Medium armor and shield profs while getting nothing else to compensate when every other gish does is beyond me. See Valor bard, all clerics, and the blade-singing feature.
Foxhound438
2016-03-22, 11:10 AM
Divine Smite
Change to "Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage. The extra damage is 1d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 4d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend."
Fighting Style
Great Weapon Fighting: Change "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die..." to "When you roll a 1 or a 2 on a weapon damage die..."
a) a 1st level spell slot would appropriately deal 3d8 to a single target (see chromatic orb). why would paladin's smite be made less effective than any other use of a spell slot? it's balanced RAW, even if it can do more damage based on the weapon and the modifier, since you have to be in melee. This change makes the ability literally a never-use dump ability.
b) what's the point? even adding dice the difference is only about 15% of the dice's damage. it's literally a nitpick of about 2 damage when they're already dealing upwards of 70.
Grod_The_Giant
2016-03-22, 11:12 AM
As a compromise on Eldrich Blast, how about grant it for free at 1st level, in Zman's form (Cha to damage 1/target), and have it scale only with Warlock level. (thus solving the "trademark cantrip is better than other cantrips" issue). Then let the Agonizing Blast invocation apply Cha to damage with every ray (thus solving the "Warlocks aren't the best arcane archers blasters complaint). Maybe merge it with Repelling Blast if you think the new form is too weak.
I'd also definitely support Pact of the Blade granting +1 hp/level. As it stands, its main sctick (Thirsting Blade) is a higher-level invocation-- the "summon your weapon" bit isn't that big a deal, and how important its being magic is varies wildly. Let it give you some benefit when you actually choose it.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-22, 11:12 AM
Why Bladelocks don't get Medium armor and shield profs while getting nothing else to compensate when every other gish does is beyond me. See Valor bard, all clerics, and the blade-singing feature.
They get Armor of Shadows, which is quite a lot for the Dex Bladelocks. Still, it would be nice for Stradelocks to get some armor.
Foxhound438
2016-03-22, 11:24 AM
That said, there is one change I would make to Warlock... Make the Eldritch Blast improvements require Pact Boons of Tome or Chain, not Blade. The Bladelock is giving up focus on cantrips in favor of melee weapons, and their invocation options should reflect that. Though I also think Bladelocking should give some kind of small survivability boost as well, maybe a few extra HP or a bonus to AC or both, since they'll be heading into melee much more often without EB Buffs.
who needs real armor and real shields when you have armor of agathys or fire shield? you want to get hit when that's the case
Steampunkette
2016-03-22, 11:27 AM
They -can- get Armor of Shadows -if- they spend an invocation as a tax.
Baseline, they're getting one decent melee attack at level 3 (assuming their Str or Dex is a fairly high stat) and running into melee with the same armor as any caster class. It barely compares favorably to their one eldritch blast, in that it could do more max damage and has a higher base damage (thanks to stat mod). It does overcome most damage resistances, but so does the eldritch blast which also has an exotic damage type that is rarely resisted.
It also requires far more MADness than a straight EB build, more invocations swallowed up for the blade, and so forth. Compare the baseline function to invisible familiars and ritual magic with three extra cantrips known (from any class). It doesn't exactly stand up too well.
SharkForce
2016-03-22, 11:29 AM
They get Armor of Shadows, which is quite a lot for the Dex Bladelocks. Still, it would be nice for Stradelocks to get some armor.
armour of shadows is not quite a lot. it is +1 AC. unless the group finds some +1 light armour, in which case it is not even that. and it takes up an invocation to get armour of shadows, too. it isn't like bladelocks aren't already paying a big enough invocation tax for the privilege of going into melee that they need to lose another one.
Foxhound438
2016-03-22, 11:30 AM
They -can- get Armor of Shadows -if- they spend an invocation as a tax.
Baseline, they're getting one decent melee attack at level 3 (assuming their Str or Dex is a fairly high stat) and running into melee with the same armor as any caster class. It barely compares favorably to their one eldritch blast, in that it could do more max damage and has a higher base damage (thanks to stat mod). It does overcome most damage resistances, but so does the eldritch blast which also has an exotic damage type that is rarely resisted.
It also requires far more MADness than a straight EB build, more invocations swallowed up for the blade, and so forth. Compare the baseline function to invisible familiars and ritual magic with three extra cantrips known (from any class). It doesn't exactly stand up too well.
a well built bladelock will out-damage a blast lock for 90% of their career.
GWJ_DanyBoy
2016-03-22, 11:41 AM
They -can- get Armor of Shadows -if- they spend an invocation as a tax.
Baseline, they're getting one decent melee attack at level 3 (assuming their Str or Dex is a fairly high stat) and running into melee with the same armor as any caster class. It barely compares favorably to their one eldritch blast, in that it could do more max damage and has a higher base damage (thanks to stat mod). It does overcome most damage resistances, but so does the eldritch blast which also has an exotic damage type that is rarely resisted.
It also requires far more MADness than a straight EB build, more invocations swallowed up for the blade, and so forth. Compare the baseline function to invisible familiars and ritual magic with three extra cantrips known (from any class). It doesn't exactly stand up too well.
I was thinking along these lines.
Warlocks make pretty good gishes. They get armor of agathys and hex, many ways to get temp-hp, they get extra attack at 5, they get a damage boost at 12 (as opposed to most martials at 11). But the required amount of investment to get there is very high. You need to spend half or more of your invocations on supporting the concept. You'll likely need a feat or two if you're serious about being in melee (Likely Warcaster and another feat like Duelist, Medium armor, Polearm Master, Great weapon master etc.)
And Bladelocks can't cast and slash and don't have TWF support.
Then there's the issue where a warlock is using heavy investment to make themselves more vulnerable and do less damage than if they just sat in the back and spammed EB.
EB being more powerful than other cantrips is certainly a thing. But it is more powerful because it is meant to be the Warlock's primary weapon.
Your Wizard has cantrips to fall back on. She'll be throwing Fireballs and Prismatic Rays most of the time and Cantrips when she's either low on spells or saving her big guns.
The Sorceror has cantrips to fall back on. She'll be doing pretty much the same thing as the Wizard, but with more flashy effects and two spells per round whenever possible.
But the Warlock? Casting other spells, and specifically attack spells, is the less common option. She's all about blasting enemies with her main cantrip, and taking class features she specifically has to choose instead of gaining more spells per day through other invocations. While the other arcane casters are running through 3-4 spell slots per fight, the Warlock is tossing off one and saving two more for the next fight before she gets her short rest to recover.
That said, there is one change I would make to Warlock... Make the Eldritch Blast improvements require Pact Boons of Tome or Chain, not Blade. The Bladelock is giving up focus on cantrips in favor of melee weapons, and their invocation options should reflect that. Though I also think Bladelocking should give some kind of small survivability boost as well, maybe a few extra HP or a bonus to AC or both, since they'll be heading into melee much more often without EB Buffs.
I agree that blasting is the best Warlock option currently, but I see it as the Warlock being forced into that role. I agree that other Warlock builds need more support. I am open to a simple fix for Warlocks, but that doesn't change the fact that Agonizing Blast makes the best Cantrip pretty ridiculous, even crazier when Hex adds 1-4d6 per turn additional damage. My proposed fix doesn't neuter EB to the point of being useless, Warlocks will still excel at blasting but their single target damage will be more in line with other forms of damage and still exceed just about everything at will with Hex. It isn't until lvl11+ that my changes really have an impact.
a) a 1st level spell slot would appropriately deal 3d8 to a single target (see chromatic orb). why would paladin's smite be made less effective than any other use of a spell slot? it's balanced RAW, even if it can do more damage based on the weapon and the modifier, since you have to be in melee. This change makes the ability literally a never-use dump ability.
b) what's the point? even adding dice the difference is only about 15% of the dice's damage. it's literally a nitpick of about 2 damage when they're already dealing upwards of 70.
No, a 1st level spell requires an action and either an attack roll or a save for half. The Paladin is adding damage with no action cost and guaranteed to deal it, and it can be queued after a Crit is rolled to double it up. Yes, using 1st level slots are less stellar, but higher level lost are proportionally less effected. And now we actually have a reason to use Smiting spells. I disagree with you conclusion that Smiting becomes useless and see the effects as a positive.
The way GWF was worded was dumb and shouldn't effect all those other dice. It's a simple fix that feels right, and it simplifies rolling a handful of dice which is good.
As a compromise on Eldrich Blast, how about grant it for free at 1st level, in Zman's form (Cha to damage 1/target), and have it scale only with Warlock level. (thus solving the "trademark cantrip is better than other cantrips" issue). Then let the Agonizing Blast invocation apply Cha to damage with every ray (thus solving the "Warlocks aren't the best arcane archers blasters complaint). Maybe merge it with Repelling Blast if you think the new form is too weak.
I'd also definitely support Pact of the Blade granting +1 hp/level. As it stands, its main sctick (Thirsting Blade) is a higher-level invocation-- the "summon your weapon" bit isn't that big a deal, and how important its being magic is varies wildly. Let it give you some benefit when you actually choose it.
My goal was to limit the heavy handed changes. IMO the changes to EB are workable and balance enhancing. Yes, Warlock has other issues and I am open to having Path of the Blade grant Medium Armor and possibly 1HP/Level.
Icewraith
2016-03-22, 01:17 PM
IMO Dragonborn aren't great, but I valued Resistance to a common type, also having an AoE damage option is good. Probably should up the damage a bit, but I don't see it wildly out of whack.
Haha, for some reason I had 3.5e and 4th level spells stuck in my head. I'll definitely up the cap.
Dual Wielder was weak, both Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master have been brought down a bit. Adding +1 Damage per attack, +1 AC, and relieving the nuisance of drawing two weapons. A bit of extra damage and +1 AC is decent.
We have no indication of Exotic Weapon Proficiency being a requirement in 5e, what I changed it to makes it strictly better. If Exotics came out we'd require support elsewhere etc.
The variant human feat was a throwback to 3.5e. Humans aren't bad, not having a +2 is rough, but having extra skills will help slightly and Half Elf is a touch less versatile. I'm open to other suggestions for boosting Human?
I disagree. Let's compare them.
Thunderous Smite
1st Level Slot
Prepared Spell
Bonus Action Casting
Expended on first hit
2d6 Thunder Damage
Rider of Str or fall Prone
Divine Smite
1st Level Slot
Spontaneous expenditure, no preparation opportunity cost
No action cost
D8 Radient
Bonus D8 Radient vs Undead and Fiends
Now, this probably falls slightly in favor of Thunderous Smite, and its 2.5 damage for no spontaneous use and a prepared slot.
Against Branding and Blinding Smite at 2nd and 3rd levels Divine Smite deals more damage and riders are a wash situationally. Staggering Smite at 4th deals less damage for a better rider. At 5th Banishing Smite is better thanks to its Roder and damage die.
The fact we now have a trade off and the spell Smites are viable is a good day thing, un modified we see much much less use and preparation of them.
Requiring no prepared slot, no bonus action prior to use, and the ability to use it after you've rolled a Crit is very powerful.
The ability to use it after you've rolled a crit is the only way I see it gets used already, because the damage die are so low and spell slots are so valuable. We don't see the spell smites used because the concentration slot competes with Bless. Paladin DPR without smite is pretty bad, worse than Monk, so the spiky smites are necessary to bring DPR back to something reasonable.Reducing the damage die means you're just getting less damage out of your spell slots than other long rest classes, and that's really not ok.
compare (AFB, so from memory):
Level 1 nerfed smite 1d8 (4.5 avg damage), requires successful melee attack, 9 avg damage IF you crit.
Level 1 spell slot Paladin 2d8 smite (9 avg damage), requires succesful melee attack, 18 damage IF you save it for a crit.
Level 1 spell slot Paladin Thunderous Smite- bonus action activation, requires successful melee attack, 2d6 (7 average damage) (14 avg if you crit), rider effect STR save or opponent grants advantage.
Level 1 spell slot Sor/Wiz Magic Missile 3d4+3 (10.5 avg damage), auto hits, force damage.
Level 1 spell slot Bless: +1d4 to attack rolls for three party members, concentration.
Level 2 slot nerfed Paladin smite 2d8 (9 avg) (18 if you save it for a crit)/
Level 2 slot Paladin 3d8 smite (13.5 avg) (27 avg on crit), requires successful melee attack.
Level 2 Scorching Ray, 3x d26 rays, 14 avg ranged fire damage assuming 2 hits (21 if all three hit), 4d6 if a ray crits (three crit opportunities).
Level 3 Slot Nerfed smite 3d8 (13.5 avg, 27 crit)
Level 3 slot Paladin 4d8 smite (18 avg, 36 on crit), same restrictions as before
Level 3 Sor/Wiz Fireball 8d6 (28 avg) to a bunch of targets, ref half.
Level 3 Slot Scorching ray, 4x 2d6 ranged fire rays (21 avg if 3/4 hit, 28 avg if all 4 hit, 4 chances to crit for and extra 2d6 per crit)
The point is that Paladin damage per spell slot is already low compared to other long rest classes (and their casting advances at half the usual rate), so you're double penalizing them for the ability to activate once a hit has been determined. The scaling on smite already gets worse with level since it's only +1d8 per. If you're worried about the smite spells not being competitive, add another 1-2 d6 of baseline damage or drop the concentration requirement (if it's not already a 1 minute or lower duration, make it so to prevent Paladins pre-casting smite spells hours before combat if you drop the concentration requirement) so they don't conflict with Bless.
The real pain comes in at low level. Have you played a level 2 Paladin? 1d8 (4.5 avg) smite is just miserable. At third level you'll have up to 3 smites per long rest for all of 1d8 damage each while the Rogue is dishing out 2d6 (7 avg) sneak attacks with no resource cost whatsoever. The Monk will be getting an extra attack from their bonus action at 1d4+stat (5.5 avg assuming 16 dex) from a ki point and that's a short rest resource. Paladin smite baseline needs to stay at 2d8, and you could probably bump it up to 3d8 without disrupting game balance after level 8 or so.
The ability to use it after you've rolled a crit is the only way I see it gets used already, because the damage die are so low and spell slots are so valuable. We don't see the spell smites used because the concentration slot competes with Bless. Paladin DPR without smite is pretty bad, worse than Monk, so the spiky smites are necessary to bring DPR back to something reasonable.Reducing the damage die means you're just getting less damage out of your spell slots than other long rest classes, and that's really not ok.
compare (AFB, so from memory):
Level 1 nerfed smite 1d8 (4.5 avg damage), requires successful melee attack, 9 avg damage IF you crit.
Level 1 spell slot Paladin 2d8 smite (9 avg damage), requires succesful melee attack, 18 damage IF you save it for a crit.
Level 1 spell slot Paladin Thunderous Smite- bonus action activation, requires successful melee attack, 2d6 (7 average damage) (14 avg if you crit), rider effect STR save or opponent grants advantage.
Level 1 spell slot Sor/Wiz Magic Missile 3d4+3 (10.5 avg damage), auto hits, force damage.
Level 1 spell slot Bless: +1d4 to attack rolls for three party members, concentration.
Level 2 slot nerfed Paladin smite 2d8 (9 avg) (18 if you save it for a crit)/
Level 2 slot Paladin 3d8 smite (13.5 avg) (27 avg on crit), requires successful melee attack.
Level 2 Scorching Ray, 3x d26 rays, 14 avg ranged fire damage assuming 2 hits (21 if all three hit), 4d6 if a ray crits (three crit opportunities).
Level 3 Slot Nerfed smite 3d8 (13.5 avg, 27 crit)
Level 3 slot Paladin 4d8 smite (18 avg, 36 on crit), same restrictions as before
Level 3 Sor/Wiz Fireball 8d6 (28 avg) to a bunch of targets, ref half.
Level 3 Slot Scorching ray, 4x 2d6 ranged fire rays (21 avg if 3/4 hit, 28 avg if all 4 hit, 4 chances to crit for and extra 2d6 per crit)
The point is that Paladin damage per spell slot is already low compared to other long rest classes (and their casting advances at half the usual rate), so you're double penalizing them for the ability to activate once a hit has been determined. The scaling on smite already gets worse with level since it's only +1d8 per. If you're worried about the smite spells not being competitive, add another 1-2 d6 of baseline damage or drop the concentration requirement (if it's not already a 1 minute or lower duration, make it so to prevent Paladins pre-casting smite spells hours before combat if you drop the concentration requirement) so they don't conflict with Bless.
The real pain comes in at low level. Have you played a level 2 Paladin? 1d8 (4.5 avg) smite is just miserable. At third level you'll have up to 3 smites per long rest for all of 1d8 damage each while the Rogue is dishing out 2d6 (7 avg) sneak attacks with no resource cost whatsoever. The Monk will be getting an extra attack from their bonus action at 1d4+stat (5.5 avg assuming 16 dex) from a ki point and that's a short rest resource. Paladin smite baseline needs to stay at 2d8, and you could probably bump it up to 3d8 without disrupting game balance after level 8 or so.
Firstly, comparing Smite to 1st level spells without including the Weapon and Ability Mod damage is wrong. And as you pointed out it is most often used with a Crit to maximize damage. That is closer to the baseline of the damage output that is expected. Smite is not a general use of a spellslot ability, it is an ability of damage on command when in dire need.
The Paladin is a half caster, why are you trying to have it keep up damagewise with full casters casting offensive spells. My change makes the Paladin more internally consistant with the predetermined Smites and makes it less open to abuse with MCing.
Using Bless as a comparison is well flawed as the spell is too good and on the list of spells I'd consider nerfing as it is the best 1st level spell in the game and better than many many spells many levels higher.
Paladin has terrible DPR? At 2nd level? Well I haven't played any, but have DMed for multiple ones. You mean that class that stands toe to toe with a Fighter, trading a once per short rest action surge for the ability to cast spells and Smite? So, if playing a Paladin at level 2 is miserable, playing an fighter must just be worse?? You keep comparing Smite to things as if it was not a zero action cost source of additional damage that is added to you already considerable weapon damage and for internal balance should be balanced against its spell slots. Yes, that rogue can get 2d6 sneak attack every round, so long as it fulfills certain criteria... but the Rogue is a glass Cannon and Sneak is its main source of damage. So that Rogue puts out D8+3 +2d6 sneak from a fragile mobile frame while the Paladin puts out either 2d6/D8/D10+3 with higher AC, Hit Points, and has the opportunity to cast spells and Smite when needed. You cite 3rd level, how about 5th when the Paladin is putting out 4d6+6/8 GWF damage before Smiting or spells compared to the Rogue's D8+3/4 +3d6?? Or the Monk at 5th which is dealing 3d6+12/16 or 4d6+12/16 with resource expenditure. Both of which are on substantially more fragile frames. A single level point of comparison doesn't do us that much good, we have to put things in context.
IMO Divine Smite is not supposed to be generally an efficient use of a spell slot, it should be better to just cast a smiting spell for a normal hit, it is a way to "waste" spell energy for very much needed moment where extra damage is critical. And fulfilling that aim it does exactly what it should. And lets not forget its rider, additional damage vs Undead and Fiends.
Steampunkette
2016-03-22, 02:42 PM
a well built bladelock will out-damage a blast lock for 90% of their career.
Sure. If you minmax and optimize your build you can slightly out-damage someone who doesn't/can't for most of your career. You'll also be standing next to the twin ogres and in a ton more danger of getting squished than that other person who has 3 more invocations to choose from than you do because you spent 3 just to get to the point where you're doing slightly more damage than the blasty warlock.
I'm saying the risk to reward isn't there. And lessening the blasty warlock's damage dealing (which is less than some classes on a DPR basis and vastly less on a spike basis) doesn't fix it. It just makes Warlocks in general slightly less damaging.
Giving Bladelocks armor and HP would be a huge boon to both general survivability (HP) and strengthlock concepts (no need for high dex to get a decent AC).
And yeah. The extra 4d6 of damage is nice (assuming all of your attacks hit) while a Rogue is slinging 11d6 if one of two (shortsword) attacks hits (may or may not have dex mod, depending) without expending one of four spell slots. 56 versus 43 average damage per round with a spell slot expended and 4 chances to miss. Gives the warlock a slight advantage on DPR against targets with higher ACs since they'll often do at least -some- damage. But dropping 3 of the 4 +5 charisma mods to damage drops that to 41 vs 43. With the same increase to chances to hit/miss which makes them deal less damage to enemies with low AC by comparison to the same Rogue.
And if the Rogue hits with both weapons she'll throw 47 damage. With hand crossbows 45 (so that they're both at range).
Notice that I'm not getting into Assassin Autocrits, which significantly improve Rogue DPR, again without expending any resources or requiring concentration. The biggest benefit of Agonizing Blast, as it turns out, is the increase to minimum damage, which kicks in after 2 blasts hit compared to the Rogue hitting with one sneak attack.
I dunno. Weighing the increased chance of doing less than full damage, the cost of the spell slot, the cost of the invocation choice, the chance of losing concentration, and the opportunity cost of choosing one concentration choice over another that the Warlock's damaging ability compares, as is, fairly well to the Rogue's. Both fill the same combat niche (targeted murder using fairly consistent at-will DPR) while filling similar noncombat niches in different ways (spellcasting and invocations to circumvent problems instead of skill checks).
Shifting that down feels like a mistake, to me. Though I'll readily admit that repelling blast shenanigans are freaking crazy...
How about this Repelling blast alternative: 1 blast knocks the target prone on a failed strength save. 2 blasts knock the target prone and flings them 10 feet on failed save. 3 blasts knocks the target prone and flings them 20 feet on the failed save. Four blasts applies disadvantage on the saving throw, knocks them prone, and flings them 20 feet if they fail.
Sure. If you minmax and optimize your build you can slightly out-damage someone who doesn't/can't for most of your career. You'll also be standing next to the twin ogres and in a ton more danger of getting squished than that other person who has 3 more invocations to choose from than you do because you spent 3 just to get to the point where you're doing slightly more damage than the blasty warlock.
I'm saying the risk to reward isn't there. And lessening the blasty warlock's damage dealing (which is less than some classes on a DPR basis and vastly less on a spike basis) doesn't fix it. It just makes Warlocks in general slightly less damaging.
Giving Bladelocks armor and HP would be a huge boon to both general survivability (HP) and strengthlock concepts (no need for high dex to get a decent AC).
And yeah. The extra 4d6 of damage is nice (assuming all of your attacks hit) while a Rogue is slinging 11d6 if one of two (shortsword) attacks hits (may or may not have dex mod, depending) without expending one of four spell slots. 56 versus 43 average damage per round with a spell slot expended and 4 chances to miss. Gives the warlock a slight advantage on DPR against targets with higher ACs since they'll often do at least -some- damage. But dropping 3 of the 4 +5 charisma mods to damage drops that to 41 vs 43. With the same increase to chances to hit/miss which makes them deal less damage to enemies with low AC by comparison to the same Rogue.
And if the Rogue hits with both weapons she'll throw 47 damage. With hand crossbows 45 (so that they're both at range).
Notice that I'm not getting into Assassin Autocrits, which significantly improve Rogue DPR, again without expending any resources or requiring concentration. The biggest benefit of Agonizing Blast, as it turns out, is the increase to minimum damage, which kicks in after 2 blasts hit compared to the Rogue hitting with one sneak attack.
I dunno. Weighing the increased chance of doing less than full damage, the cost of the spell slot, the cost of the invocation choice, the chance of losing concentration, and the opportunity cost of choosing one concentration choice over another that the Warlock's damaging ability compares, as is, fairly well to the Rogue's. Both fill the same combat niche (targeted murder using fairly consistent at-will DPR) while filling similar noncombat niches in different ways (spellcasting and invocations to circumvent problems instead of skill checks).
Shifting that down feels like a mistake, to me. Though I'll readily admit that repelling blast shenanigans are freaking crazy...
How about this Repelling blast alternative: 1 blast knocks the target prone on a failed strength save. 2 blasts knock the target prone and flings them 10 feet on failed save. 3 blasts knocks the target prone and flings them 20 feet on the failed save. Four blasts applies disadvantage on the saving throw, knocks them prone, and flings them 20 feet if they fail.
The Rogue to Warlock comparison is pretty good, but looks very different at lvl 20 than it does at say level 17, or lvl 11, or lvl5. You picked the most favorable level for the comparison. The big caveat is that putting two shortsword attacks out requires being in melee range and staying there. A shortbow or hit and run shortsword becomes all or none, is mundane without magical ammunition etc. Then there is the difficulty for the Rogue to be switching between weapons and trying to get two melee weapons out. I'm not sure the slow and steady consistent damage class should have higher max damage than the spike damage class. I'm also looking at the at will damage in comparison to other classes which are generally much much lower. I mean 4 GWF Greatsword Attacks is 53.33 as the heaviest at will Melee barring feats or resource expenditure. An Archer Fighter puts out 4d8+20 or 38, and that is only at lvl 20, it is only 3d8+15(28.5) lvls 11-19 where at 17-19 the Warlock has the fourth ray.
Basically I'm saying that for most of the game my changes do not radically alter damage output, and after lvl 11 its modest and only becomes high at lvl 17+ and despite the change the damage is still competitive especially for at will ranged magic. Lvls 1-4 are unchanged, lvls 5-10 is a very small decrease, and it is only really after lvl 11 when you get a third ray that it becomes noticeable.
I would not add something so complicated for Repelling blast, it is counter to the goal of these tweaks. A single 10' knockback per target is balanced and doesn't alter much prior to lvl 11.
Grod_The_Giant
2016-03-22, 03:20 PM
It seems to me that the most direct comparison is an archer fighter. Both put out 4 ranged attacks at level 20; both get their extra attacks at the same time (except for the last one). EB has a larger damage die, dealing an average of one extra damage per beam; it also requires more investment to pick up (a cantip and Invocation slot, both very limited) and has much less range than a longbow. Warlocks have native access to Hex for increased DPR; Fighters have Archery Combat Style and Action Surge. Warlocks who branch out a little can get Quicken; Fighters can get Sharpshooter for many fewer resources, to say nothing of magic weapons. I don't feel like doing the math, but it looks like the Fighter has a solid advantage over the Warlock when it comes back to shooting things.
It seems to me that the most direct comparison is an archer fighter. Both put out 4 ranged attacks at level 20; both get their extra attacks at the same time (except for the last one). EB has a larger damage die, dealing an average of one extra damage per beam; it also requires more investment to pick up (a cantip and Invocation slot, both very limited) and has much less range than a longbow. Warlocks have native access to Hex for increased DPR; Fighters have Archery Combat Style and Action Surge. Warlocks who branch out a little can get Quicken; Fighters can get Sharpshooter for many fewer resources, to say nothing of magic weapons. I don't feel like doing the math, but it looks like the Fighter has a solid advantage over the Warlock when it comes back to shooting things.
Lvl 1-4 (Advantage Warlock)
Fighter D8+3/4
Warlock D10+3/4
Lvls 5-10(Advantage Fighter if both Hit, Advantage Warlock if one hits, net very minor advantage Fighter)
Fighter 2D8 +8/10
Warlock 2D10 +4/5
Lvls 11-16(Advantage Fighter if two or three hit, Advantage Warlock if one hits, net moderate advantage Fighter)
Fighter 3D8+15
Warlock 3D10+5
Lvls 17-19(Slight Advantage Fighter)
Fighter 3D8+15
Warlock 4D10 +5
Lvl 20(Solid advantage Fighter)
What really does it is the Archery Fighting Style(which needed a minor nerf) and wasn't included above. Add Hex into the mix and the Warlock ends up on top damage wise. Of course at lower levels being Force Damage and magic puts EB ahead even further when it matters. Factor in everything else and it gets complicated. Obviously the Fighter has more survivability and the Warlock has more out of combat utility.
Now, without my nerf to EB EB wins this comparison all day every day at every level and blows the Longbow out of the water when you are looking at Hex barring some kind of powerful magic item(which we should then say the Warlock gets one as well and they cancel out). Now, with Sharpshooter, especially unmodified the Fighter gets a range advantage(rarely matters) and has the potential to up damage against low AC enemies.
In both scenarios we are in the same ballpark of damage and I'd choose to err on the side of remotely close to other at will DPS. Unmodified EB especially when Hex is in play really pushes that boundary just like unmodified GWM and unmodified Sharpshooter were really pushing that boundry as well and needed to be brought down.
Back to giving the Bladelock something fun, how is Medium Armor Prof and/or +1 HP per level sound?
Steampunkette
2016-03-22, 03:57 PM
The reason I used level 20 Rogue is because that's what I thought about the 4d6 you referenced the Warlock getting from Eldritch Blast with Hex comes in.
Before that it's less.
Though you're right. I should've put the Rogue at level 17, where the Warlock gets her fourth beam. That puts the Rogue down by 3.5 points of damage from the previous math. Which is, definitely, worse.
Again, though, the Warlock has more chances to miss, has to use a spell slot, has chosen a specific class ability to the exclusion of others, must maintain concentration, and cannot use any other spell that requires concentration.
Sure the Rogue has to stay in melee, increasing the amount of average attacks they'll be subjected to (Ranged attacks deal less damage on average) but is likely to have a higher Survivability (Dex is their primary stat for attack and defense so they can afford to put a fairly high stat in Con while a Warlock's attacks require charisma and defense require both Dex and Con, splitting their survival focus) and can spend their reaction to take half damage from any attack that does hit them (after level 11) so I'd call that a wash.
And while the Rogue is only adding 6d6 at level 11 (when the warlock is throwing 1d10+1d6+charisma x3) the average damage is 43 Warlock and 29 Rogue (33 if the Rogue hits twice) which puts them at about the same damage-separation as before, at an opportunity cost and with the Warlock facing less than full damage landing.
The average level 11 CR monster has an ac of 17. Assuming a stat of 5 and a prof bonus of 4 you'd need an 8 or better to hit. That means the Warlock has about a 71% chance of getting all three attacks to hit. A rogue, on the other hand, has an 87% chance to land both of hers. Add in a +1 magic weapon and it jumps to 91% (and adds a point of damage). 20% more likely to get their full damage in on any given round and the Warlock can never gain that +1.
So let's go ahead and average out the damage further. The 43 damage the Warlock does and the 33 damage the Rogue does (assuming all attacks hit) with 71% and 87% respectively (91% in parenthesis). Warlock 30.5, Rogue 28.7 (31).
It suddenly doesn't seem like that big a difference does it?
Though the Fighter (and particularly the Archer fighter) do come in a bit on the wimpy side, the Fighter's combat role isn't straight up sustained DPR. It's far more bursty, especially when you take into account their class features and the fact that they're almost always going to be better armored and tougher than either the Rogue or the Warlock.
And, again, the Warlock cannot burst the Eldritch Blast. A Rogue Assassin can safely double their damage if they get an ambush off and the Fighter can spend Superiority Dice or burn an Action Surge to increase their damage for a round.
mephnick
2016-03-22, 04:19 PM
So you just straight up removed exhaustion for frenzy? I'd considered it but it seems a little strong.
Though to compete with Totem Path I guess it would have to be.
JumboWheat01
2016-03-22, 04:39 PM
So you just straight up removed exhaustion for frenzy? I'd considered it but it seems a little strong.
Though to compete with Totem Path I guess it would have to be.
What about something like "after frenzying, you have disadvantage on all attack or skill rolls until after you finish a short or long rest."
Still makes you strategically plan when to go into a mouth-foaming frenzy, but less likely to kill you. And opens up the option to use it more than once a day.
So you just straight up removed exhaustion for frenzy? I'd considered it but it seems a little strong.
Though to compete with Totem Path I guess it would have to be.
Yep, it is still limited by the number of Rages per Day and it isn't like there are other ways to get a bonus attack right out of the gate with Polearm Master. It is strong, but not overly so and doesn't necessitate a stiff penalty like exhaustion does.
What about something like "after frenzying, you have disadvantage on all attack or skill rolls until after you finish a short or long rest."
Still makes you strategically plan when to go into a mouth-foaming frenzy, but less likely to kill you. And opens up the option to use it more than once a day.
I don't think this is necessary IMO. A bonus action attack is good, but it is limited by the number of Rages and the Rage restrictions.
The reason I used level 20 Rogue is because that's what I thought about the 4d6 you referenced the Warlock getting from Eldritch Blast with Hex comes in.
Before that it's less.
Though you're right. I should've put the Rogue at level 17, where the Warlock gets her fourth beam. That puts the Rogue down by 3.5 points of damage from the previous math. Which is, definitely, worse.
Again, though, the Warlock has more chances to miss, has to use a spell slot, has chosen a specific class ability to the exclusion of others, must maintain concentration, and cannot use any other spell that requires concentration. Or more chances to hit with giving more consistent damage.
Sure the Rogue has to stay in melee, increasing the amount of average attacks they'll be subjected to (Ranged attacks deal less damage on average) but is likely to have a higher Survivability (Dex is their primary stat for attack and defense so they can afford to put a fairly high stat in Con while a Warlock's attacks require charisma and defense require both Dex and Con, splitting their survival focus) and can spend their reaction to take half damage from any attack that does hit them (after level 11) so I'd call that a wash. Maybe, being out of harms way often goes a long way towards survivability. Many monsters are melee heavy and wouldn't be threatening the Warlock while rising oneshotting the Rogue, especially at low levels. Also, it affects damage as the Warlock often has one round of attacks before the Rogue could close to melee range.
And while the Rogue is only adding 6d6 at level 11 (when the warlock is throwing 1d10+1d6+charisma x3) the average damage is 43 Warlock and 29 Rogue (33 if the Rogue hits twice) which puts them at about the same damage-separation as before, at an opportunity cost and with the Warlock facing less than full damage landing.
The average level 11 CR monster has an ac of 17. Assuming a stat of 5 and a prof bonus of 4 you'd need an 8 or better to hit. That means the Warlock has about a 71% chance of getting all three attacks to hit.Incorrect, there is only a 27.5% chance the Warlock hits with all three meaning they only miss out on 5 damage vs stock. A rogue, on the other hand, has an 87% chance to land both of hersAgain, incorrect. 65% hit chance for each attack means 42% chance of landing both, there is an 88% chance of landing at least one though.. Add in a +1 magic weapon and it jumps to 91% (and adds a point of damage)And if the Rogue gets a magic weapon the Warlock gets a Rod of the Pact Keeper too.. 20% more likely to get their full damage in on any given round and the Warlock can never gain that +1.True, magic weapons do skew in favor of the rogue.
So let's go ahead and average out the damage further. The 43 damage the Warlock does and the 33 damage the Rogue does (assuming all attacks hit) with 71% and 87% respectively (91% in parenthesis). Warlock 30.5, Rogue 28.7 (31).
It suddenly doesn't seem like that big a difference does it? Barring the math errors, no. But, the Rogue does have quite high at will damage, very few classes approach that level of damage. Also, force is less likely to be resisted, and at lower levels it is bypassing a lot of Resistances.
Though the Fighter (and particularly the Archer fighter) do come in a bit on the wimpy side, the Fighter's combat role isn't straight up sustained DPR. It's far more bursty, especially when you take into account their class features and the fact that they're almost always going to be better armored and tougher than either the Rogue or the Warlock.Fighter, especially champion fighter is mostly sustained DPR. Even a Battlemaster's bursts aren't outrageous. Action surge is only 1/short rest most of the game. And they aren't slinging magic from a cantrip that is force. We should mention all of the other fun things the Warlock will have, ie temp HP, a teleport, retribution, and all of the other possibilities that come with spells.
And, again, the Warlock cannot burst the Eldritch Blast. A Rogue Assassin can safely double their damage if they get an ambush off and the Fighter can spend Superiority Dice or burn an Action Surge to increase their damage for a round.Fair Points. But in the long run the Warlock will be rocking 9th level spellcasting. I think Foresight helps DPR, so does Polymorphing into a Dragon. Save or suck Feeblemind is quite useful. The Warlock can also fly rendering any melee enemy without a ranged attack moot.
Ultimately my change does not remove the Warlock from the effective damage ranges, is only affected at higher levels where the Warlock has many options thanks to being a mostly full caster. Yes, Fighters and Rogues have very power at will attacks with some other tricks, but the Warlock brings great at will damage and spellpower to the table. EB is super effective even with my changes to 11th level and by that time the Warlock is not gaining access to once per day 6th then 7th then 8th then 9th level spells as well as their assortment of lower level spells.
mer.c
2016-03-22, 06:00 PM
Hey Zman, I really like most of these changes. They generally line up with the tweaks I've made, at least in terms of what were trying to accomplish with them.
One thing you might want to clarify a little – and sorry if I overlooked it earlier in the thread. What's your exact purpose is with nerfing EB? Obviously you want EB to do less damage, but to parse it further:
Do you want solo-Warlocks to deal a little less damage?
Do you want the Warlock 2 dip to be less strong for Cha classes?
Do you want to keep Fighters from dealing 4d10 + 4d6 from Hex at range while wielding a greatsword (off of Magic Initiate: Warlock)?
Do you want to shift the Warlock's internal class balance a little away from EB and towards other things?
I ask because I've tossed around a couple ideas, each addressed at a different one of these. Nerfing Agonizing Blast as outlined in the OP would accomplish all of these, but #1 could be thorny. If you're really trying to accomplish the others, you could probably do it in a way that doesn't nerf Warlocks as generally.
Personally, my feelings line up with numbers #2-4. I like the idea of making EB scale with Warlock level, which takes care of #2 and #3. It puts EB in a weird spot as the only cantrip that uses class level, but eh. I'm OK with that.
For #4, both one of my players and I have been looking at building Warlocks, but we don't like that the class is balanced around the numbers it will put out with EB. So I'm going to try giving her +1 Pact Magic slot if she doesn't take Eldritch Blast/Agonizing Blast/Repelling Blast. (Not sure what combination we'll land on; just have to see how it goes.) I don't know how that will work out – a lot of it depends on how we do with short rests. But it does help with #4, if that's what you want to accomplish. There are other ways of going about it, but this one's simple and seems pretty doable.
I also really like the free skill idea. I know, I know, you've dropped that one, but hear me out. Generally, skills are really poorly balanced. Some are critical to a build, and some are almost never used, and generally not that impressive when they're called for. But often, those less useful ones are flavorful. It would make sense for your average Cleric to have proficiency in Religion, but…*are they really going to take it when they could be taking Perception instead? Persuasion? As a player, I hate making that choice, and as a DM, I hate that my players have to make it. I get the idea that background skills can represent that natural aptitude, but that's not a satisfying solution to me.
So what I'm going to do in my next campaign is give characters of particular classes the option of taking one of the not-that-great skills that fit the class (mostly the lore-type skills). Your Druid can take Nature for free, if you want. Same with Wizards taking Arcana. At the same time, if a player feels like it doesn't fit for RP or fluff reasons, they can choose not to take it, but they don't get another skill from it.
This wouldn't give, say, free Stealth to Rogues, because Rogues get a lot of functionality and flavor out of Stealth. Spending a skill on Stealth makes sense from a functional and RP level. And speaking of Rogues, having a few more classes running around with proficiency in History or Arcana isn't going to do too much to devalue the skill-monkeys. :) This would just be to give a little extra flavor without asking players to pay for it by sacrificing functionality.
Hey Zman, I really like most of these changes. They generally line up with the tweaks I've made, at least in terms of what were trying to accomplish with them. Glad you like most of them.
One thing you might want to clarify a little – and sorry if I overlooked it earlier in the thread. What's your exact purpose is with nerfing EB? Obviously you want EB to do less damage, but to parse it further:
Do you want solo-Warlocks to deal a little less damage?Yes, it is the only spell and Cantrip dealing ability mod damage to each dice. It is on the high end of at will damage considering it is ranged, magic, and force. We have a good baseline of what magical blasting looks like. This brought it more in line, though still superior.
Do you want the Warlock 2 dip to be less strong for Cha classes?Absolutely. Warlock 2 granting the best in game blasting and phenomenal DPS was bad.
Do you want to keep Fighters from dealing 4d10 + 4d6 from Hex at range while wielding a greatsword (off of Magic Initiate: Warlock)?Ehh, not really. It's is a feat for a once per day ability, that requires concentration on a class that gets hit a lot. I don't see it as an issue.
Do you want to shift the Warlock's internal class balance a little away from EB and towards other things?Yes, Warlocks are more than just artillery pieces.
I ask because I've tossed around a couple ideas, each addressed at a different one of these. Nerfing Agonizing Blast as outlined in the OP would accomplish all of these, but #1 could be thorny. If you're really trying to accomplish the others, you could probably do it in a way that doesn't nerf Warlocks as generally.
Personally, my feelings line up with numbers #2-4. I like the idea of making EB scale with Warlock level, which takes care of #2 and #3. It puts EB in a weird spot as the only cantrip that uses class level, but eh. I'm OK with that.Not a fan of special snowflake exceptions. EB is fine, heck I have a Fighter/Sorcerer that picked it up with Spell Sniper and it is a solid ranged option.
For #4, both one of my players and I have been looking at building Warlocks, but we don't like that the class is balanced around the numbers it will put out with EB. So I'm going to try giving her +1 Pact Magic slot if she doesn't take Eldritch Blast/Agonizing Blast/Repelling Blast. (Not sure what combination we'll land on; just have to see how it goes.) I don't know how that will work out – a lot of it depends on how we do with short rests. But it does help with #4, if that's what you want to accomplish. There are other ways of going about it, but this one's simple and seems pretty doable.Yes, but having to incentivize players to not take glaringly obvious choices is not my style. Even with my changes Warlocks and EB are still solid.
I also really like the free skill idea. I know, I know, you've dropped that one, but hear me out. Generally, skills are really poorly balanced. Some are critical to a build, and some are almost never used, and generally not that impressive when they're called for. But often, those less useful ones are flavorful. It would make sense for your average Cleric to have proficiency in Religion, but…*are they really going to take it when they could be taking Perception instead? Persuasion? As a player, I hate making that choice, and as a DM, I hate that my players have to make it. I get the idea that background skills can represent that natural aptitude, but that's not a satisfying solution to me.Im still torn and considering how to implement it better. Part of me just wants to give each class an additional skill. They still have limited lists, but an extra skill would help clean characters out and make it easier to pick up those "makes sense" skills.
So what I'm going to do in my next campaign is give characters of particular classes the option of taking one of the not-that-great skills that fit the class (mostly the lore-type skills). Your Druid can take Nature for free, if you want. Same with Wizards taking Arcana. At the same time, if a player feels like it doesn't fit for RP or fluff reasons, they can choose not to take it, but they don't get another skill from it.
This wouldn't give, say, free Stealth to Rogues, because Rogues get a lot of functionality and flavor out of Stealth. Spending a skill on Stealth makes sense from a functional and RP level. And speaking of Rogues, having a few more classes running around with proficiency in History or Arcana isn't going to do too much to devalue the skill-monkeys. :) This would just be to give a little extra flavor without asking players to pay for it by sacrificing functionality.
Thank you for your response, I appreciate it.
Steampunkette
2016-03-22, 11:21 PM
Yep, it is still limited by the number of Rages per Day and it isn't like there are other ways to get a bonus attack right out of the gate with Polearm Master. It is strong, but not overly so and doesn't necessitate a stiff penalty like exhaustion does.
I don't think this is necessary IMO. A bonus action attack is good, but it is limited by the number of Rages and the Rage restrictions.
Ultimately my change does not remove the Warlock from the effective damage ranges, is only affected at higher levels where the Warlock has many options thanks to being a mostly full caster. Yes, Fighters and Rogues have very power at will attacks with some other tricks, but the Warlock brings great at will damage and spellpower to the table. EB is super effective even with my changes to 11th level and by that time the Warlock is not gaining access to once per day 6th then 7th then 8th then 9th level spells as well as their assortment of lower level spells.
You're absolutely right. Maybe I shouldn't have gone to trolldice for accurate percentages on attacks. >.>
It's what i get for being lazy and sleepy when I make a math-heavy post.
I concede and acknowledge that you're totally right.
3-23-16 Added
Warlock
Path of the Chain
Add "Add your proficiency bonus to the familiar's AC, attack rolls, and damage rolls, as well as to any saves or skills it is proficient in. It's hit point maximum equals the hit point number in its stat block or four times your Warlock level, whichever is higher."
Change "Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its reaction." To "Additionally, as a bonus action, you can instruct your familiar to make one attack with its reaction."
Path of the Blade
Add "Gain proficiency in Medium Armor. Your hit point maximum increases by 1 and increases by 1 again whenever you gain a level in this class."
Pact of the Tome
Add "Gain an additional spell slot."
3-23-16 Added
Sorcerer
Wild Magic
Wild Magic Surge: Replace with "Starting when you choose this origin at 1st level, your Spellcasting ability can unleash surges of untamed magic. Once per turn, roll a d20 immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st or higher. If you roll a 20, the spell slot is not expended. If you roll a 1, roll on the Wild Magic Surge table to create a magical effect. If that effect is a spell it is too wild to be affected by your Metamagic, and if it normally requires concentration, it doesn't require concentration in this case, the spell lasts for its full duration. Alternatively, you can choose to roll on the Wild Magic Surge table and the level of the spell just cast increases by a d4 to a maximum of 9th level."
Added some tweaks for the Warlock Paths and Wild Sorcerer. Thoughts?
mer.c
2016-03-23, 09:09 PM
Very cool Warlock changes! Although the Pact of the Tome buff could be really powerful – probably too powerful – depending on how gracious the DM is with short rests. I'd considered doing the same thing, but putting a level 3 Warlock at 3 2nd-level spells per short rest (easily 6 per day, maybe 9, or actually 12 if following the guidelines that I don't think anyone follows) sounds like way too much.
But I do definitely agree that it's good to bump up Warlocks a little if you're going to nerf EB – which I also think is a fine change. If you're interested, the change I'm currently weighing instead of +1 spell slot is letting them always have their patron's extended spell list known, and letting them cast each one from each level bracket once per long rest without expending a spell slot (at its lowest level). I think that goes a long ways in terms of utility and flavor. And since some of the spells are situational, and they're tied to long rests which are much less subject to variance/DM fiat than short rests, my guess is that it would be less powerful (or at least a lower ceiling) than 2 or 3 or 4 of whatever spell you want at your highest spellcasting level.
I don't know how I feel about the flavor of making Pact of the Chain a mini-Beast Master, but if that's your thing, those sound like reasonable changes. The Pact of the Blade makes a ton of sense, given they take a very specific set of abilities for a not-that-great increase in damage over EB spam, while putting themselves in a lot more danger.
EvanescentHero
2016-03-23, 09:16 PM
An extra spell slot? So three until tenth level, and five at the end of the game? Jeez. I can't think of a single person who wouldn't take that. That's insanely strong compared to what the others get.
Very cool Warlock changes! Although the Pact of the Tome buff could be really powerful – probably too powerful – depending on how gracious the DM is with short rests. I'd considered doing the same thing, but putting a level 3 Warlock at 3 2nd-level spells per short rest (easily 6 per day, maybe 9, or actually 12 if following the guidelines that I don't think anyone follows) sounds like way too much.
But I do definitely agree that it's good to bump up Warlocks a little if you're going to nerf EB – which I also think is a fine change. If you're interested, the change I'm currently weighing instead of +1 spell slot is letting them always have their patron's extended spell list known, and letting them cast each one from each bracket once per long rest without expending a spell slot. I think that goes a long ways in terms of utility and flavor. And since some of the spells are situational, and they're tied to long rests which are much less subject to variance/DM fiat than short rests, my guess is that it would be less powerful (or at least a lower ceiling) than +1 slot.
I don't know how I feel about the flavor of making Pact of the Chain a mini-Beast Master, but if that's your thing, those sound like reasonable changes. The Pact of the Blade makes a ton of sense, given they take a very specific set of abilities for a not-that-great increase in damage over EB spam, while putting themselves in a lot more danger.
Yeah, Tome has me torn, it's definitely strong, but really does make the Warlock a better spellcaster. IMO three Cantrips just didn't quite do it. I considered making it a once per day slot, thought?
Blade, yeah, it fits and definitely balanced them out and makes them viable.
Chain, well if Blade and Tome got a bump, Chain needed one as well and making the familiar more powerful was my best idea. It is a mini Beastmaster of a sorts and IMO fulfills a new niche.
An extra spell slot? So three until tenth level, and five at the end of the game? Jeez. I can't think of a single person who wouldn't take that. That's insanely strong compared to what the others get.
Yeah, I'm a bit torn on it. As comparison we can look at how many spell slots a Sorcerer can come up with. I definitely considered making it a special once per long rest slot but thought it'd be too weak.
Grod_The_Giant
2016-03-23, 09:45 PM
I like the Warlock tweaks for sure. Not sure about the spell slot bit, though. On the one hand I agree that they could use something to make them better casters; on the other it is a big caster boost. Hmm. 1/long rest is probably better; maybe upgrade it to 2/long rest at level ~7 and 3/long rest at ~14th?
mer.c
2016-03-23, 09:54 PM
I like the Warlock tweaks for sure. Not sure about the spell slot bit, though. On the one hand I agree that they could use something to make them better casters; on the other it is a big caster boost. Hmm. 1/long rest is probably better; maybe upgrade it to 2/long rest at level ~7 and 3/long rest at ~14th?
What about, per long rest, 1 1st and 1 2nd level spell at Warlock 3, a 3rd at level 5, a 4th at 7, and a 5th at 9? And they can only be from the Patron list, which could be made always prepared?
(OK OK I'll stop trolling this thread for feedback and make my own in a day or two.)
;)
I like the Warlock tweaks for sure. Not sure about the spell slot bit, though. On the one hand I agree that they could use something to make them better casters; on the other it is a big caster boost. Hmm. 1/long rest is probably better; maybe upgrade it to 2/long rest at level ~7 and 3/long rest at ~14th?
From 3rd-10th level it is a 50% increase in spell resources. From 11th-16th it is a 33% increase, from 17th+ it's a 25% increase.
What if the special slot can only be used to cast a spell that a Warlock of 1/2 level rounded down could cast? That way the slot isn't used for the big guns, but gives the Warlock some disposable lower level magic.
What about, per long rest, 1 1st and 1 2nd level spell at Warlock 3, a 3rd at level 5, a 4th at 7, and a 5th at 9? And they can only be from the Patron list, which could be made always prepared?
(OK OK I'll stop trolling this thread for feedback and make my own in a day or two.)
;)
It's welcome, I just trolled your Moon Druid one as a brainstorming session, haha. I may actually take all of my proposed fixed for my own. Your thread was just a sounding board.
I want to avoid giving the Warlock standard long rest caster spells lots beyond their already high level ones. Though, granting a single long rest spell slot per spell level does work.
SharkForce
2016-03-23, 11:08 PM
for tome locks, you could let them poach a level 1 spell known from another list or something like that.
alternately, you could add more free rituals known at higher levels.
or, you could make the 1/day cast a spell using your spell slot invocations into 1/day cast a spell without using your spell slot. or have those invocations add those spells to their spell list.
for wild magic, i think the ability to guarantee wild surges happening for +1d4 levels on spells is also too much... it's a bit strong for fireball and friends, but it's ridiculous for spells that scale in ways other than damage dice. for example, mass suggestion. or banishment.
especially if you can combine that with other spell lists. most of the sorcerer list isn't going to do anything *too* absurdly broken, but if a single level in sorcerer gives you that ability, i don't know if there are any primary spellcasting classes in the game where i could justify not taking a 1-level sorcerer dip as far as power is concerned (of course, then i'd really want to go for 3 levels, because 2 metamagics is uncomfortably close to 50% of all the class features sorcerers have that are worth mentioning).
Steampunkette
2016-03-24, 01:13 AM
So for a Wild Mage you could just choose to forgo spellcasting and instead cast a wild magic surge? That would be pretty cool, I think.
As to the Tomelock: How about allowing them to maintain concentration on two effects at the same time, instead? On it's face it is a very powerful ability, but in practice that would wind up eating 2 of their very limited spell slots. Or a spell slot and an Invocation.
It would make tomelock/Wizard a nice multiclass option, I suppose...
for tome locks, you could let them poach a level 1 spell known from another list or something like that.
alternately, you could add more free rituals known at higher levels.
or, you could make the 1/day cast a spell using your spell slot invocations into 1/day cast a spell without using your spell slot. or have those invocations add those spells to their spell list.
for wild magic, i think the ability to guarantee wild surges happening for +1d4 levels on spells is also too much... it's a bit strong for fireball and friends, but it's ridiculous for spells that scale in ways other than damage dice. for example, mass suggestion. or banishment.
especially if you can combine that with other spell lists. most of the sorcerer list isn't going to do anything *too* absurdly broken, but if a single level in sorcerer gives you that ability, i don't know if there are any primary spellcasting classes in the game where i could justify not taking a 1-level sorcerer dip as far as power is concerned (of course, then i'd really want to go for 3 levels, because 2 metamagics is uncomfortably close to 50% of all the class features sorcerers have that are worth mentioning).
Time could give access to other spell lists instead everything they get access to a new spell level.
A 1level dip gets you little as it specifies casting a Sorcerer Spell. There are risks with teiggering a Wild Magic Surge as well. It can affect certain spells and be quite effective.
So for a Wild Mage you could just choose to forgo spellcasting and instead cast a wild magic surge? That would be pretty cool, I think.
As to the Tomelock: How about allowing them to maintain concentration on two effects at the same time, instead? On it's face it is a very powerful ability, but in practice that would wind up eating 2 of their very limited spell slots. Or a spell slot and an Invocation.
It would make tomelock/Wizard a nice multiclass option, I suppose...
I mean, would you really want to give up your action just for a surge given how mixed a bag that is?
I'd say absolutely not for dual concentration, that is crossing a balancing line I feel is best given a wide berth.
Steampunkette
2016-03-24, 07:41 AM
As someone who loves surges, kind of? It could also be useful in those out of spell slot situations. But if not then I'm not understanding the tweak.
As someone who loves surges, kind of? It could also be useful in those out of spell slot situations. But if not then I'm not understanding the tweak.
As written now you can only do it when you cast a Sorcerer spell. After looking at the table again I'm not liking my tweaks, the table is overwhelmingly positive, the number of negative effects is extremely small.
3-24-16 Changed To
Sorcerer
Wild Magic Surge: Replace with "Starting when you choose this origin at 1st level, your Spellcasting ability can unleash surges of untamed magic. Once per turn, roll a d20 immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st or higher. If you roll a 20, the spell slot is not expended. If you roll a 1, roll on the Wild Magic Surge table to create a magical effect. If that effect is a spell it is too wild to be affected by your Metamagic, and if it normally requires concentration, it doesn't require concentration in this case, the spell lasts for its full duration."
I went and removed the level enhancing bit of Wild Magic. Kept the remove DM fiat and added the chance to regain the spells lot. A little better, could still use some work.
3-24-16 Added
New Feats
Dueling Master
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you wield a one handed weapon or versatile weapon and no other weapons or a shield.
While you wield a one handed weapon or versatile weapon and no other weapons or a shield, you can use a bonus action to make an additional attack. You don't add your add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
3-24-16 Changed
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
Dueling: Change To "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or a versatile weapon in two hands, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
Goggalor
2016-03-25, 12:52 PM
How about this change to Agonizing Blast?
-Agonizing Blast: Change to "When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit. You may apply this bonus damage only once per target. Upon reaching levels 5, 11, and 17 in this class, you may apply the bonus damage an additional time to the same target."
It would incentivize people to stay with warlock if they want to get the full effect on the same target, but still allow it to be useable in a multi-class situation.
Bladeyeoman
2016-03-25, 01:14 PM
How about this change to Agonizing Blast?
-Agonizing Blast: Change to "When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit. You may apply this bonus damage only once per target. Upon reaching levels 5, 11, and 17 in this class, you may apply the bonus damage an additional time to the same target."
It would incentivize people to stay with warlock if they want to get the full effect on the same target, but still allow it to be useable in a multi-class situation.
I think at least part of the goal was to tone down how much damage EB does on a full warlock, which I think this doesn't really affect. This does reduce the appeal of a dip into warlock for EB blasting, though.
mer.c
2016-03-25, 01:16 PM
How about this change to Agonizing Blast?
-Agonizing Blast: Change to "When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit. You may apply this bonus damage only once per target. Upon reaching levels 5, 11, and 17 in this class, you may apply the bonus damage an additional time to the same target."
It would incentivize people to stay with warlock if they want to get the full effect on the same target, but still allow it to be useable in a multi-class situation.
I'm partial to that style. The tweak I'm going with currently is to let AB be taken a second time at level 5+ and a third time at level 9*+. One instance means 1 beam gets the bonus, two instances means two beams get the bonus, three means all beams get the bonus. It means you have to invest a little more into AB to optimize it, but the ceiling is still just as high.
It also helps sightly offset the different very nice Pact abilities presented here.
*I know they don't get 3 beams until level 11, but they don't get an Invocation slot at that level. This way they can grab it in advance if they want to have a dead Invocation for a few levels.
Grod_The_Giant
2016-03-25, 01:21 PM
I'm partial to that style. The tweak I'm going with currently is to let AB be taken a second time at level 5+ and a third time at level 9*+. One instance means 1 beam gets the bonus, two instances means two beams get the bonus, three means all beams get the bonus. It means you have to invest a little more into AB to optimize it, but the ceiling is still just as high.
It also helps sightly offset the different very nice Pact abilities presented here.
*I know they don't get 3 beams until level 11, but they don't get an Invocation slot at that level. This way they can grab it in advance if they want to have a dead Invocation for a few levels.
Goggalor's version isn't bad, but I think this goes too far the other direction. Warlocks get few enough spells and Invocations as it is; I'd rather a player deal a bit too much damage than have no real options.
CantigThimble
2016-03-25, 01:27 PM
Goggalor's version isn't bad, but I think this goes too far the other direction. Warlocks get few enough spells and Invocations as it is; I'd rather a player deal a bit too much damage than have no real options.
I would agree, you would need to give up pretty much all of your flexibility to get decent EB damage that way.
mer.c
2016-03-25, 01:28 PM
Goggalor's version isn't bad, but I think this goes too far the other direction. Warlocks get few enough spells and Invocations as it is; I'd rather a player deal a bit too much damage than have no real options.
I definitely wouldn't advocate doing just that tweak. The other Warlock tweaks in this thread though – Medium armor and +1 HP/level for Blade, Proficiency to your Familiar's Stats for Chain, extra spellcasting for Tome – give Warlocks a lot of extra strength/utility. With that, I think an EB spammer can spare 1-2 extra Invocations and still be plenty flexible and strong.
Could be wrong, though. :smallwink:
How about this change to Agonizing Blast?
-Agonizing Blast: Change to "When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit. You may apply this bonus damage only once per target. Upon reaching levels 5, 11, and 17 in this class, you may apply the bonus damage an additional time to the same target."
It would incentivize people to stay with warlock if they want to get the full effect on the same target, but still allow it to be useable in a multi-class situation.
That is good, but I'd let the additional Cha to Damage be at 11th. I think that was the compromise I was looking for. Thank you.
Goggalor's version isn't bad, but I think this goes too far the other direction. Warlocks get few enough spells and Invocations as it is; I'd rather a player deal a bit too much damage than have no real options.
I would agree, you would need to give up pretty much all of your flexibility to get decent EB damage that way.
I agree, it is too far, now it isn't bad if the Warlock is given extra invocation to choose from that would compensate, that way it only adds options and choice instead of reduces choice.
EvanescentHero
2016-03-25, 07:01 PM
For Pact of the Tome, what if they learn both their expanded spells instead of having to pick one?
mer.c
2016-03-25, 09:23 PM
For Pact of the Tome, what if they learn both their expanded spells instead of having to pick one?
As a DM, I'm just thinking of giving that to Warlocks generally because I want to see them play to character like that. :smallwink:
For Pact of the Tome, what if they learn both their expanded spells instead of having to pick one?
I've definitely been considering that as well. Less messy than trying to give out an extra spell slot.
Grod_The_Giant
2016-03-26, 04:22 PM
I've definitely been considering that as well. Less messy than trying to give out an extra spell slot.
Seems like a fine solution. Or maybe a form of the Bard's ability to steal spells from other lists.
JackPhoenix
2016-03-26, 04:30 PM
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
Dueling: Change To "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or a versatile weapon in two hands, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
While I agree that versatile weapons need more love, won't this make twohanding a battle axe better than using greataxe with GWFS? Especially on fighters, considering the changes to GWM feats hits them harder thanks to their multiple attacks.
mer.c
2016-03-26, 07:51 PM
Seems like a fine solution. Or maybe a form of the Bard's ability to steal spells from other lists.
I agree with this. Sometime not too long from now, I hope to have a chance to test giving all Warlocks patron spells prepared for free, and Tome Warlocks the ability to crib spells from other lists. They already have that flavor from their Book of Shadows giving them cantrips from other classes, so it fits thematically. And Pact Magic slots are tight enough that I don't see it throwing anything out of whack.
My knee-jerk reaction is that it'd be best to make them select from just the Wizard list. That would also keep them from stepping on the Lore Bard's toes. But I don't know, maybe it would be fine to open it up further.
Steampunkette
2016-03-27, 09:57 AM
While I agree that versatile weapons need more love, won't this make twohanding a battle axe better than using greataxe with GWFS? Especially on fighters, considering the changes to GWM feats hits them harder thanks to their multiple attacks.
Yes. Well... Kind of.
So what you have here is 1d10+2 and 1d12 reroll 1s and 2s keeping the result. The average damage values of these are 7.5 and 7.33, respectively. That places the difference at .17 in favor of the Battleaxe... But it's such a -small- difference, does it really matter?
However, a Greatsword with GWFS comes out at 8.33. So it, and Mauls, are still the kings of the hill on damage values when used with GWFS. Particularly when you add feats into the mix.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-27, 11:29 AM
Yes. Well... Kind of.
So what you have here is 1d10+2 and 1d12 reroll 1s and 2s keeping the result. The average damage values of these are 7.5 and 7.33, respectively. That places the difference at .17 in favor of the Battleaxe... But it's such a -small- difference, does it really matter?
However, a Greatsword with GWFS comes out at 8.33. So it, and Mauls, are still the kings of the hill on damage values when used with GWFS. Particularly when you add feats into the mix.
That's not a, "kind of." That's a, "yes." The fix makes the Battleaxe completely unseat the Greataxe at the very thing the Greataxe is supposed to be great at. This change makes it just a Mediocreaxe.
Steampunkette
2016-03-27, 12:19 PM
Well that is certainly misleading!
A great axe is still better for half orcs and people who want to use the GWM feat, and Great axe was never as good for GWFS as the 2 dice weapons, anyhow.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-27, 12:40 PM
Well that is certainly misleading!
A great axe is still better for half orcs and people who want to use the GWM feat, and Great axe was never as good for GWFS as the 2 dice weapons, anyhow.
It's not misleading. The greataxe is supposed to be an improvement over the battleaxe, and with these changes it's worse. And since you can use GWM with the battleaxe, it's still better with that feat.
And the Greataxe has definitely always lagged behind the maul and greatsword, but it is not supposed to be an improvement over the maul and greatsword. It's supposed to be an improvement over the battleaxe, and with this change it is not.
Steampunkette
2016-03-27, 07:41 PM
It's not misleading. The greataxe is supposed to be an improvement over the battleaxe, and with these changes it's worse. And since you can use GWM with the battleaxe, it's still better with that feat.
And the Greataxe has definitely always lagged behind the maul and greatsword, but it is not supposed to be an improvement over the maul and greatsword. It's supposed to be an improvement over the battleaxe, and with this change it is not.
You're right. With these changes the Battleaxe is better than the Greataxe in a very narrow and specific set of circumstances in which a fighter, ranger, or paladin wields a battleaxe in two hands, but isn't a half-orc, and cannot use feats, while forgoing the standard dueling option of a shield for +2 AC to go with their +2 damage, allowing them to retain the benefit of a class ability while using their weapon in a manner that gives them a damage bonus. So are the Warhammer and the Longsword. All by a margin so fractionally tiny as to be irrelevant for most players.
If you -ARE- a Half Orc, and intend to two hand a weapon, the Greataxe is still the better option, especially if feats are allowed in the game or you choose the Frenzied Berserk barbarian path.
But if that .17 damage difference is a bridge too far consider doing something fun and new with the great-axe.
Seems like a fine solution. Or maybe a form of the Bard's ability to steal spells from other lists.
I think I'll end up just giving them complete access to their Pateon spells with he book.
I agree with this. Sometime not too long from now, I hope to have a chance to test giving all Warlocks patron spells prepared for free, and Tome Warlocks the ability to crib spells from other lists. They already have that flavor from their Book of Shadows giving them cantrips from other classes, so it fits thematically. And Pact Magic slots are tight enough that I don't see it throwing anything out of whack.
My knee-jerk reaction is that it'd be best to make them select from just the Wizard list. That would also keep them from stepping on the Lore Bard's toes. But I don't know, maybe it would be fine to open it up further.
Not sure if I want to open up other spells lists too them, that may be too far. I think having the book give access to Pateon spells will suffice.
While I agree that versatile weapons need more love, won't this make twohanding a battle axe better than using greataxe with GWFS? Especially on fighters, considering the changes to GWM feats hits them harder thanks to their multiple attacks.
In this particular instance it does, but it is an extremely small advantage that doesn't carry over to Greatswords or Mauls.
The GWM feat is still very powerful, often bonus action attack and one hit to hammer home. Only on low AC enemies is DPS brought down, and it is still very high.
Yes. Well... Kind of.
So what you have here is 1d10+2 and 1d12 reroll 1s and 2s keeping the result. The average damage values of these are 7.5 and 7.33, respectively. That places the difference at .17 in favor of the Battleaxe... But it's such a -small- difference, does it really matter?
However, a Greatsword with GWFS comes out at 8.33. So it, and Mauls, are still the kings of the hill on damage values when used with GWFS. Particularly when you add feats into the mix.
Agreed, I'm not seeing this as a major issue, certainly less than versatile weapons before.
That's not a, "kind of." That's a, "yes." The fix makes the Battleaxe completely unseat the Greataxe at the very thing the Greataxe is supposed to be great at. This change makes it just a Mediocreaxe.
That is not true, only on a character with Dueling. Barbarians still prefer Greataxes, as does anyone looking to maximize GWM. Battleaxes already struggled in this situation compared to Greatswords and Mauls to begin with and never have benefited from GWF like the other two have.
Well that is certainly misleading!
A great axe is still better for half orcs and people who want to use the GWM feat, and Great axe was never as good for GWFS as the 2 dice weapons, anyhow.
Yep, I agree.
It's not misleading. The greataxe is supposed to be an improvement over the battleaxe, and with these changes it's worse. And since you can use GWM with the battleaxe, it's still better with that feat.
And the Greataxe has definitely always lagged behind the maul and greatsword, but it is not supposed to be an improvement over the maul and greatsword. It's supposed to be an improvement over the battleaxe, and with this change it is not.
You cannot use GWM for the bonus damage with a Battleaxe as it does not have the Heavy property so it misses out on a large part of the feat.
Now, with my proposed Dueling Master feat you'd get a bonus attack sans modifier which is really good, though the often bonus attack and higher damage attack from GWM should keep pace. May need a bit of math to figure this one out, but it shouldn't be too imbalancing, less so that stock Versatile.
You're right. With these changes the Battleaxe is better than the Greataxe in a very narrow and specific set of circumstances in which a fighter, ranger, or paladin wields a battleaxe in two hands, but isn't a half-orc, and cannot use feats, while forgoing the standard dueling option of a shield for +2 AC to go with their +2 damage, allowing them to retain the benefit of a class ability while using their weapon in a manner that gives them a damage bonus. So are the Warhammer and the Longsword. All by a margin so fractionally tiny as to be irrelevant for most players.
If you -ARE- a Half Orc, and intend to two hand a weapon, the Greataxe is still the better option, especially if feats are allowed in the game or you choose the Frenzied Berserk barbarian path.
But if that .17 damage difference is a bridge too far consider doing something fun and new with the great-axe.
I agree, Youth my proposed Dueling Master feat makes it a bit more interesting.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-27, 08:43 PM
You're right. With these changes the Battleaxe is better than the Greataxe in a very narrow and specific set of circumstances
You misrepresent the circumstances. The circumstances are, "Any martial character with a fighting style who takes Dueling can use a battleaxe 2-handed with better results than a character who takes a greataxe with Great Weapon Fighting. The fact is that the weapon that is supposed to be a damage boost over the battleaxe ceases to be a damage boost for any martial character with access to fighting styles, which includes most martial characters.
In fact, only Half-Orcs and barbarians can benefit more from greataxes. That's a much smaller set than the majority of martial characters.
GWM is a factor (I forgot about the Heavy requirement), but it becomes necessary for most martials to be able to use a bigger axe more effectively than a smaller axe, which seems wrong to me.
You misrepresent the circumstances. The circumstances are, "Any martial character with a fighting style who takes Dueling can use a battleaxe 2-handed with better results than a character who takes a greataxe with Great Weapon Fighting. The fact is that the weapon that is supposed to be a damage boost over the battleaxe ceases to be a damage boost for any martial character with access to fighting styles, which includes most martial characters.
In fact, only Half-Orcs and barbarians can benefit more from greataxes. That's a much smaller set than the majority of martial characters.
GWM is a factor (I forgot about the Heavy requirement), but it becomes necessary for most martials to be able to use a bigger axe more effectively than a smaller axe, which seems wrong to me.
No, you do. From a players perspective, yes, but from a world view the Greataxe is still superior, look at Orc, they'll still be using a Greataxe offer a Battleaxe. Virtually all nonclassed NPCs are lumped into that category. Now, the extremely small difference in average damage is just fine, thanks to dice we have a system with fairly low granularity and some differences and minor glitches are to be expected. The simple fact is that this change hugely fixes the existing problem with Versatile weapons and is much better than stock. Sure, in a fairly common specific circumstance the Battleaxe can marginally out damage a Greataxe by an imperceptible amount, but that is OK.
Why is it a require,net that big axes must be used more effectively than small ones?
Yes, only one race and one class have the Greataxe as their ideal, and for the rest the difference is nigh imperceptible. And let's not forget we are talking about only a single weapon. You also forgot all the martials that don't choose between Dueling and GWF, I can think of all thos that choose Protection and still wield a Twohanded weapon. Another massive section of characters that benefit more from the Greataxe than the Battleaxe.
These changes didn't break anything, and they improved balance and made Versatile weapons more viable and balanced.
IMO we should be looking at how this is trading +2 AC from Dueling Sword and Board for +1 Weapon Damage when prior it was sacrificing +2 AC for a net -1 Damage, i.e. Making your character categorically worse by wieldin the same weapon with a second hand instead of solely in one. It made no sense,Mathis makes sense and is fairly well balanced.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-28, 09:02 AM
A Duelist being better at wielding a weapon in his preferred style is very different from a Duelist being better at wielding a smaller weapon with two hands than a great weapon specialist can in his preferred style.
A Duelist being better at wielding a weapon in his preferred style is very different from a Duelist being better at wielding a smaller weapon with two hands than a great weapon specialist can in his preferred style.
And the tiny fraction of a point you are complaining about is virtually unnoticeable and makes them for all purposed identical in range of damage, which is on the high end of the scale, and fixes a claring issue with Versatile weapons.
If you are going to keep complaining about a fraction of a point in average damage under certain cirumstances how about offering a solution that is simple and solves the problem? You can complain that the solution isn't perfect, but without offering something of value in a proposed solution your critique becomes bellyaching sonsidering the proposed tweak(even with its relatively small issues) is still vastly more balanced than the stock situation.
What is your proposal??
EvilAnagram
2016-03-28, 03:17 PM
And the tiny fraction of a point you are complaining about is virtually unnoticeable and makes them for all purposed identical in range of damage, which is on the high end of the scale, and fixes a claring issue with Versatile weapons.
My point is not that one is very slightly ahead. My point is that not only are they are nearly identical when they should quite different, but the wrong one is actually in the lead. The battleaxe should be a bit behind the greataxe even with specialization. Instead, people who don't specialize in two-handed fighting can wield the inferior weapon two-handed better than the experts! It's ridiculous.
And why does the fact that not everyone goes for the offensive feats only matter when you think it supports your argument? Anyone who takes the Defense or Protection styles can get plenty of use out of the Versatile weapons, as can Barbarians.
If you are going to keep complaining about a fraction of a point in average damage under certain cirumstances how about offering a solution that is simple and solves the problem? You can complain that the solution isn't perfect, but without offering something of value in a proposed solution your critique becomes bellyaching sonsidering the proposed tweak(even with its relatively small issues) is still vastly more balanced than the stock situation.
What is your proposal??
I don't really see the solution as necessary, but if you do then why not just make a Versatile style. +1 to hit and damage with Versatile weapons.
EDIT: Also, you never addressed the fact that your "fix" gives the Beast Master the same average, resource-free damage of a Fighter while still allowing the Ranger to be a half caster.
My point is not that one is very slightly ahead. My point is that not only are they are nearly identical when they should quite different, but the wrong one is actually in the lead. The battleaxe should be a bit behind the greataxe even with specialization. Instead, people who don't specialize in two-handed fighting can wield the inferior weapon two-handed better than the experts! It's ridiculous.
And why does the fact that not everyone goes for the offensive feats only matter when you think it supports your argument? Anyone who takes the Defense or Protection styles can get plenty of use out of the Versatile weapons, as can Barbarians.
I don't really see the solution as necessary, but if you do then why not just make a Versatile style. +1 to hit and damage with Versatile weapons.
EDIT: Also, you never addressed the fact that your "fix" gives the Beast Master the same average, resource-free damage of a Fighter while still allowing the Ranger to be a half caster.
Firstly, what the hell are you talking about?? Do you realize that there are no changes if they don't take the Duealing Fighting Style?? Without you have D8/D10 + Str vs D12 +Str. That is it, that is unchanged. With each taking their Specializations you have D8D10+2+Str vs D12(Reroll 1s and 2s) +Str.
So, you feel there isn't a problem with Versatile weapons as stock, please defend that stance.
Yes, Beastmaster, I have been waiting for a satisfactory response from you to explain your position better about why you feel that an Animal Companion that is not guarenteed and can be easily killed is not a resource. You claim damage with no resource expenditure, I explained that is because you erroneously do not see the Animal Companion as a resource, which it most definitely is. It can be killed and is not replaceable on a short rest and depending on your DM it takes an entire adventuring day, not a long rest. That is by definition a renewable resource. So, to answer your question the Beastmaster does not match fighter damage without resource expenditure, it matches Fighter Damage with resource expenditure.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-28, 04:43 PM
Firstly, what the hell are you talking about?? Do you realize that there are no changes if they don't take the Duealing Fighting Style?? Without you have D8/D10 + Str vs D12 +Str. That is it, that is unchanged. With each taking their Specializations you have D8D10+2+Str vs D12(Reroll 1s and 2s) +Str.
You seem to be a bit confused. We're talking about what the effects of implementing your rules are, not what the effects of not using fighting styles are.
If you take Dueling, you are an expert in using one-handed weapons either alone or with shield.
If you take Great Weapon Fighting, you are an expert in using large, two-handed weapons with both hands.
Your fix makes the Duelist better at wielding a weapon in two hands than the guy who specializes in wielding weapons in two hands. That weapon is the Battleaxe. The Duelist is even better at wielding a Battleaxe in two-hands (despite being a one-hand specialist) than the Great Weapon Fighter is at wielding a weapon that is supposed to upgrade the Battleaxe (the Greataxe).
This is silly, not because the Duelist is so vastly superior, but because he's a one-handed expert that is out-experting the two-handed expert in two-handed expertise.
So, you feel there isn't a problem with Versatile weapons as stock, please defend that stance.
Sure. First, I would say that there's no reason why a person who specializes in using weapons one-handed would suddenly switch over to using them two-handed. They necessarily give up their specialization when they put so much time and effort into being good at one-handed bladework.
Second, I would quote you:
You also forgot all the martials that don't choose between Dueling and GWF, I can think of all thos that choose Protection and still wield a Twohanded weapon.
Good point. All those that choose non-offensive styles could still benefit from the versatility of using versatile weapons, choosing to occasionally be more defensive and occasionally be more offensive. Well said, Zman.
But really, if you want to bring Versatile weapons into the offensive fighting style world, play off of their versatility and give them a boost that's neither as good as Great Weapon Fighting, nor as good as Dueling.
Versatile Style: You get a +1 to damage and can reroll a roll of 1 on the weapon die when attacking with Versatile weapons. It's not as good one-handed as Dueling is when it comes to one-handed damage, but supercedes it with two-handed damage without crowding in on Great Weapon territory. Plus, it combines those styles in a way that echoes the original styles.
Yes, Beastmaster, I have been waiting for a satisfactory response from you to explain your position better about why you feel that an Animal Companion that is not guarenteed and can be easily killed is not a resource. You claim damage with no resource expenditure, I explained that is because you erroneously do not see the Animal Companion as a resource, which it most definitely is. It can be killed and is not replaceable on a short rest and depending on your DM it takes an entire adventuring day, not a long rest. That is by definition a renewable resource. So, to answer your question the Beastmaster does not match fighter damage without resource expenditure, it matches Fighter Damage with resource expenditure.
And as I pointed out in the quote below, it's easy to prevent the beast from dying with several easy tactics ranging from climbing on top and taking Mounted Combatant to simply making it really difficult to attack the Flying Snake with the high AC and 80 HP. At the most, it's the resource you will spend the least since it almost never dies. Meanwhile, a Fighter will regularly run out of maneuvers while the Ranger slides right on by with better damage for no reason since the original DPR was pretty damn good.
I mean, survivability is not much of an issue in practice. Take the example above. I can switch out the archer ranger with a duelist ranger, add one point to the average damage and keep the target from being able to attack the flying snake. And there are plenty of encounters in which flyby keeps them safe all by itself. Or take the Wolfrider. A halfling with Mounted Combatant keeps his wolf up, and the Wolf makes 2 attacks with advantage at an average of 12 damage each while the Ranger gets in with his Dueling Lance with advantage (by help or prone) for 17 damage with Hunter's Mark. Under normal rules, that's a total of 41 average damage per turn at the cost of one slot per hour.
Under yours, without Hunter's Mark, it's an average of 51 damage without any resource expenditure, and with advantage for at least half the attacks.
And yeah, GWF boosts Fighter damage quite a bit, depending on enemy AC. I don't think having to fall back on that while every other martial watches the Ranger leave them in the dust is fair. I mean, the a Ranger would get all that damage, plus spellcasting, while the Paladin does half as much damage without smiting and the Barbarian does a bit more than that? And a poor monk is a solid ten points below what a Ranger does when the Ranger isn't putting any effort into it and the monk is spending chi? And non-GW Fighters get no help at all?
I think the action economy of the Beast Master is fine as is. The only house rule fixes I'd suggest would be to add proficiency to save DCs and allow multiattack from the start, with Bestial Fury adding a single extra attack. That creates a wider range of potential creatures and makes the creatures already available more potent without creating insane average Ranger damage.
Edit: I'd like to clarify my point, which is that the current rules allow a Beast Master to deal mid-to-high damage on average with the expenditure of a few resources, while still being a half-caster. This fix allows them to deal Fighter damage without spending any resources while still being a half-caster, which I think is a mistake.
You seem to be a bit confused. We're talking about what the effects of implementing your rules are, not what the effects of not using fighting styles are.
Nope, you just said and referenced things ambiguously which made your post make little sense.
If you take Dueling, you are an expert in using one-handed weapons either alone or with shield.To a degree, it is fighting effectively with a single weapon.
If you take Great Weapon Fighting, you are an expert in using large, two-handed weapons with both hands.Yes, though using a Versatile weapon is very different than fighting with an actual two handed heavy weapon.
Your fix makes the Duelist better at wielding a weapon in two hands than the guy who specializes in wielding weapons in two hands. That weapon is the Battleaxe. The Duelist is even better at wielding a Battleaxe in two-hands (despite being a one-hand specialist) than the Great Weapon Fighter is at wielding a weapon that is supposed to upgrade the Battleaxe (the Greataxe).You realize that fighting with a Versatile weapon is closer to fighting with it single handed than fighting with it like you would with a heavy two handed weapon. Dueling as the fighting style actually makes more sense than GWF from a realism perspective.
The Greataxe is an upgrade to the Battleaxe.... unless the person using the Battleaxe happens to be a Duelist. And note this only applies to the Greataxe, Greatswords and Mauls still work just fine. And this is only a problem for non Half-Orcs and non Barbarians.
This is silly, not because the Duelist is so vastly superior, but because he's a one-handed expert that is out-experting the two-handed expert in two-handed expertise.
Vastly superior, ehh?? Numerically that is a lie. If you actually understood how you would fight with a Versatile weapon you'd understand. Without my fix when wielding a longsword you would be more effective with it in a single hand than if you had your second hand available. If you know anything about using such a weapon and what techniques are available when using it with two hands you would see how this tweak to Dueling is balancing and thematically appropriate. It makes no sense that when wielding a Longsword you suddenly become less effective when your second hand is available. Please, attempt to explain this to me.
I'd also like to point out that both Dueling and GWF apply to using a Versatile weapon with both hands with the very rare potential to stack. It is using the two different style with a Versatile weapon. As I've explained and will explain the Versatile weapon is actually more appropriate for Dueling that GWF, but it makes sense someone would benefit from either with a true master using the best of both worlds. Feel free to disagree.
Sure. First, I would say that there's no reason why a person who specializes in using weapons one-handed would suddenly switch over to using them two-handed. They necessarily give up their specialization when they put so much time and effort into being good at one-handed bladework. No, not even close to correct. This only exists as a truth in your beliefs, not reality.
Second, I would quote you:
Good point. All those that choose non-offensive styles could still benefit from the versatility of using versatile weapons, choosing to occasionally be more defensive and occasionally be more offensive. Well said, Zman.
But really, if you want to bring Versatile weapons into the offensive fighting style world, play off of their versatility and give them a boost that's neither as good as Great Weapon Fighting, nor as good as Dueling.
Versatile Style: You get a +1 to damage and can reroll a roll of 1 on the weapon die when attacking with Versatile weapons. It's not as good one-handed as Dueling is when it comes to one-handed damage, but supercedes it with two-handed damage without crowding in on Great Weapon territory. Plus, it combines those styles in a way that echoes the original styles.
Not quite. I fundamentally disagree mainly because a duelist with a longsword should not be less effective while having their second hand to aid them, it makes no sense. You suggestion isn't terrible, but it is unecessary.
And as I pointed out in the quote below, it's easy to prevent the beast from dying with several easy tactics ranging from climbing on top and taking Mounted Combatant to simply making it really difficult to attack the Flying Snake with the high AC and 80 HP. At the most, it's the resource you will spend the least since it almost never dies. Meanwhile, a Fighter will regularly run out of maneuvers while the Ranger slides right on by with better damage for no reason since the original DPR was pretty damn good.
Looks like I did miss that, you have my apologies. I fundamentally disagree that there is a problem with the action economy, you have two levels where the Ranger is nothing but a cheerleader for the Animal Companion, or the Animal Companion does nothing productive. I do not find that acceptable in the slightest. Any proposed solution has to fix this problem.
Using one potentially broken form of AC available in the tropics isn't much of an argument. Using most forms that are likely to come up with competent DMs changes things. Riding a wolf, sure a Halfing can do that and it will require a feat. There are still many things which can kill the Animal Companion or situations where it dies. It may be a good resource that doesn't run out often, but it is not an inherent ability, it is a resource. Glad you came around to accepting that face. Now, the real question is throughout the 20 levels how much of a resource expenditure is it. I do not buy that this causes the Ranger's damage to be completely out of the realm of acceptable.
Give me a proposed solution where levels three and four make sense.
Words, many words.
mer.c
2016-03-28, 06:45 PM
I totally agree that levels 3-4 for Beast Master feel horrible. It essentially puts the Ranger and companion at cross-purposes, which feels like the absolute opposite of how it should play. But I don't have much problem with levels 5+ on a numbers or feel level (especially once the beast starts getting multiattacks), and I feel like letting the Ranger give the Attack command as a bonus action adds power and function to levels where it already performs and feels just fine.
I think it would be a lot better to give an ability at level 3 that sometimes lets the beast attack with a penalty without the Ranger sacrificing their Action. That way, they have the ability at levels 3 and 4, and they don't really have much reason to use it after that outside specific circumstances.
If you're interested, here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?481195-Critique-my-Tweaks-Part-1-%96-Avatar-Monk-and-Beast-Master-Hunter&p=20526078#post20526078) what I've tweaked it to in anticipation of one of my players running a Beast Master in our next campaign.
Coordinated Assault: Starting at 3rd level, when you hit a creature within 5' of your beast with a melee or ranged attack, you may spend your reaction to command your beast to make one attack against the same target as a reaction. If you are not within 5’ of the target, your beast makes this attack with disadvantage.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-28, 07:27 PM
To a degree, it is fighting effectively with a single weapon.
To a more accurate degree, it is fighting effectively with a single weapon in a single hand. Redefining the intent of the feature to conveniently leave out a large part of the feature doesn't actually change the intent of the feature.
Yes, though using a Versatile weapon is very different than fighting with an actual two handed heavy weapon.
In some ways. In other ways, it's entirely similar. Specifically, it is mechanically very similar. Kind of like how a Rapier is very different from a Longsword, but mechanically they are very similar and pretending that they aren't is kind of silly.
You realize that fighting with a Versatile weapon is closer to fighting with it single handed than fighting with it like you would with a heavy two handed weapon. Dueling as the fighting style actually makes more sense than GWF from a realism perspective.
The closest real world equivalent to a Greataxe I can think of would be a Dane axe. A Dane axe, from what we can tell, would be very much like any other axe mixed in with some spear. You needed to work it like a polearm with a ton of cutting power.
Most axes that would fit the Battleaxe description (I'm thinking a 2.5'-3' haft) would be quite similar to that - a lovely hacking tool that requires some polesmanship to use effectively. Not as much polesmanship, as the haft is quite a bit shorter, but it would still require a bit. Give a Battleaxe the haft of a Spear (two vesatile weapons) and you get a Greataxe.
Using a Longsword, however, is very much unlike using an axe, and it is very much unlike wielding a Spear. I suppose there are maneuvers that require gripping the blade for some strong thrusts, but in general Longswords are quite unlike axes and spears, but quite like swords. Pretty much all heavy melee weapons in the game are like wielding spears and axes, though. Glaive. Greataxe. Halberd. Arguably the Greatsword.
More importantly, D&D martial arts have never closely resembled real world martial arts, so your point is both wrong and meaningless.
The Greataxe is an upgrade to the Battleaxe.... unless the person using the Battleaxe happens to be a Duelist. And note this only applies to the Greataxe, Greatswords and Mauls still work just fine. And this is only a problem for non Half-Orcs and non Barbarians.
The Greataxe is definitely an upgrade to the Battleaxe, it's just that you'd prefer One-handed specialists to be better at Two-handed fighting than Two-handed specialists, as demonstrated by their ability to wield Battleaxes and Longswords with two hands.
Vastly superior, ehh?? Numerically that is a lie.
:smallsigh: I said, "This is silly, not because the Duelist is so vastly superior." I was explicitly not making the claim that the Duelist is vastly superior. The point of my sentence is that the difference in damage is not important to my point. You dedicated a whole paragraph to a claim I didn't make. Look at your life, man.
And take more time to read what people write.
No, not even close to correct. This only exists as a truth in your beliefs, not reality.
Reality? I'm not working in reality. In reality, being excellent with a Rapier will not make you great with a Longsword, nor will it improve your axemanship. In D&D, proficiency with martial weapons means you're excellent with all three, and Dueling means they all get a boost because they're so similar.
D&D is not reality. D&D rules trump reality when it comes to how things operate in D&D because it's not reality and is, in fact, D&D.
Not quite. I fundamentally disagree mainly because a duelist with a longsword should not be less effective while having their second hand to aid them, it makes no sense. You suggestion isn't terrible, but it is unecessary.
Yes, but if we're using the reality paradigm then there's no reason why a Longsword shouldn't be used to deal bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage with pretty equal proficiency. D&D doesn't use the reality paradigm.
It uses the gaming paradigm that says, "Fulfilling certain conditions, carefully balanced against other conditions, will yield certain results intended to balance the potential outcomes against each other and create meaningful choices within the game."
I fundamentally disagree that there is a problem with the action economy, you have two levels where the Ranger is nothing but a cheerleader for the Animal Companion, or the Animal Companion does nothing productive. I do not find that acceptable in the slightest. Any proposed solution has to fix this problem.
You are offering a solution that breaks the action economy for 16 levels to fix it for two.
And, "nothing productive," apparently means offering many different possible abilities that are extremely useful, plus an extra opportunity attack.
And if you spend zero resources maintaining the animal from day to day, it's effectively not a resource.
I totally agree that levels 3-4 for Beast Master feel horrible. It essentially puts the Ranger and companion at cross-purposes, which feels like the absolute opposite of how it should play. But I don't have much problem with levels 5+ on a numbers or feel level (especially once the beast starts getting multiattacks), and I feel like letting the Ranger give the Attack command as a bonus action adds power and function to levels where it already performs and feels just fine.
I think it would be a lot better to give an ability at level 3 that sometimes lets the beast attack with a penalty without the Ranger sacrificing their Action. That way, they have the ability at levels 3 and 4, and they don't really have much reason to use it after that outside specific circumstances.
If you're interested, here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?481195-Critique-my-Tweaks-Part-1-%96-Avatar-Monk-and-Beast-Master-Hunter&p=20526078#post20526078) what I've tweaked it to in anticipation of one of my players running a Beast Master in our next campaign.
Coordinated Assault: Starting at 3rd level, when you hit a creature within 5' of your beast with a melee or ranged attack, you may spend your reaction to command your beast to make one attack against the same target as a reaction. If you are not within 5’ of the target, your beast makes this attack with disadvantage.
Levels 3-4 are definitely problematic and far more likely to be played than many later levels. Ok, so we are trading our Bonus Action, which can be an attack for a TWF, for one and then after 11th a second attack. This is a net of one additional attack for a Ranger, 0 extra for a TWF Ranger and costs a bonus action. The Ranger has competition for its bonus action, Hunters Mark comes to mind as competition with the Animal Companion especially switching targets.
Is ...
Action: Attack+HM Plus Action: 2xAC Attack Plus BonusAction: Attack+HM
really that much differenc than
Action: 2xAttack+HM Plus BonusAction: 2xAC Attack
Sure, you can use a two handed weapon or a bow vs TWF, but fundamentally it isn't that different. Hunters Mark becomes more difficult to use.
The Ranger now can more readily use Action cost spells and has higher opportunity cost for bonus action spells.
@EvilAnagram. The prime example I'm talking about is a Lonsword i.e. Hand and a half sword which would be a dueling weapon and that most definitely benefits from the second hand, as would the Battleaxe, as would the Warhammer. The game gets broken down to simple categories, all your whining and exaggerated rhetoric is centered around PCs that aren't half Orc's or barbarians that forego the already numerically superior Greataword and Mauls for the Greataxe. It isn't the problem you are making it out to be. The real problem is the Greaxe being a D12 instead of 2d6.
What matters is dueling being used for Versatile weapons, all of the versatile weapons that benefit from dueling would benefit from the use of a second no hand IRL. Yes, numerically the benefit from dueling is a bit better than GWF, and both potentially apply. This is fine.
I've listened to your argument and find it lacking, either improve it or let it go. You are fixated on a numerically insignificant rare situation and missing the forest for a singe fraction of a tree.
Apparently something that can easily be lost and requires effort to replace isn't a resource. You keep saying it breaks the action economy without analyzing what is lost by losing the bonus action to the Animal Companion. Also both are capable of two weapon attacks and two Animal Companion attacks in one round. TWF + AC or Extra Attac +AC.
And yes, at levels 3-4 you don't get to attack, that is your direct means of affecting combat and going from level 2 where you attack every round to Lvl 3 where you are a cheerleader or just have a neutered spectator as you attack.
EvilAnagram
2016-03-28, 11:14 PM
all your whining
Come now. It was clearly a mocking tone, and you know that quite well.
and exaggerated rhetoric is centered around PCs that aren't half Orc's or barbarians that forego the already numerically superior Greataword and Mauls for the Greataxe. It isn't the problem you are making it out to be. The real problem is the Greaxe being a D12 instead of 2d6.
The real problem is that people are suggesting unbalanced fixes to features that aren't in need of fixing and refuse to justify the claim that they are in need of fixing.
What matters is dueling being used for Versatile weapons, all of the versatile weapons that benefit from dueling would benefit from the use of a second no hand IRL. Yes, numerically the benefit from dueling is a bit better than GWF, and both potentially apply. This is fine.
Justify the claim that having competing features overlap while one is strictly superior is fine.
I've listened to your argument and find it lacking, either improve it or let it go. You are fixated on a numerically insignificant rare situation and missing the forest for a singe fraction of a tree.
Here's the thing, I don't care to let it go. I hate it when people push for things using intellectually dishonest tactics. My point was, and has always been, that your fix makes Dueling strictly superior for wielding versatile weapons in two hands rather than asking the player to choose between which style he wants to focus on. I have said this plainly. I have said this fancifully. I have said this roundabout. And every time I have said this, you have ignored that point and brought up unrelated points to pretend you were winning an argument. That's not how you behave in a civilized society.
Apparently something that can easily be lost and requires effort to replace isn't a resource.
And we have more dishonest tactics. I've stated, restated, and stated again the the beast companions simply don't get easily lost, but you cling to that claim. The grail's not that important, Elsa! You don't have to keep reaching for it!
You keep saying it breaks the action economy without analyzing what is lost by losing the bonus action to the Animal Companion. Also both are capable of two weapon attacks and two Animal Companion attacks in one round. TWF + AC or Extra Attac +AC.
There's not actual consensus on whether or not you can use TWF with animal companion attacks because you aren't taking the attack action. You're simply commanding the animal to attack, which allows you to make an attack.
But you're right. The bonus action command, in addition to allowing you to deal more damage than you otherwise should be able to, keeps you from being able to utilize a lot of strategies that have made the Beast Master effective without stepping on the toes of Fighter DPR.
And yes, at levels 3-4 you don't get to attack, that is your direct means of affecting combat and going from level 2 where you attack every round to Lvl 3 where you are a cheerleader or just have a neutered spectator as you attack.
That's weird, because I seem to remember you being able to make meaningful choices that affected the battlefield. Are you ranged? Push your companion up front to make op attacks and fire away with your arrows. Are you small? Mount your companion and attack, while getting two op attacks. Are you and your companion both melee? Decide who gets the attack depending on the situation while the two of you act with superior battlefield control.
Apparently, all those tactical considerations and possibilities are being neutered.
Steampunkette
2016-03-29, 08:09 AM
Greataxes are the weaker of the three main "Heavy Weapons" outside of special cases.
In a special case, certain non-heavy weapons can be better than it, marginally.
I really don't see any issue, there.
Come now. It was clearly a mocking tone, and you know that quite well.
The real problem is that people are suggesting unbalanced fixes to features that aren't in need of fixing and refuse to justify the claim that they are in need of fixing.
Justify the claim that having competing features overlap while one is strictly superior is fine.
Here's the thing, I don't care to let it go. I hate it when people push for things using intellectually dishonest tactics. My point was, and has always been, that your fix makes Dueling strictly superior for wielding versatile weapons in two hands rather than asking the player to choose between which style he wants to focus on. I have said this plainly. I have said this fancifully. I have said this roundabout. And every time I have said this, you have ignored that point and brought up unrelated points to pretend you were winning an argument. That's not how you behave in a civilized society.
And we have more dishonest tactics. I've stated, restated, and stated again the the beast companions simply don't get easily lost, but you cling to that claim. The grail's not that important, Elsa! You don't have to keep reaching for it!
There's not actual consensus on whether or not you can use TWF with animal companion attacks because you aren't taking the attack action. You're simply commanding the animal to attack, which allows you to make an attack.
But you're right. The bonus action command, in addition to allowing you to deal more damage than you otherwise should be able to, keeps you from being able to utilize a lot of strategies that have made the Beast Master effective without stepping on the toes of Fighter DPR.
That's weird, because I seem to remember you being able to make meaningful choices that affected the battlefield. Are you ranged? Push your companion up front to make op attacks and fire away with your arrows. Are you small? Mount your companion and attack, while getting two op attacks. Are you and your companion both melee? Decide who gets the attack depending on the situation while the two of you act with superior battlefield control.
Apparently, all those tactical considerations and possibilities are being neutered.
The problem is your arguments are generally inadequate, or more pointedly when you do make arguments you make gross exaggerations and your tone is childish which is all made painterly worse by your belief in your own superiority. You make charges of intellectual dishonesty to cover inadequacies in your own arguments, and it's juvenile. Please stop trolling my thread, I am done talking to you. I'm sure you can find a multitude of other threads to spend your time on.
Ahh, can't help myself, I'll bite once more...
Stock
One Handed Versatile 4.5 Damage
Two Handed Versatile/PoleArms 5.5 Damage
Dueling Two Handed Versatile 5.5
GWF Two Handed Versatile/PoleArm 6.3 Damage
Greataxe 6.5 Damage
Dueling One Handed Versatile 6.5 Damage
Greatsword/Maul 7.0 Damage
GWF Greataxe 7.33
GWF Greatsword/Maul 8.33
A Versatile weapon when used in one hand Deals less than when used two hands which makes sense. But, a duelist using a versatile weapon become less competent with the Versatile weapon when they have heir second hand available which does not. Note, that a Versatile weapon one handed with dueling I s already superior to a Versatile weapons used in two hands and when used with GWF. There is also concurrent problems, the Greataxe is less effective than similar weapons and single die weapons benefit less from GWF than multi die damage weapons.
Tweaked
One Handed Versatile 4.5 Damage
Two Handed Versatile/PoleArms 5.5 Damage
GWF Two Handed Versatile/PoleArms 6.3 Damage
Greataxe 6.5 Damage
Dueling One Handed Versatile 6.5 Damage
Greatsword/Maul 7.0 Damage
GWF Greataxe 7.33
Dueling Two Handed Versatile 7.5 Damage
Dueling GWF a Two Handed Versatile 8.3 Damage
GWF Greatsword/Maul 8.33
The tweak fixes the Versatile weapon problem, damage is still in line. But, some other problems still are present, namely that Greataxes aren't as effective as Greatswords and Mauls and more importantly that single die weapons recieved less of a benefit from GWF than multi die weapons, also, GWF is a bit underwhelming in terms of damage added when compared to Dueling though end line damage output still tops the scale at least in terms of Greatswords and Mauls. Your complaints should be directed at GWF not aiding single die weapons as it should instead of the dueling' tweak. The real question is does GWF require a fix, especially in relation to single die weapons?
Steampunkette
2016-03-29, 09:34 AM
Maybe what we need is a Greataxe Fighting Style?
I know it's -really- narrow, but something that would make it more attractive in general... Or could make it into a "Poleaxe" fighting style and apply it to all "Heavy" Axes (for halberds and glaives to also benefit).
How about letting you expend your bonus action after landing a hit to force a str save dc 10+str mod to knock the opponent down (Large size or smaller)?
Hmm... Frenzied zerks would almost never use that before level 5, at least. And after level 5 they'd be giving up a bonus action greataxe swing for advantage they can already get through reckless attacks. So it might be better to go for something closer to the allowed abilities...
Oh! How about greataxe fighting style allowing you to one-hand a great axe so long as you don't have a shield or other weapon in your off-hand? Manipulating objects, readying potions, casting spells... Nah. Too weird. Well... maybe. Could add a feat that lets you dual-wield greataxes for the fantasy of it that has the GAFS as a pre-req... Champion Dual-Wielding Half orc Great Axe fighting style Fighters would be scary at high end!
1d12 in each hand, two weapon fighting to add str to off-hand, level 15 fighter for 3 attacks plus the off-hand... Throw in 5 levels of barbarian for some reckless attacking rage, 3d12 crits on an 18-20... MUAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
Yeah let's not.
Maybe what we need is a Greataxe Fighting Style?
I know it's -really- narrow, but something that would make it more attractive in general... Or could make it into a "Poleaxe" fighting style and apply it to all "Heavy" Axes (for halberds and glaives to also benefit).
How about letting you expend your bonus action after landing a hit to force a str save dc 10+str mod to knock the opponent down (Large size or smaller)?
Hmm... Frenzied zerks would almost never use that before level 5, at least. And after level 5 they'd be giving up a bonus action greataxe swing for advantage they can already get through reckless attacks. So it might be better to go for something closer to the allowed abilities...
Oh! How about greataxe fighting style allowing you to one-hand a great axe so long as you don't have a shield or other weapon in your off-hand? Manipulating objects, readying potions, casting spells... Nah. Too weird. Well... maybe. Could add a feat that lets you dual-wield greataxes for the fantasy of it that has the GAFS as a pre-req... Champion Dual-Wielding Half orc Great Axe fighting style Fighters would be scary at high end!
1d12 in each hand, two weapon fighting to add str to off-hand, level 15 fighter for 3 attacks plus the off-hand... Throw in 5 levels of barbarian for some reckless attacking rage, 3d12 crits on an 18-20... MUAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
Yeah let's not.
I was thinking about making the Greataxe 2d6 or D12. Requires a new weapon property, but gives non Barbarians and Half Orc's the ability to choose 2d6 making it in line with Greatswords and Mauls while giving it a niche preference and bonus for HalfOrcs and Barbarians. Problem is keeping it simple and using a light touch.
I was also considering a tweak for GWF that granted an extra benefit for single die weapons i.e. PoleArms and Greataxes. Maybe making the reroll property die dependent.
D6 1,2
D8-D10 1,2,3
D12 1,2,3,4 (7.83Average Damage compared to 7.33)
Or just 1,2 for D6s and D8s and 1-4 for D10s and D12s.
mer.c
2016-03-29, 11:16 AM
I was thinking about making the Greataxe 2d6 or D12. Requires a new weapon property, but gives non Barbarians and Half Orc's the ability to choose 2d6 making it in line with Greatswords and Mauls while giving it a niche preference and bonus for HalfOrcs and Barbarians. Problem is keeping it simple and using a light touch.
I was also considering a tweak for GWF that granted an extra benefit for single die weapons i.e. PoleArms and Greataxes. Maybe making the reroll property die dependent.
D6 1,2
D8-D10 1,2,3
D12 1,2,3,4 (7.83Average Damage compared to 7.33)
Or just 1,2 for D6s and D8s and 1-4 for D10s and D12s.
FWIW, this seems to me like a lot of extra baggage to accommodate your tweak. I can understand that it feels bad having someone deal less damage with a 2-handed grip than a 1-handed grip, but we're talking about people who specifically train in the Duelist style. I don't think it breaks immersion or verisimilitude to say that Duelist represents finely honing one-handed fighting style. Especially when Duelist gives a considerably larger base DPR boost than GWF, which represents training exclusively with weapons that are designed specifically for 2-handed use. Especially especially if you look at IRL dueling styles – the techniques you use with a two-handed grip are completely different than the techniques you'd use with a one-handed grip of the same weapon. Especially3 when that's the side RAW comes down on.
Granted, trying to optimize around Greataxe is going to complicate things further, because Greataxe is already sub-optimal for everyone who doesn't get additional crit dice. But even using optimized weapon choices (Greatsword and Maul) as points of comparison, all these numbers and arguments hold up.
Besides, even without applying the Duelist bonus to 2-handing Versatile weapons, Versatile weapons still have a place: anyone who doesn't have Duelist and has access to Shields and Versatile weapons. At a quick glance, that includes Defense/Archery (and even Protection) Martials, Clerics, Druids, Valor Bards, and S&B Barbarians (against enemies they can't Shield Master shove).
I can see wanting to make Versatile more attractive. But for the above reasons, I don't think pasting Duelist's bonus onto Versatile weapons' 2H damage is the right way to do it. IMO, it breaks verisimilitude instead of supporting it, and it breaks balance in ways that either further break verisimilitude (Greataxe + 2-handed specialization < Battleaxe + not(2-handed specialization)) or require extra ruling around.
At the end of the day it's up to you, of course. I just wanted to weigh in on why I don't find that tweak compelling.
FWIW, this seems to me like a lot of extra baggage to accommodate your tweak. I can understand that it feels bad having someone deal less damage with a 2-handed grip than a 1-handed grip, but we're talking about people who specifically train in the Duelist style. I don't think it breaks immersion or verisimilitude to say that Duelist represents finely honing one-handed fighting style. Especially when Duelist gives a considerably larger base DPR boost than GWF, which represents training exclusively with weapons that are designed specifically for 2-handed use. Especially especially if you look at IRL dueling styles – the techniques you use with a two-handed grip are completely different than the techniques you'd use with a one-handed grip of the same weapon. Especially3 when that's the side RAW comes down on.
Granted, trying to optimize around Greataxe is going to complicate things further, because Greataxe is already sub-optimal for everyone who doesn't get additional crit dice. But even using optimized weapon choices (Greatsword and Maul) as points of comparison, all these numbers and arguments hold up.
Besides, even without applying the Duelist bonus to 2-handing Versatile weapons, Versatile weapons still have a place: anyone who doesn't have Duelist and has access to Shields and Versatile weapons. At a quick glance, that includes Defense/Archery (and even Protection) Martials, Clerics, Druids, Valor Bards, and S&B Barbarians (against enemies they can't Shield Master shove).
I can see wanting to make Versatile more attractive. But for the above reasons, I don't think pasting Duelist's bonus onto Versatile weapons' 2H damage is the right way to do it. IMO, it breaks verisimilitude instead of supporting it, and it breaks balance in ways that either further break verisimilitude (Greataxe + 2-handed specialization < Battleaxe + not(2-handed specialization)) or require extra ruling around.
At the end of the day it's up to you, of course. I just wanted to weigh in on why I don't find that tweak compelling.
I completely and vehemently disagree with allowing Dueling to apply to Versalile weapons being used two handed as breaking verisimilitude. Quite the contrary, when dealing with Versatile weapons i.e. Longsword, Battleaxe, Warhammer, Trident, and Quarterstaff. As the dueling bonus applies to using each of those weapons in one hand, there is no rational reason that having access to a second hand wouldn't make you more effective. Imagine a bastard sword, where someone is so skilled single handed there is no reason being able to even occasionally add their second hand would not be more effective. Blocks, and strikes can all be enhanced with the use of a second hand. Having your second hand available is of no detriment, right now it is. Now, imagine a Battleaxe or Warhammer, or Trident, or Quarterstaff, each in a duelist's hands becomes more effective with the addition of a second hand not less. We are not talking about the two handed use of specific single handed weapons like a rapier, we are talking about weapons that are inherently more effective with the use of a second hand. Envisioning Dueling as fencing instead of simply a single non two hand required weapon style is the problem. If dueling with a versatile Longsword in one hand gets a bonus, having access to your second hand should as well.
The shield and versatile weapon argument is tenuous at best, shields requiring an action to don and doff makes switching styles effectively moot as it doesn't happen in play. Have you ever seen a character sacrifice their action to doff their shield just so they get a bigger damage die(+1) on further rounds? No. Versatile is simply not used nor effective and in the case of dueling is less effective and ruins vermisilitude.
4-8-16 Changed to
Warlock
Pact of the Tome
Add "In addition to adding the spells on your Patron's expanded spell list to the Warlock spell list treat them as additional spells known for you."
4-8-16 Changed to
Warlock
Eldritch Invocations
Agonizing Blast: Change to "When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit. Apply this bonus damage only once per target. When you reach 11th level in Warlock you may apply this bonus damage up to twice per target."
4-8-16 Added
Sorcerer
Spells Known of 1st Level and Higher
Add "In addition to the number of spells listed in the Spells Known column of the Sorcerer's table you know additional spells equal to your Cha Modifier."
4-8-16 Added
Druid
ArchDruid
Change to "At 20th level you can use your Wild Shape an unlimited number of times to transform into any beast that has a challenge rating of 2 or lower.
Circle of the Moon
Combat Wild Shape: Add "Additionally, while you are transferred by Wild Shape, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to your first melee damage roll per turn and to your AC, up to a maximum of AC 20."
Circle Forms: Change to "The rites of your circle grant you the ability to transform into more dangerous animal forms. Starting at 2nd level, you can transform into a beast with a challenge rating as high as 1/2(you ignore the Max CR column of the Beast Shapes table, but must abide by the other limitations there).
Starting at 4th level, you can transform into a beast with a challenge rating as high as your Druid level divided by 4, rounded down.
Starting at 10th level, you can transform into a Beast with a challenge rating as high as your Druid level divided by 3, rounded down.
A little bit more work after feedback on Sorcerer's still needing a boost and on Eldritch Blast and Pact of the Tome. Also added some tweaks for Circle of the Moon Druids.
EvilAnagram
2016-04-09, 10:23 AM
The problem is your arguments are generally inadequate, or more pointedly when you do make arguments you make gross exaggerations and your tone is childish which is all made painterly worse by your belief in your own superiority. You make charges of intellectual dishonesty to cover inadequacies in your own arguments, and it's juvenile. Please stop trolling my thread, I am done talking to you. I'm sure you can find a multitude of other threads to spend your time on.
My charges of intellectual dishonesty come from your tendency to use intellectually dishonest tactics. For example, instead of addressing my points (your Beast Master fix increases damage more than is half-caster appropriate, while limiting tactical options in order to fix a perceived problem that only exists for two levels) you simply declare them inadequate.
I'd simply appreciate a more honest approach to addressing problems in the game. Do me a favor: for a few minutes, forget what you think you know about the Beast Master. Abide by the Socratic principle and start from a position of knowing nothing, and consider this question:
Should we limit the tactical capabilities of the companion and increase the average damage to Fighter levels in order to provide a flat increase to the base power of a companion for the first two levels?
Your suggestion limits the ranger and companion's ability to utilize bonus actions, while providing a flat increase to damage. It unbalances the class and works against the Ranger's tendency to use bonus action spells. You want to do this because there are two levels in which the companion is not as useful as the rest of the levels. Keep in mind that for those two levels the companion is still useful, just not as useful as it will be the rest of the time.
My charges of intellectual dishonesty come from your tendency to use intellectually dishonest tactics. For example, instead of addressing my points (your Beast Master fix increases damage more than is half-caster appropriate, while limiting tactical options in order to fix a perceived problem that only exists for two levels) you simply declare them inadequate.
I'd simply appreciate a more honest approach to addressing problems in the game. Do me a favor: for a few minutes, forget what you think you know about the Beast Master. Abide by the Socratic principle and start from a position of knowing nothing, and consider this question:
Should we limit the tactical capabilities of the companion and increase the average damage to Fighter levels in order to provide a flat increase to the base power of a companion for the first two levels?
Your suggestion limits the ranger and companion's ability to utilize bonus actions, while providing a flat increase to damage. It unbalances the class and works against the Ranger's tendency to use bonus action spells. You want to do this because there are two levels in which the companion is not as useful as the rest of the levels. Keep in mind that for those two levels the companion is still useful, just not as useful as it will be the rest of the time.
Again with grandiose accusations. Your claims have little merit and your arguments are weak, that is why I dismiss them.
I proposed a fix that is desperately needed, levels 3 and 4 are the most commonly played levels for a Beast Master, they are the defining levels for a new Sublcass and they are atrocious. They do not work. You have not offered a single suggestion that fixes this problem.
Ahhh.... you again....
You claim that my fix ruins the Beastmasters bonus actions, good thing they have a whole list of actions to choose from and the majority of their spells are Action not bonus action. Just because this changes the class from your preconceived notions, does not make it wrong. Change and Different do not equal wrong.
Yes, it does increase the damage the class can output, in a vacuum. But, as I've shown above it isn't much different than a TWF, the AC can be lost, and now there is opportunity cost for the Bonus action slot and a great range of actions the Beastmaster can choose from. It does not break DPR, uses a perishable resource, and offers greater flexibility to the class in some ways, and less in others while fixing Levels 3-4.
Damage more than half caster appropriate, because the other half caster... the Paladin doesn't put out damage. Sure...
You keep comparing a Sublcassed Ranger to a stock fighter, include the Battlemaster maneuvers, extra feat, etc into calculation and the Beastmaster utilizing a perishable resource does not unseat the Fighter.
You keep arguing using charged rhetoric instead of making solid arguments. I've outlined why I disagree with much of what you said and you've yet to put forward an argument that has swayed my position. All that you need to do is outline a solid enough argument and provide a better solution and I'd happily change my mind. You have failed repeatedly to do that.
Don't have time for a longer or better worded post so that will have to suffice.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.