What's next on the tweak/rework list for WotC now that the Ranger is out? [Archive]

Arc-Royal

2016-09-19, 01:51 PM

MrStabby

2016-09-19, 05:41 PM

The most complained about archetypes now would be the elemental monk, the frenzy barbarian and the wild mage. Champion fighter as well - but for slightly different reasons

This said, there are other archetypes I have never seen played: the thief rogue, the devotion paladin, the conjurer wizard (and as you mentioned - the Old one warlock - seem one and no more).

Given that the approach with the ranger was that they redid the whole class but most of the change was one one archetype I would guess that the sorcerer might be next up. Monk might be able to support some adjustment in the archetype but the class as a whole is good enough that there wouldn't be much temptation to mess with it. Enough people bittch about the sorcerer class as a whole to justify some reconsideration.

Naanomi

2016-09-19, 05:53 PM

I agree that a significant update to elemental monk, and very minor tweaks to berserker and wild sorcerer; would put everything in a pretty positive state. While there would still be some power variation between subclasses, nothing left would feel automatically 'bad'

Discord

2016-09-19, 06:02 PM

Berseker Barbarian
Four Elements Monk
Sorcerers

I played a Sorcerer for almost a full year, and I can say I had some good burst potential, but if your going to limit the spell list I think they should get more access to Metamagics or certain spells known depending on which Bloodline you take.

I was DMing CoS for a while, my one player was playing a Shadow Sorcerer, what I told him to do was that he knew all his Metamagics, but the one's he picked at 3, 10, 17, he was 'proficient' in and all the others cost x2 number of Sorcery points. We didn't get to play around with it to much but it seem balanced for the bit of use he got out of it, since some of the Sorcerer Metamagics are extremely situational.

Also I think they could also rework some of the existing feats in 5e, since I have literally never seen some of them in play and I've been playing 5e almost since it came out.

DracoKnight

2016-09-19, 06:39 PM

EKruze

2016-09-19, 06:39 PM

The Berserker Barbarian is actually pretty good for DDAL play where there's a very limited number of fights in a module and then you start completely fresh for the next adventure. You can generally get away with using Frenzy three times before the nastiest exhaustion effects start to hurt. In this manner of use it's fairly powerful.

Naanomi

2016-09-19, 07:02 PM

Exhaustion isn't the only bad part about Berserker... it taking an action and the multitude of other ways to get a bonus attack action interfere with the benefits of frenzy, and the reliance on (otherwise dumped) charisma for another ability don't help

Wild sorcerer needs clearer guidelines besides 'the GM decides when if at all your class has abilities!' for its core mechanic

Kryx

2016-09-19, 07:31 PM

The only thing that needs fixing about the sorcerer is giving each archetype an expanded spell list
Sorcerers are behind in several areas:
Spells known (15 vs 44+ for Wizard)
Versatility of being able to switch spells every day
Spell slots per day (no recovery)
Spell list (~160 vs ~250)

Meta magic isn't enough to make up for those when compared to wizard archetypes.

I address these in my Sorcerer rework (signature)

TheUser

2016-09-20, 02:14 AM

MrStabby

2016-09-20, 06:49 AM

Sorcerers are behind in several areas:
Spells known (15 vs 44+ for Wizard)
Versatility of being able to switch spells every day
Spell slots per day (no recovery)
Spell list (~160 vs ~250)

Meta magic isn't enough to make up for those when compared to wizard archetypes.

I address these in my Sorcerer rework (signature)

Metamagic is powerful enough to make up for these, just not interesting enough. The reason a sorcerer might warrant a rework, aside from silencing the whining, is that there are not enough fun abilities that set it apart. Metamagic is fun and exceptionally powerful but after you get it at level 3 the class doesn't really get much more fun stuff. Weakening metamagic and giving more toys might not change the power level but it would make it more fun.

Saying that the Sorcerer has fewer spells known that the wizard is true, but kind of pointless. It is like saying that they get fewer HP than the barbarian. If you expect a class to be comparable in an area to the particular strength of another class then of course you would be disappointed. If you want loads of spells known and you want that to be the strength of a character then play a wizard. That there exists a class that caters to this desire doesn't make the sorcerer bad. After all if you compare a wizard to warlock the warlock does much better at will damage with their spells - the wizard looks bad if you compare them to another class' strength - it doesn't mean the wizard is bad, it just means that you made a pointless comparison that doesn't really show anything much.

Zalabim

2016-09-20, 07:43 AM

If you compare a dragon sorcerer and an evoker wizard, you find that one of them is great for flying around with greater invisibility while raining death from the skies and the other one can turn into a dragon. The mechanics for a sorcerer may be functional, but the thematic-connection and fun-factor is awful. It does not evoke the Dragon Disciple kind of character, for example.

Dragonborn make poor dragon sorcerers. It reminds me of 4E's tieflings being great at being Fey Pact warlocks (and poor at infernal pact).

For perhaps a better comparison, we know what a wizard's strengths are, so what are the sorcerer's strengths that the wizard can't match or exceed?

Byke

2016-09-20, 07:45 AM

Another vote for Sorcerer rework!

Naanomi

2016-09-20, 08:13 AM

The distinction between Ranger and Sorcerer were that Rangers were perceived as both 'weak' and 'unfun'... Sorcerers are perceived as 'weak' (not to the degree that rangers were, and not as part of certain multiclasses, but...) but not really 'unfun' by what I've seen at the table and on forums.

Elemental Monk hits both of those categories, which is why I feel it needs a bigger overhaul... but for sorcerer (and berserker) I feel only the few pieces of mechanical wonkiness need addressed. Opinions may very of course

Regitnui

2016-09-20, 08:19 AM

Only WotC can answer this question, but I'd rather they move forwards; for all the criticism that's levelled at various parts of the system by various people, it all works together fairly well. I have a sorcerer and monk both in my party, and they're actually two of the most terrifying characters. The sorcerer can hit you from across the room, and the monk can be right next to you in the time it takes you to blink.

In short, rework the artificer and release Eberron, please.

JumboWheat01

2016-09-20, 08:23 AM

I would like to see the Way of the Four Elements get some slight tweaking. It burns through Ki too fast without a lot of interesting things to do when you don't have any Ki.

This said, there are other archetypes I have never seen played: the thief rogue, ... ... (and as you mentioned - the Old one warlock - seem one and no more).

I think the reason you don't see Thief Rogue all that much is simply because of the oomph you get from Assassin or the spells from the Arcane Trickster. I've done a few Thief Rogues before the Inquisitive came out, they have nice, simple abilities and good ol' Use Magic Device built into them. A lot of fun, if a bit simple.

As for the Great Old One Warlock, well... you have Fiend for Blasting, Fey for control, and GOO to cover things in a sticky substance. Why would you make something that shortens to GOO?

MrStabby

2016-09-20, 09:05 AM

For perhaps a better comparison, we know what a wizard's strengths are, so what are the sorcerer's strengths that the wizard can't match or exceed?

1) Twinned spell - being able to be the only way to get two concentration spells up is potent and unique

2) Careful spell - imposing nasty status effects on enemies in a melee but not friends is pretty game breaking at times.

3) Subtle spell - you want to cast unnoticed, underwater, with your hands tied behind your back, whist blaming the guy next to you... This not only avoids encounters entirely but can obviate all sorts of other nasty tricks.

Various other bonuses go to the archetypes, but the real meat is in the main class.

Kryx

2016-09-20, 09:08 AM

Metamagic is powerful enough to make up for these
I must respectfully disagree, but it has been debated hundreds of times on this forum and my desire to do it once again is rather minimal.

MrStabby

2016-09-20, 09:12 AM

I must respectfully disagree, but it has been debated hundreds of times on this forum and my desire to do it once again is rather minimal.

I am not going to debate it but I am going to bring it up anyway as that is my way of not debating it? :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

R.Shackleford

2016-09-20, 09:21 AM

If they could make a decent fighter I would think about giving money to WotC again.

The battlemaster is an absolute joke.

Kryx

2016-09-20, 09:37 AM

I am not going to debate it but I am going to bring it up anyway as that is my way of not debating it? :smalltongue::smallbiggrin:
If you really want to discuss it open another thread so we don't pollute this one. But I'm sure the result will be that you think it is fine as is and then I show a bunch of math on damage and then express my opinion on versatility lacking and then we move on after wasting a bunch of time.
The topic has already been discussed over hundreds of threads. No need to pollute this one and likely no need to open a new one.

If they could make a decent fighter I would think about giving money to WotC again.
I'd love to see a more dynamic Fighter. Same with Barbarian. Both are good in terms of DPR (Barbarian especially), but are pretty boring imo.

JumboWheat01

2016-09-20, 10:02 AM

1) Twinned spell - being able to be the only way to get two concentration spells up is potent and unique

2) Careful spell - imposing nasty status effects on enemies in a melee but not friends is pretty game breaking at times.

There are Schools for Wizards that get benefits like that. Admittedly, only for the School in question, but they still get it. Enchanters can Twin any single-target Enchantment spell, and Evokers can sculpt their Evocation spells so their allies aren't affected at all. Careful Spell only allows allies to make a save. If it's a Save-for-Half, or a save for a lesser effect, they're still affected by the spell. And I'm not entirely sure on how it's supposed to work on spells that have continual save. Is Careful Spell in effect ALL the time, or only on the first save?

Also, the Sorcerer has to spend resources on using their Metamagic, while the Enchanter and Evoker get to use their similar things whenever the bloody well please.

3) Subtle spell - you want to cast unnoticed, underwater, with your hands tied behind your back, whist blaming the guy next to you... This not only avoids encounters entirely but can obviate all sorts of other nasty tricks.

They get it earlier, to be true, but level 20 Druids get it in effect ALL the time with no cost at all. Again, the Sorcerer needs to spend resources to do so.

And the problem with this spending of resources for the Sorcerer, ALL Metamagic uses the same resource pool. Any time you spend points on one, you take away points that can be used on another. And woe-be-told if you decide to spend those same points on letting you cast another spell all together...

SmokingSkull

2016-09-20, 10:20 AM

As much as I love these particular two classes, a re-imagined Fighter and Barbarian would be awesome to see.

MrStabby

2016-09-20, 10:26 AM

There are Schools for Wizards that get benefits like that. Admittedly, only for the School in question, but they still get it. Enchanters can Twin any single-target Enchantment spell, and Evokers can sculpt their Evocation spells so their allies aren't affected at all. Careful Spell only allows allies to make a save. If it's a Save-for-Half, or a save for a lesser effect, they're still affected by the spell. And I'm not entirely sure on how it's supposed to work on spells that have continual save. Is Careful Spell in effect ALL the time, or only on the first save?

Oh I am not saying wizards are bad. Twinning enchantment spells is good, passing saves on evocation spells is good. But this is one area where wizards are less flexible. They can do one of these things. For one school of magic rather than all of them for all schools.

The use of resources is a fair point. You only get sorcery pints equivalent to your level each day, plus what you convert spell slots into. It can be a pain but somethings help. I found as a draconic sorcerer I could afford a few more rounds per day slinging cantrips and waiting for the right moment to cast my encounter ending metamagic spell. It also got better when I got the knack of planning my spell selection better. More niche spells across a range of uses meant I could have a powerful effect more often and could convert spell slots from underused spell levels (for that day) to sorcery points to power my effects.

I think the problem is that people expect the sorcerer to be damage focused, and it kind of sucks at that. Well it's ok at damage - anything that can add a stat modifier to fireball damage can go pretty far on that alone.

Maybe if a sorcerer rework is done, it can focus on actually making it a damage class?

JumboWheat01

2016-09-20, 10:33 AM

I think the problem is that people expect the sorcerer to be damage focused, and it kind of sucks at that. Well it's ok at damage - anything that can add a stat modifier to fireball damage can go pretty far on that alone.

Maybe if a sorcerer rework is done, it can focus on actually making it a damage class?

I've found the main problem with being a Blaster on Sorcerers, who kind of call for it, since damage is always useful, is how limited the types are. For instance, if you're a Dragon Sorcerer with a Brass, Gold or Red origin, you're pretty set, lot of fire spells in your list. Also a lot of fire resistant enemies, but let's not go that far. But say you want to have a Black or a Copper origin? Acid spells are few and far between. And gods forbid if you want to have a Green origin! Having the option of a choice, but not really having one, is a problem, especially if you're not an optimizer.

MrStabby

2016-09-20, 11:04 AM

I've found the main problem with being a Blaster on Sorcerers, who kind of call for it, since damage is always useful, is how limited the types are. For instance, if you're a Dragon Sorcerer with a Brass, Gold or Red origin, you're pretty set, lot of fire spells in your list. Also a lot of fire resistant enemies, but let's not go that far. But say you want to have a Black or a Copper origin? Acid spells are few and far between. And gods forbid if you want to have a Green origin! Having the option of a choice, but not really having one, is a problem, especially if you're not an optimizer.

That's true, I would accept that. Although here the answer might be in more elemental evil type releases rather than class reworks. Not that I have a problem with the class being reworked - I do think it possible to maintain its current power level whilst making a lot of the people who are unhappy with the class happy.

I think the storm sorcerer seems balanced and fun now - so adding archetypes can work, but I do think that too much of the strength of the class is in the core, which makes sorcerers a little unvaried. If a rework put more power in the archetypes then we might see a bit more variety.

JumboWheat01

2016-09-20, 11:10 AM

That's true, I would accept that. Although here the answer might be in more elemental evil type releases rather than class reworks. Not that I have a problem with the class being reworked - I do think it possible to maintain its current power level whilst making a lot of the people who are unhappy with the class happy.

I think the storm sorcerer seems balanced and fun now - so adding archetypes can work, but I do think that too much of the strength of the class is in the core, which makes sorcerers a little unvaried. If a rework put more power in the archetypes then we might see a bit more variety.

That's definitely a good point, Sorcerers do seem to be one of those classes that aren't really made by their archetypes, but rather the base class.

Kryx

2016-09-20, 12:25 PM

If a rework put more power in the archetypes then we might see a bit more variety.
Creating a stronger identity is what a Sorcerer needs. In my rework (see signature) I expand on the archetypes and give a bit more versatility. It's definitely not a Wizard, but is a much more viable option and has its own unique benefits.

The Sorcerer, as is, isn't terrible, but it just doesn't compete.

SharkForce

2016-09-20, 01:15 PM

ugh. i really truly hope they don't turn the sorcerer into only a damage dealer. that is the most boring kind of sorcerer imaginable. we already have charisma-based damage-dealing spellcasters. they're called warlocks. they're quite good at it.

anyways, while i don't think people are fully happy with the current sorcerer, i also don't think they're likely to rework it next. if they do more reworks, i would expect 4 element monks (and only the 4 element path, monks are largely fine as-is, even if i would like to see some minor tweaks) and berserkers (and once again, only berserkers).

Naanomi

2016-09-20, 01:55 PM

Although I recognize sorcerer has some limitations compared to a wizard, I feel it is at least fun and (while lacking versatility) equal raw power compared to similar classes; only the wild surge mechanism being in the hands of the DM bothers me as a class

Tanarii

2016-09-20, 01:56 PM

Berseker Barbarian
Four Elements Monk
SorcerersPretty much the list I'd like to see addressed. If only so we stop getting threads of people complaining about them over and over again. :smallwink:

Shaofoo

2016-09-20, 02:35 PM

Pretty much the list I'd like to see addressed. If only so we stop getting threads of people complaining about them over and over again. :smallwink:

This is the internet, people will hold on to memes way beyond they stop being funny (or in this case insightful... which it never was).

People will complain no matter what. In fact reading this I don't think even the people know what they would like to change or how (Sure they may give you memes but not a coherent answer, seriously Frenzy is so trivial to fix if it needs fixing). It took WotC this long to even have a beta version (remember the remade Ranger is still UA and can still change radically before it is "official") and WotC only has addressed the ranger as a problem class from the polls. Everyone else seems to be within acceptable ranges of liking it at least. I sincerely doubt they'll radically change any other class since there isn't enough complaints to do so.

Seriously, most complaints I see for Sorcerer is that it isn't a Wizard.

Seriously if we want to remake everything just to shut people up it'd be easier to throw D&D as a whole in the trash and forget everything because people will want any excuse to complain, even a +1 attack roll increase is enough to fan the flames.

Theodoxus

2016-09-20, 02:54 PM

My solution to the barbarian was to roll Berserker into the baseline (Frenzy requires Reckless Attack to use, grants a bonus attack taken at any point (ie doesn't require a requisite attack action), and is usable Con Mod number of times per Long Rest). ETA: and doesn't incur exhaustion... Then I added the Path of Steel homebrewed on these forums (sorry, don't have the link handy).

Basically, you have the shamanistic barbarian and the Sparhawkian barbarian. It'd be nice if WotC did something along those lines...

Tanarii

2016-09-20, 03:05 PM

People will complain no matter what. In fact reading this I don't think even the people know what they would like to change or how (Sure they may give you memes but not a coherent answer, seriously Frenzy is so trivial to fix if it needs fixing).I've seen so many terrible and massively overpowered "fixes" for both the Berserker and Elemonk, that at this point I take the idea that it'd be trivial to fix with a grain of salt. What I mean is, it might be trivial for WotC to come up with a well balanced fix, if that's what you meant. But it's definitely not trivial for any individual DM or player to do it, as evinced by said forum ideas of what qualifies as a fix.

Of course, that was just as true of the Ranger as it is of the Berserker/Elemonk/Sorcerer. Suggested fixes for the Ranger were terrible garbage more often than not. And WotC came in with a fairly light touch and overall improvement. So it'd be kind of nice to see their take on these other three too. Frenzy aside, I don't really think they need an update. But then I thought that about the Ranger too, yet I'm fairly impressed with the update so far.

MrStabby

2016-09-20, 03:08 PM

People will complain no matter what. In fact reading this I don't think even the people know what they would like to change or how (Sure they may give you memes but not a coherent answer, seriously Frenzy is so trivial to fix if it needs fixing). It took WotC this long to even have a beta version (remember the remade Ranger is still UA and can still change radically before it is "official") and WotC only has addressed the ranger as a problem class from the polls. Everyone else seems to be within acceptable ranges of liking it at least. I sincerely doubt they'll radically change any other class since there isn't enough complaints to do so.

There is also the problem that a lot of people don't actually play the classes they don't like so don't actually have any experience of them (which is perfectly reasonable). Instead they look at some over simplified maths for damage , then perhaps unsurprisingly, conclude that the class that does more damage vs an infinite HP target with average AC is better. No weight given to mobility, little weight given to defence little thought to being able to pick damage type to overcome resistances and so on. Now I appreciate calculations as much as the next guy - I have made a career from it - but they are only useful if your assumptions are reasonable.

On you point about not changing other classes because there are not enough complaints - some people like to complain. If they are no longer complaining about the ranger they will complain about the sorcerer or the frenzy barbarian or whatever is getting up their ass that day.

As pointed out, if tables feel there is something to fix - then fix it. In 5th edition homebrew is trivially easy if you have played a few classes over the levels in question. No one needs to look to WotC to fix anything, to speak to the people at your table, work out thematically what they as individuals want and find a way to make it work.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-20, 03:10 PM

Honestly, I've always enjoyed playing a Sorcerer. The usefulness of spell points and metamagic has always made up for the lack of spells known as far as pure power is concerned, and Wild Magic is simply a blast to play.

The Elemental Monk may need a redo. It's certainly a source of contention for some, though I've found them completely playable. The only major issue in ny mind is the ki usage, which is easily wiped away if you're in a group that short rests frequently.

Shaofoo

2016-09-20, 03:29 PM

I've seen so many terrible and massively overpowered "fixes" for both the Berserker and Elemonk, that at this point I take the idea that it'd be trivial to fix with a grain of salt. What I mean is, it might be trivial for WotC to come up with a well balanced fix, if that's what you meant. But it's definitely not trivial for any individual DM or player to do it, as evinced by said forum ideas of what qualifies as a fix.

Of course, that was just as true of the Ranger as it is of the Berserker/Elemonk/Sorcerer. Suggested fixes for the Ranger were terrible garbage more often than not. And WotC came in with a fairly light touch and overall improvement. So it'd be kind of nice to see their take on these other three too. Frenzy aside, I don't really think they need an update. But then I thought that about the Ranger too, yet I'm fairly impressed with the update so far.

Make Frenzy once a long rest instead of the exhaustion mechanic. Simple and quick and will silence 99% of Frenzy whining because they now can't kill themselves with Frenzy even though they want to. Seriously, it is trivial to fix Frenzy and I am sure any "complex" solutions are just trying to remake the class as a whole. The fear power is harder to fix but still can be done with a light touch (Make it key off Strength or remove the immune for 24 hours if they succeed). Of course you don't have to agree with me in the fixes.

Elemental Monk is fine mechanically, people just think that they become full fledged casters just because they can cast spells, spells are supposed to be used sparingly in addition to their martial prowess. The only thing I might change is to add to the number of spells known (but still the least known amount of spells among all the classes still) and spells that they are able to learn (Seriously, Elemental Evil was a wasted opportunity for the Elemental Monk) but the subclass on its own is fine. Someone else said that the class probably needs some unique abilities outside of spells and I would also agree but the class isn't broken right now if you want to play it.

On you point about not changing other classes because there are not enough complaints - some people like to complain. If they are no longer complaining about the ranger they will complain about the sorcerer or the frenzy barbarian or whatever is getting up their ass that day.

There was an official communication made to the public that the Ranger was disliked among the people they have polled. This isn't WotC listening to the whining of the forums (heck I doubt they even listen to forums at all). Unless there is a similar communication about the Sorcerer (even though they do get a lot of love in the UA), Frenzy, 4Elem or what have you then I don't think that there will be as big of a redo as there is to the Ranger. Of course this is all anecdotal and they can tomorrow come up with a remake of the Wizard even though some malcotent no one was asking for it.

As pointed out, if tables feel there is something to fix - then fix it. In 5th edition homebrew is trivially easy if you have played a few classes over the levels in question. No one needs to look to WotC to fix anything, to speak to the people at your table, work out thematically what they as individuals want and find a way to make it work.[/QUOTE]

MrStabby

2016-09-20, 04:52 PM

There was an official communication made to the public that the Ranger was disliked among the people they have polled. This isn't WotC listening to the whining of the forums (heck I doubt they even listen to forums at all). Unless there is a similar communication about the Sorcerer (even though they do get a lot of love in the UA), Frenzy, 4Elem or what have you then I don't think that there will be as big of a redo as there is to the Ranger. Of course this is all anecdotal and they can tomorrow come up with a remake of the Wizard even though some malcotent no one was asking for it.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that it was right that energy gets focused on changing any of these classes, just that I doubt you will see any fewer complaints because of it.

I used to dislike much of the UA stuff, but I am a bit happier now that I have come to terms with it's intent. It is nothing to do with finished product but about demonstrating ideas. Having a thoroughly thought out ranger class did come as a nice surprise.

Generally though I am more in favour of learning the lessons of existing classes but putting them into new content. I think that is a better use of energy and UA slots.

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-20, 06:17 PM

For some it's enough just to say they stock on provisions and head out without having to keep exacting details of how much food and water is left.

Which would be fine if Exploration weren't one pillar, one third, of the entire game.

It would also be fine if a group could plausibly carry the requisite provisions, but they would be incredibly overburdened for even the shortest trip. 8 lbs per gallon, 1 gallon per day. And in terms of fumble factor, each waterskin can only hold half a gallon.

Absent foraging a group would rapidly start stacking up exhaustion from lack of water.

I don't think that it's reasonable to equate a group's decision to gloss over logistics to a decision to gloss over a storyline.

Coping with adversity isn't just logistics anymore than combat is just a spat.

If your party always skips over combat, yeah classes excelling at combat suffer, if it always handwaves away traps and locked doors and sneaking, then yeah rogues and the like suffer, if it always just auto-passes through social predicaments, then yeah, being a face isn't going to be useful.

It's not interesting or new to say if you scrimp on a portion of the game, then the classes which have class features that benefit that portion of the game aren't going to be as good or useful.

Zippdementia

2016-09-20, 06:19 PM

It's not a current class, but I'd sure like to see them finish up that psychic mystic! D&D 5 could use a good psychic class.

Kryx

2016-09-20, 06:28 PM

It's not a current class, but I'd sure like to see them finish up that psychic mystic! D&D 5 could use a good psychic class.
If you're interested in homebrew I'm nearly done with my port of the Psion from pathfinder. Should be up in a few days. Converted around 210 powers.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-20, 06:33 PM

The most complained about archetypes now would be the elemental monk, the frenzy barbarian and the wild mage. Champion fighter as well - but for slightly different reasons

Yeah, champion definitely needs a rework, most of its abilities only make them marginally better at things one should actively avoid doing.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-20, 07:06 PM

Which would be fine if Exploration weren't one pillar, one third, of the entire game.
He wasn't talking about exploration, he was talking about accounting, which is very different.

It would also be fine if a group could plausibly carry the requisite provisions, but they would be incredibly overburdened for even the shortest trip. 8 lbs per gallon, 1 gallon per day. And in terms of fumble factor, each waterskin can only hold half a gallon.

Soldiers have carried their own supplies for thousands of years.

Absent foraging a group would rapidly start stacking up exhaustion from lack of water.

Coping with adversity isn't just logistics anymore than combat is just a spat.

Sure, they might start having trouble after a week or so, but if you manage to go a week without seeing a river or a farm/village then you're walking in very small circles

Tanarii

2016-09-20, 07:09 PM

Soldiers have carried their own supplies for thousands of years.No they haven't. Supply trains are critical to warfare, because carrying your own supplies for any length of time isn't really feasible. Especially water.

Edit: Which is why protecting your supply line / logistical train is so critical in warfare.

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-20, 07:34 PM

He wasn't talking about exploration, he was talking about accounting, which is very different.

Accounting for the basic resources required to mount any expedition, ever. Do you also paper over hiring a ship and crew to cross oceans? That's the stuff of an entire exploration adventure! (Hint: The Oddysey)

Soldiers have carried their own supplies for thousands of years.

This could not be more false for the reasons already mentioned.

And horses require 4 times as much food and water, double water if the weather is hot.

Sure, they might start having trouble after a week or so, but if you manage to go a week without seeing a river or a farm/village then you're walking in very small circles

To the contrary, the party can get lost in the wilderness easily, and requires up to 6 hours to even try and successfully regain their bearings.

Cybren

2016-09-20, 07:39 PM

Next up they should play test and finish the new ranger.

atlas_hugged

2016-09-20, 08:34 PM

The list of things I'd like to see, in order of priority.
Way of the Four Elements Monk revisited. I think they need to give it more cantrip or free effects, and lower the cost on a lot of things, while adding more choices and features gained. The unofficial crowd sourced homebrew is an excellent take on it.
Warlock Invocations. I like warlocks, but I think they need more late level invocation features that are actually desirable. Right now I get the feeling a lot of people only treat warlocks as a dipping class, because everything is so front loaded, and other classes have way better high level features. Adding more invocations would be a good way to fix this. And while they're at it, they can make it so the invocations that give you once per day spells don't also use up a spell slot, because those invocations suck and nobody likes them.
Berserker Barbarian rework.
Some Sorcerer fixes.

tsotate

2016-09-21, 12:11 AM

To the contrary, the party can get lost in the wilderness easily, and requires up to 6 hours to even try and successfully regain their bearings.

Which would be fine if Exploration weren't one pillar, one third, of the entire game.

It would also be fine if a group could plausibly carry the requisite provisions, but they would be incredibly overburdened for even the shortest trip. 8 lbs per gallon, 1 gallon per day. And in terms of fumble factor, each waterskin can only hold half a gallon.

Absent foraging a group would rapidly start stacking up exhaustion from lack of water.

Both of these are completely handled by having one character with the Outlander background. When the minor feature of a background makes your class redundant, the class needs some work.

Cybren

2016-09-21, 12:49 AM

Both of these are completely handled by having one character with the Outlander background. When the minor feature of a background makes your class redundant, the class needs some work.

Well, "you can kinda remember the layout of terrain" and "if the environment is bountiful you can find food and water" is not the same. Especially if the party is bigger than six people. Or the outlander is performing another task for overland travel

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-21, 06:00 AM

No they haven't. Supply trains are critical to warfare, because carrying your own supplies for any length of time isn't really feasible. Especially water.

Edit: Which is why protecting your supply line / logistical train is so critical in warfare.

And why scorched earth tactics were employed from ancient times through the musket-and-pike era to World War II.

How reliably you can just saunter into a random hovel and throw gold at the inhabitants in exchange for gruel is of course a matter of campaign specifics.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-21, 06:25 AM

No they haven't. Supply trains are critical to warfare, because carrying your own supplies for any length of time isn't really feasible. Especially water.

Edit: Which is why protecting your supply line / logistical train is so critical in warfare.

Supply lines weren't a thing until the 1500s. Either way soldiers mostly had to carry their own stuff.

Seruvius

2016-09-21, 06:32 AM

While I do agree with the general consensus (4 elements, berzerker, sorcerer) needing tweaks, The ranger is not yet done and needs finishing first imo. It is pretty nice now, but there are still some bumps that need ironing out.
I personally would love to add the Purple dragon knight to the list of things that could do with a buff or rework. I have yet to see anyone play as one, which is sad as the flavour is quite nice.

mgshamster

2016-09-21, 06:54 AM

Supply lines weren't a thing until the 1500s. Either way soldiers mostly had to carry their own stuff.

Wait. What? Do you just make stuff up to prove others wrong?

Supply lines and logistics have been a part of every army for as long as we can record history. The ancient Romans had supply lines for their armies. Heck, there's even ancient Egyptian carvings depicting supply lines for their armies.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-21, 06:55 AM

Accounting for the basic resources required to mount any expedition, ever. Do you also paper over hiring a ship and crew to cross oceans? That's the stuff of an entire exploration adventure! (Hint: The Oddysey)

If you're hiring a ship you pay the captain and let him handle that stuff

This could not be more false for the reasons already mentioned.

And horses require 4 times as much food and water, double water if the weather is hot.

You can say it's impossible all you want, that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

To the contrary, the party can get lost in the wilderness easily, and requires up to 6 hours to even try and successfully regain their bearings.
Lost in what wilderness? If it's a forest, follow the sound of lumberjacks, if it's a field it's probably being used to grow stuff.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-21, 07:12 AM

Lost in what wilderness? If it's a forest, follow the sound of lumberjacks, if it's a field it's probably being used to grow stuff.

In the modern day, within fully industrialized nations and with a higher population density than has ever existed on Earth, hundreds of people still get lost in the wilderness every year. In a world in which nature has not been tamed, getting lost in the wilderness is much easier.

Also, supply lines are as old as warfare.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-21, 07:33 AM

Wait. What? Do you just make stuff up to prove others wrong?

Supply lines and logistics have been a part of every army for as long as we can record history. The ancient Romans had supply a for their armies. Heck, there's even ancient Egyptian carvings depicting supply lines for their armies.
Most medieval armies took food from local farms, hence why defenders would strip the land and poison wells. Except, of course, for the Mongols, who mainly grew and ate horse, and thus were able to bring their whole food supply with them.

The ancient Romans absolutely had supply and logistics, though of course the Marian Reforms required that every soldier carry his own supplies.

Which period of Ancient Egypt do those carvings com from? Old Kingdom didn't even have wheels, they didn't get horses until (if memory serves) the Second Intermediate Period, and they didn't send armies outside the Nile area until the New Kingdom. Also, how can you be sure the carvings depict supply lines? I will also need a link to the image.

The main problem with supply lines was that for most of human history it was impossible to transport enough food quickly enough to support an army. Add to that the slow communications, likelyhood of supplies being lost or stolen along the way, and general ease of simply taking local food and most armies simply didn't bother.

X3r4ph

2016-09-21, 07:40 AM

If you're interested in homebrew I'm nearly done with my port of the Psion from pathfinder. Should be up in a few days. Converted around 210 powers.

Yes please :D

Tanarii

2016-09-21, 09:08 AM

Wait. What? Do you just make stuff up to prove others wrong? Reading his follow up post, the answer is yes.

Most medieval armies took food from local farms, hence why defenders would strip the land and poison wells. Thats called foraging! And it's specifically due to not being able to carry what you need.

Except, of course, for the Mongols, who mainly grew and ate horse, and thus were able to bring their whole food supply with them.Nonsense. They brought supplies with them and stole it on the March, aka foraging. Yes, they were more adept at surviving as an individual (not an army) by hunting as they went ... which is also foraging, and exactly what a Ranger excels at.

The main problem with supply lines was that for most of human history it was impossible to transport enough food quickly enough to support an army. Add to that the slow communications, likelyhood of supplies being lost or stolen along the way, and general ease of simply taking local food and most armies simply didn't bother. serious /facepalm that you believe this point, which isn't really even true, is actually some kind of counterpoint to the original point being made about not being able to carry your own supplies to survive any significant length of time without restocking somehow, and thus being weird to ignore when the rules for it are in the game as part of a whole pillars worth of the game.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-21, 09:16 AM

In the modern day, within fully industrialized nations and with a higher population density than has ever existed on Earth, hundreds of people still get lost in the wilderness every year. In a world in which nature has not been tamed, getting lost in the wilderness is much easier.

Ah, now I see the problem. There's a fairly modern misconception that the pre-industrial world was full of (relative to modern times) vast areas of untamed land, but in actuality, once humans figured out agriculture we started taming every piece of land we could find.

Also, supply lines are as old as warfare.
Transporting massive amounts of food to an army on a regular basis was simply impractical for most of history.

Doug Lampert

2016-09-21, 09:47 AM

Supply lines weren't a thing until the 1500s. Either way soldiers mostly had to carry their own stuff.
Quibble. Occasionally, for very large armies, they were at thing well before 1500.

The Persian invasion of Greece involved an enormous logistics effort with hundreds of ships. When the Persian fleet was defeated 3/4ths of the army was immediately withdraw as there was no longer any way to feed them. The remaining quarter was defeated at Platea, but note that at Platea the armies faced off for days with neither side willing to commit to an attack due to the other side having a defensible position. Then the Persian cavalry attacked the Greek supply line (which did exist, these were still two very very large armies for the time), the Greeks withdrew from their defensible position, the Persians attacked, and the Greeks won the resulting battle.

Ah, now I see the problem. There's a fairly modern misconception that the pre-industrial world was full of (relative to modern times) vast areas of untamed land, but in actuality, once humans figured out agriculture we started taming every piece of land we could find.

Transporting massive amounts of food to an army on a regular basis was simply impractical for most of history.
This is more or less correct. The vast majority of the time you foraged or you didn't go there.

Roman soldiers were often called "Marius's mules", largely because the Marian reforms had put almost all the load on the individual soldiers in order to speed movement. But the soldiers were IIRC still only carrying 3 days' food, and less than 1 day's water. You found water on the march, the food you were carrying was for emergencies, the goal was to take supplies from the land.

The traditional value for horse or ox carts is that animal carts loaded with forage eat their ENTIRE contents to travel 300 miles, on good roads, in good weather. More modern wagons were better, but not all that much better. If you are more than 30 or so miles from a port or navigable river then for a traditional army you are either eating off the land, or you aren't eating.

What are we arguing about again? D&D land is not ancient or medieval Europe. And D&D style magic, even very very limited amounts of magic can have a massive effect on logistics. Not to mention all the non-human and flying creatures.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-21, 09:53 AM

Reading his follow up post, the answer is yes.

Thats called foraging! And it's specifically due to not being able to carry what you need.
The fact that they got food through foraging didn't negate the need to actually carry it.

Nonsense. They brought supplies with them and stole it on the March, aka foraging. Yes, they were more adept at surviving as an individual (not an army) by hunting as they went ... which is also foraging, and exactly what a Ranger excels at.
Who, the Mongols? They brought their livestock, their homes, and their families with them on their way to Europe, they were growing food as they conquered.

serious /facepalm that you believe this point, which isn't really even true, is actually some kind of counterpoint to the original point being made about not being able to carry your own supplies to survive any significant length of time without restocking somehow, and thus being weird to ignore when the rules for it are in the game as part of a whole pillars worth of the game.

The original points that I made were
-that one person can carry enough food for a week, (~50lbs)
-that tracking minute details isn't usually interesting, and is a terrible way to add exploration. If you want exploration you should have them actually explore stuff.
- -also, a single cleric can supply a whole party

-that regularly moving enough food to feed an army over hundreds of miles (aka supply lines) was rather impractical in the middle ages.

Tanarii

2016-09-21, 09:56 AM

What are we arguing about again? D&D land is not ancient or medieval Europe. And D&D style magic, even very very limited amounts of magic can have a massive effect on logistics. Not to mention all the non-human and flying creatures.Those either take resources, planning, or both.

It can be very quick to deal with that and move on, especially at higher levels. But many players and DMs just love to flat out ignore the need to care about things like food & water, which are a built in part of the rules.

Also some of us love taking threads down a tangent rabbit hole unintentionally. :smallwink:

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-21, 11:01 AM

Both of these are completely handled by having one character with the Outlander background. When the minor feature of a background makes your class redundant, the class needs some work.

Recalling general terrain is not the same as not being lost, it means you can figure out where things are when you are oriented. You can still get lost quite easily and remain so.

Being able to provide food/water for 6 if the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth..

i.e. If you have Abundant food and water sources, which is the lowest DC of foraging (DC 10).

Basically that class feature gets you an automatic 6 if there's plenty of food and water. If there isn't, you get nothing, which is where the Ranger comes in. They can get food and water automatically when there are limited food and water sources, and easily when there's very little, if any, food and water sources.

How reliably you can just saunter into a random hovel and throw gold at the inhabitants in exchange for gruel is of course a matter of campaign specifics.

This is also quantifiable using the DMG standards:

PHB, normal speed is 24 miles per day of travel (8 hours).
DMG, a civilized province ~50 miles across (2+ days of travel) "might have one city, a few rural towns, and a scattering of villages and trading posts." "An uncivilized area might have a single trading post that stands at the edge of a wild frontier, but no larger settlements."

So based on that, the answer is fairly reliably in civilized areas and not reliably in the wild.

If you're hiring a ship you pay the captain and let him handle that stuff

Sure if you want them to abscond with your money, or end up with a crew of pirates (Treasure Island), don't get involved in the handling of hiring personnel for an expedition somewhere.

You can say it's impossible all you want, that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

A) It's not possible within the rules of the game, so yes I can repeat that to infinity and beyond without concern, because it's true. B) You have yet to provide a single case example of this occurring. Provide proof of your assertion that assaults both logic and history, please.

Lost in what wilderness? If it's a forest, follow the sound of lumberjacks, if it's a field it's probably being used to grow stuff.

Lost in the approximately 250 square miles of terrain which might have a single trading post near the edge of it, as per the DMG page 108.

Heck, it's possible (50-50 shot) to get lost even in the civilized areas if you're not particularly wise and not proficient in survival.

What are we arguing about again? D&D land is not ancient or medieval Europe. And D&D style magic, even very very limited amounts of magic can have a massive effect on logistics. Not to mention all the non-human and flying creatures.

How much food and water are required per person and mount to explore, and the general lack of ability to actually bring that level of supplies on ones person, necessitating the use of either valuable magic spell slots or, in the absence of a character able to do that, foraging, and the value provided by the Natural Explorer feature of the Ranger vis that.

A Cleric or Druid can use Create or Destroy Water to create 10 gallons of water. 1 gallon per character (2 in hot weather), 4 gallons of water per mount (8 in hot weather). So it's enough water for one character and one mount per day in hot weather.

A Druid or Ranger can use Goodberry to provide food for up to 10 per day.

So yes, magic can mitigate the requirements, but the cost (all of a Druid's spell slots at early levels) is high and only 3 classes can, partially, do it. Higher level magic (Create Food and Water, Heroes' Feast) exists for Clerics, Druids (HF), and Paladins (CFW), but you have to be higher level and of course, the opportunity cost has risen immensely.

Zalabim

2016-09-23, 07:10 AM

Being able to provide food/water for 6 if the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth..

i.e. If you have Abundant food and water sources, which is the lowest DC of foraging (DC 10).

Basically that class feature gets you an automatic 6 if there's plenty of food and water. If there isn't, you get nothing, which is where the Ranger comes in. They can get food and water automatically when there are limited food and water sources, and easily when there's very little, if any, food and water sources.
I think a lot of the discounting of the difficulties in supplying food and water comes from the fact that the foraging rules are all in the DMG and foraging frequency is totally at the DM's whims. Going off what the DMG does provide, I don't know how you figure the Outlander feature requires abundant food and water sources, or how you figure that the ranger automatically gets anything. The ranger still has to succeed on their check, then they get double the food.

I know the other part of discounting the capability for a ranger to supply food and water is because Natural Explorer was limited to only a single terrain at low levels, and I suppose people will be lamenting their ranger failing those foraging checks when they don't have expertise now. If you have a party of 5 adventurers traveling through a hot desert at level 1, you're still going to need the cleric or druid to create water if the (desert) ranger fails their check or can only gather a maximum of 9 gallons of water on a success.

DKing9114

2016-09-23, 11:07 AM

I'm not sure exactly when or if they will change another class, given the language they used in their ranger rework announcement. They said the ranger, and especially the beastmaster, was not only considered underpowered but was also very rarely used, indicating far deeper dissatisfaction than the other classes mentioned have received. If they do, I would expect them to look at sorcerer; I've seen a lot of people recommend taking a dip in sorcerer, but dislike using it as a base. The only advantages they have over other wizards are metamagic, sorcery points, and origin abilities. I think they might rework the class by making metamagic more impressive (I would like to see a second tier of metamagic, similar to how they divided the favored enemy feature), providing a slots during short rest ability, and/or increasing the base number of sorcery points-or just making the spell point system the recommended option for playing the sorcerer.

As for the others I've seen on this thread:

I think the two biggest complaints with the Berserker are that frenzy is too weak for its usage costs (since a lot of people will treat this as once or twice per long rest) and one of its features runs off a common dump stat while eating up an action each turn you want to keep it active. Especially compared to Totem Warrior, where the combat bonuses are improved tanking, darting in and out of combat, or improved group tactics and control, it seems weak. Fixes I could envision for the first issue are giving the Berserker some ability to reduce exhaustion during a short rest (spend 2 hit dice?), improving frenzy by switching bonus action to a straight additional attack similar to the ranger's horde breaker, and/or adding a bonus effect to your attacks, such as a damage bonus or prevent them from using reactions. For the second issue, change it to a bonus action to continue the effect, allow Strength in place of Charisma, and possibly allow multiple targets. Lastly, if these changes make the archetype too powerful, provide loss of control drawbacks, since those are thematically appropriate. Change the words "can" or "may" to "will" and "must" when raging, potentially forcing the barbarian to break formation and run into a trap or fail to protect his squishy allies. If combat ends before your rage does, make a wisdom save every round, with DC falling each round. Each time you fail, make a single attack against a random creature, possibly at disadvantage.

The four elements monk can burn through ki rather quickly and has a very limited number of disciplines, but aside from letting players learn more disciplines and boosting the maximum ki points for this archetype, I don't think much else can or should be changed. It's not a half-, or even third- caster class; it gives a significant boost in combat and exploration, while adding a new flavor to the class. Aside from a possible elemental resistance feature, I just don't see much beyond that.

The thief rogue looks very useful in campaigns which are heavily focused on dungeon delving and/or in town action. The assassin archetype deals more damage because of the critical hits on surprise and advantage when attacking first, but if your party considers solutions that do not entail "kill everything in the room and sort it out later," advantage on stealth checks, vertical movement, and bonus actions to pick locks or disarm traps can really come in handy (also, there's a lot of tension when the plan revolves around a stealth based character sneaking around behind the enemies' backs). If the campaign and the DM are relatively free with magic items found in dungeons, use an object as bonus action and use magic device can really come into play.

In my current campaign, I'm playing a devotion paladin (sworn to a god of justice) and another player is an old one warlock (patron is basically a dead god with just enough power to talk to and empower a single person). Oath of Devotion is good if you want to play a more or less classic paladin, although not nearly as restrictive as earlier versions. It's Oath features are particularly effective when fighting traditional paladin enemies; can't be charmed, eventually gain automatic protection from evil and good, and the channel divinity options will either turn undead and fiends, or enhance your sword so that it counts as a magic weapon when dealing damage against fiends. The capstone is a little weak, but the rest is solid. The warlock functions as the brains of the party, and uses telepathy to relay Intelligence skill checks to the rest of us. She also uses detect thoughts to simplify interrogations, and uses the Old One spells as battlefield control spells. Overall it seems thematically and mechanically suited for Warlocks with decent or high Intelligence scores.

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-23, 06:41 PM

I think a lot of the discounting of the difficulties in supplying food and water comes from the fact that the foraging rules are all in the DMG and foraging frequency is totally at the DM's whims. Going off what the DMG does provide, I don't know how you figure the Outlander feature requires abundant food and water sources, or how you figure that the ranger automatically gets anything. The ranger still has to succeed on their check, then they get double the food.

I know the other part of discounting the capability for a ranger to supply food and water is because Natural Explorer was limited to only a single terrain at low levels, and I suppose people will be lamenting their ranger failing those foraging checks when they don't have expertise now. If you have a party of 5 adventurers traveling through a hot desert at level 1, you're still going to need the cleric or druid to create water if the (desert) ranger fails their check or can only gather a maximum of 9 gallons of water on a success.

True, the DMG leaves it to the DM to make the call on checks for foraging. Of course, it also leaves it up to the DM to make the call on Navigation, Tracking, and so forth. The DM also gets to make the call on random encounters, the actual make-up of the adventure, etcetera, so I don't really chalk that up to much.

Outlander says "provided the land offers berries, small game, and so forth". Only the first option on foraging DC's (Abundant food and water sources) equates to that.

To get an automatic success in favored terrain would be a combined +14 bonus (1 being the minimum roll), so that's achieveable by level 13 (+5 x 2 + 4 wisdom mod) Even at level 1 a Ranger almost certainly would have a +6 to the roll, making it a fait accompli that they succeed at the harder difficulties.

Zippdementia

2016-09-24, 01:07 AM

If you're interested in homebrew I'm nearly done with my port of the Psion from pathfinder. Should be up in a few days. Converted around 210 powers.

Sure, where can I find that?

SharkForce

2016-09-24, 01:11 AM

Sure, where can I find that?

in the homebrew forums. pretty sure i saw it a couple days ago.

Kryx

2016-09-24, 05:14 AM

Psionics: Psion and 205 powers converted from Pathfinder (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?501442-Psionics-Psion-and-205-powers-converted-from-Pathfinder)

Currently revamping it to be pure psi points.

Zalabim

2016-09-24, 05:51 AM

True, the DMG leaves it to the DM to make the call on checks for foraging. Of course, it also leaves it up to the DM to make the call on Navigation, Tracking, and so forth. The DM also gets to make the call on random encounters, the actual make-up of the adventure, etcetera, so I don't really chalk that up to much.
That's as compared to the rules for steatlh, detection, and surprise or spells or saving throws or attacks being in the PHB. A bonus to something detailed in the PHB is a lot more accessible to player interest than a bonus to something out of place in the DMG. Seriously, it's not even in the section on running the game or using skills (around page 240). It's ~130 pages away in the section on the hazards of wilderness survival (around page 110).

Outlander says "provided the land offers berries, small game, and so forth". Only the first option on foraging DC's (Abundant food and water sources) equates to that.
All you've done is repeat yourself, so let me make it more clear. I would contest that, for example, "the outlander can find water for 6 people provided that the land offers water" would mean that the the outlander does not find water if the land does not offer water. If the land does not offer water, then no one finds water.

The description of "abundant food and water sources" is "Abundant food and water sources." The next step is "Limited food and water sources" and finally "Very little, if any, food and water sources." That's all it says. I don't see how you've determined that "the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth" has to mean "abundant" but can't mean "limited" or "very little".

To get an automatic success in favored terrain would be a combined +14 bonus (1 being the minimum roll), so that's achieveable by level 13 (+5 x 2 + 4 wisdom mod) Even at level 1 a Ranger almost certainly would have a +6 to the roll, making it a fait accompli that they succeed at the harder difficulties.
So outlanders get automatic success as a background and rangers get automatic success at level 13 with proficiency in the skill, a high investment in wisdom, and only in their favored terrains (of which they have 3 out of 8 choices.) In which case, the ranger automatically finds 2d6+8 pounds of food and 1d6+4 gallons of water, which only provides enough fresh water for a maximum of 5 people in a hot environment, or a minimum of 5 people normally.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-24, 07:59 AM

Or the Ranger has the Outlander feature and can always find enough food for 12 people.

The effect of the Ranger's ability is that you will almost never be wanting for food, but even though almost is not always, it's one part of a many-part feature.

Scuronotte

2016-09-25, 08:20 PM

Metamagic is powerful enough to make up for these, just not interesting enough. The reason a sorcerer might warrant a rework, aside from silencing the whining, is that there are not enough fun abilities that set it apart. Metamagic is fun and exceptionally powerful but after you get it at level 3 the class doesn't really get much more fun stuff. Weakening metamagic and giving more toys might not change the power level but it would make it more fun.

Saying that the Sorcerer has fewer spells known that the wizard is true, but kind of pointless. It is like saying that they get fewer HP than the barbarian. If you expect a class to be comparable in an area to the particular strength of another class then of course you would be disappointed. If you want loads of spells known and you want that to be the strength of a character then play a wizard. That there exists a class that caters to this desire doesn't make the sorcerer bad. After all if you compare a wizard to warlock the warlock does much better at will damage with their spells - the wizard looks bad if you compare them to another class' strength - it doesn't mean the wizard is bad, it just means that you made a pointless comparison that doesn't really show anything much.

The Sorcerer hace the 2nd least known spells after the Ranger. For the 1/3 spell casters to have equal spells known in addition to their class abilities is frustrating.

Spells Known
Bard 22-24
Cleric 25-32
Druid 25-32
Eldritch knight 15
Paladin 20-30
Ranger 11
Rogue 15
Sorcerer 15
Warlock 19-27 (with invocations)
Wizard 25+

We have and currently play with all Sorcerers knowing 20 spells which makes it more enjoyable. It still hard to choose, but allows the player to create a caster other than blaster.

And careful Metamagic should add 1 more SP cost to allow party members to avoid damage from spelld

MrStabby

2016-09-25, 08:27 PM

The Sorcerer hace the 2nd least known spells after the Ranger. For the 1/3 spell casters to have equal spells known in addition to their class abilities is frustrating.

But what's wrong with this? One class has to have the second lowest, why shouldn't it be the sorcerer? Classes have strengths and weaknesses, the sorcerer's weakness is lack of spells known. Making a class' signature weakness just disappear is breaking things not fixing them

Comparing the sorcerer to the 1/3 casters in spells known is also misleading, since they also have pretty tight restrictions on the schools of magic they can pick from. You have to work that into a comparison before it is valid.

Kryx

2016-09-26, 01:42 AM

Making a class' signature weakness just disappear is breaking things not fixing them.
Having an abysmal amount of spells known was not a Sorcerer's weakness until 5e. In PF a Sorcerer knew 34 spells from levels alone.
The wizard knew 43+, almost the same as now.

People want different things and that should be respected within reason. The Sorcerer class, based on hundreds of posts about experience with it on this forum, is either just enough or falls quite short. Very very few people would call it overpowered. Adding 10 spells to their list to bring them in line with other full casters would not be overpowered, at all.

Zalabim

2016-09-26, 03:46 AM

Comparing the sorcerer to the 1/3 casters in spells known is also misleading, since they also have pretty tight restrictions on the schools of magic they can pick from. You have to work that into a comparison before it is valid.

Adding up each class's spell lists, I see the sorcerer has the same cantrips list as the wizard, and 113 total spells to pick between from 1st to 9th level. The EK and AT get 116 spells from 1st to 4th level. However, they actually learn only 13 spells, and they also learn 3 or 4 cantrips to the sorcerer's 6. I think the crazy thing there is that they learn more spells than Rangers, who only get to know 11. EE evens this score adding 21 more 1st to 4th level wizard spells and 24 more 1st to 9th level sorcerer spells, for what that's worth.

MrStabby

2016-09-26, 05:21 AM

Having an abysmal amount of spells known was not a Sorcerer's weakness until 5e. In PF a Sorcerer knew 34 spells from levels alone.
The wizard knew 43+, almost the same as now.

People want different things and that should be respected within reason. The Sorcerer class, based on hundreds of posts about experience with it on this forum, is either just enough or falls quite short. Very very few people would call it overpowered. Adding 10 spells to their list to bring them in line with other full casters would not be overpowered, at all.

Having a smaller pool of spells wasn't the sorcerer's thing till 5th edition. OK, fine. I can accept that different games treat the sorcerer differently. This doesn't mean that it is wrong that the game we are discussing does treat sorcerers they way it does. Metamagic wasn't just a sorcerer thing in other games either; should we be equally atavistic and give this to all other classes as well?

Based on what the forum seems to say, twice as many people who have an opinion strong enough to actually write a post are complaining about it as defending it. Given that I see complaints about the power level of almost every class I would say this is in the range of it being pretty much OK.

Looking at the games I have seen it seems to be one of the more popular classes so there is certainly not enough lack of power to make it undesirable.

From what I have seen the sorcerer outperforms the cleric and warlock at high levels (11+) by quite some margin (actually warlock is pretty sweet at level 11 but warlock is behind at levels 9/10 and about 14+). Likewise the sorcerer outperforms the druid from about level 9 to level 19 (although I have to say this is probably more dependant on party composition than the other comparisons so might not fully hold).

I am not saying there are not problems with the sorcerer, and I have had some small fixes at my tables, but power level is not an issue. Number of spells known is not an issue either, however I do think that the lack of scope to pick spells to make a more strongly thematic sorcerer is as issue (but again that is easy to fix on a table by table basis).

Kryx

2016-09-26, 06:14 AM

Metamagic wasn't just a sorcerer thing in other games either; should we be equally atavistic and give this to all other classes as well?
I did exactly that in my Sorcerer Rework (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SJkLv-WO). Sorcerers being the only user of metamagic doesn't work for me, and not for nostalgic reasons - it just doesn't fit the fluff imo. It also leaves very very few feat options for other casters beyond just boost casting stat to 20 and advantage on Constitution saving throws. That's why I made Metamagic as feats (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/Hy-vX84M_)

From what I have seen the sorcerer outperforms the cleric and warlock at high levels (11+) by quite some margin (actually warlock is pretty sweet at level 11 but warlock is behind at levels 9/10 and about 14+). Likewise the sorcerer outperforms the druid from about level 9 to level 19 (although I have to say this is probably more dependant on party composition than the other comparisons so might not fully hold).
The Cleric is a great class that is in an entirely different niche than a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Warlock. I would find those hard to compare. It is known as a very solid class.
The Warlock, as we're discussing in the other thread, is incredibly limited and I agree it needs some minor buffs. I give it 1 additional known spell from each level of it's patron spells. I also give it 1 extra spell slot, though I was thinking of making Hex a class feature lately. The slot progression is still too spread out. 1,2,11,17 has too big of gaps.

I am not saying there are not problems with the sorcerer, and I have had some small fixes at my tables, but power level is not an issue. Number of spells known is not an issue either, however I do think that the lack of scope to pick spells to make a more strongly thematic sorcerer is as issue (but again that is easy to fix on a table by table basis).
I am saying that there are problems with Sorcerer. I outline them in my Sorcerer Rework (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SJkLv-WO). The main ones being small spell list, lack of spells known, lack of recovery, lack of class identity (archetypes should be more impactful as that is the whole fluff of the Sorcerer - it's power origin).

MrStabby

2016-09-26, 06:26 AM

I did exactly that in my Sorcerer Rework (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SJkLv-WO). Sorcerers being the only user of metamagic doesn't work for me, and not for nostalgic reasons - it just doesn't fit the fluff imo. It also leaves very very few feat options for other casters beyond just boost casting stat to 20 and advantage on Constitution saving throws. That's why I made Metamagic as feats (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/Hy-vX84M_)

The Cleric is a great class that is in an entirely different niche than a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Warlock. I would find those hard to compare. It is known as a very solid class.
The Warlock, as we're discussing in the other thread, is incredibly limited and I agree it needs some minor buffs. I give it 1 additional known spell from each level of it's patron spells. I also give it 1 extra spell slot, though I was thinking of making Hex a class feature lately. The slot progression is still too spread out. 1,2,11,17 has too big of gaps.

I am saying that there are problems with Sorcerer. I outline them in my Sorcerer Rework (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SJkLv-WO). The main ones being small spell list, lack of spells known, lack of recovery, lack of class identity (archetypes should be more impactful as that is the whole fluff of the Sorcerer - it's power origin).

Interesting. I have also developed a metamagic as feats system for my table. Well I say developed, a lot of it I shamelessly ripped off from 5th and 3rd edition. I am also working on some more caster feats as well. I found as a caster ASI levels were often pretty boring. After warcaster and resilient there isn't much to help casting (OK I like things like the actor feat, but some groups you want to step into the background a bit more).

I don't have a problem with the warlock power (much like the sorcerer) but I do think it could be tweaked to be a little more fun in practice (although things fall into place a bit more when you hit level 11 in terms of fun). I haven't hit level 17 as a warlock though (level 15 is highest). Been in one shot campaigns with others though.

There are other things I am considering, to try and spice up the class a little. Agonising blast doubles the dice for any cantrip you cast. For eldritch blast +d10 is in the order of +4/+5 which represents your casting stat. It also means you can use a cantrip other than eldritch blast (so warlocks become more varied - especially with pact of the tome). Having characters that might chose cantrips that don't scale quite so well with hex may mean that hex is no longer mandatory and it frees up a spell slot. We are PHB and EE only at our main table so no worries about booming blade or similar spells screwing with this.

Kryx

2016-09-26, 07:09 AM

There are other things I am considering, to try and spice up the class a little. Agonising blast doubles the dice for any cantrip you cast. For eldritch blast +d10 is in the order of +4/+5 which represents your casting stat. It also means you can use a cantrip other than eldritch blast (so warlocks become more varied - especially with pact of the tome). Having characters that might chose cantrips that don't scale quite so well with hex may mean that hex is no longer mandatory and it frees up a spell slot. We are PHB and EE only at our main table so no worries about booming blade or similar spells screwing with this.
Your goal is one I share, but I'm not sure the solution solves it if you leave hex.

Double damage will be:
EB: 2d10 * X + Xd6
Poison Spray: 2d12 * X + 1d6

Poison Spray will fall behind by 3.5 each tier as hex doesn't apply at each tier like it does for EB. EB will also be doing 8d10 (44) + 4d6 (14) = 58. Too much.

If you goal is to just get rid of hex entirely then you're more in line, 8d10 (44) for a cantrip is a bit more than 4d10 + 4d6 + 5 (22+14+5 = 41), but should probably be ok.

Hex is just too flavorful to get rid of imo.

LordVonDerp

2016-09-26, 07:12 AM

The Persian invasion of Greece involved an enormous logistics effort with hundreds of ships. When the Persian fleet was defeated 3/4ths of the army was immediately withdraw as there was no longer any way to feed them.

It's Greece, it's mostly islands and rocky coastlines with relatively little in the way of agriculture. Any army would require a navy just to get around and there would be little to no opportunities for foraging (except fishing).

Roman soldiers were often called "Marius's mules", largely because the Marian reforms had put almost all the load on the individual soldiers in order to speed movement. But the soldiers were IIRC still only carrying 3 days' food, and less than 1 day's water. You found water on the march, the food you were carrying was for emergencies, the goal was to take supplies from the land.

Let's say they were carrying 3 days worth of food; from what I've read Roman rations were 3-4 pounds of food per person per day, in DnD it's 1 pound per person per day, so the same weight gives 9-12 days worth of food.
There is no way they were carrying less than a day's worth of water.

What are we arguing about again? D&D land is not ancient or medieval Europe. And D&D style magic, even very very limited amounts of magic can have a massive effect on logistics. Not to mention all the non-human and flying creatures.
Unless you drastically change human nature the same thing will happen in fantasyland as it did in the real world. Sure, magic can have a huge effect on logistics, by allowing one person to feed 10 people with a single spell.

Byke

2016-09-26, 07:30 AM

MrStabby

2016-09-26, 07:41 AM

Your goal is one I share, but I'm not sure the solution solves it if you leave hex.

Double damage will be:
EB: 2d10 * X + Xd6
Poison Spray: 2d12 * X + 1d6

Poison Spray will fall behind by 3.5 each tier as hex doesn't apply at each tier like it does for EB. EB will also be doing 8d10 (44) + 4d6 (14) = 58. Too much.

If you goal is to just get rid of hex entirely then you're more in line, 8d10 (44) for a cantrip is a bit more than 4d10 + 4d6 + 5 (22+14+5 = 41), but should probably be ok.

Hex is just too flavorful to get rid of imo.

My thinking was that the other cantrips in the game had some interesting riders. On one hand you sacrifice 3.5 damage per level, but in exchange you get something like chill touch's effect or can use sacred flame to bypass high AC or you can get an area off effect added and so on.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-26, 07:47 AM

Great post :) and quoting it so people can read it again!

Is that a great post, though? Let's examine it:

Having an abysmal amount of spells known was not a Sorcerer's weakness until 5e. In PF a Sorcerer knew 34 spells from levels alone.
Well, that's not great. Saying that 5e is different from other games isn't really a meaningful criticism. We're off to a less than stellar start.

People want different things and that should be respected within reason.
Here we see him taking a statement that is simply justification for a class system and applying it to mean that his preferences should be represented in every class. He says within reason, but just looking at the tweaks he posted in this thread, that is debatable.

The Sorcerer class, based on hundreds of posts about experience with it on this forum, is either just enough or falls quite short.
And here he dismisses all the people who really enjoy the class as thinking it's "just enough," rather than a lot of fun.

Very very few people would call it overpowered.
A true glimpse into Kryx's definition of balance.

Adding 10 spells to their list to bring them in line with other full casters would not be overpowered, at all.
And the final sentence includes the debatable assertion that Sorcerers are not comparable in power to other full caster, sans justification.

Kryx

2016-09-26, 07:57 AM

My thinking was that the other cantrips in the game had some interesting riders. On one hand you sacrifice 3.5 damage per level, but in exchange you get something like chill touch's effect or can use sacred flame to bypass high AC or you can get an area off effect added and so on.
The damage is too different to make up for those riders. On other cantrips the damage is 1 or 2 per tier. This is 3.5

Poison Spray is melee and has no rider so it doesn't compete at all.
Chill Touch has a really weak rider and less base damage so it doesn't compete at all.

EB is still by far the best choice.

Kryx

2016-09-26, 07:59 AM

A true glimpse into Kryx's definition of balance.

*snip*

The world must be truly spectacular when viewed through your eyes, Byke, if you marvel at this so.
Wow, you're an incredibly rude person.

Please take your insults elsewhere. This forum should have no place for people who treat others as you do. Reporting your post.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-26, 08:07 AM

Wow, you're an incredibly rude person.
That's fair.

Please take your insults elsewhere. This forum should have no place for people who treat others as you do. Reporting your post.
Excuse me, but I did not insult you. I broke down your post and explained why I disagreed with many of your sentiments. I stayed entirely on topic, and at no point did I resort to insults or break forum rules. The fact that you feel slighted does not make my post less valid.

PapaQuackers

2016-09-26, 08:11 AM

While I agree his post was without tact and perhaps abit ad hominem i would have to also agree that it was more a debate tactic than a personal attack.

MrStabby

2016-09-26, 08:15 AM

While I agree his post was without tact and perhaps abit ad hominem i would have to also agree that it was more a debate tactic than a personal attack.

I dunno. I can be a bit Robust at times, sometimes even sarcastic; but I don't think I would say anything like that.

EvilAnagram

2016-09-26, 08:36 AM

Okay, I'm deleting the last paragraph because this is getting off topic now. Every one of my point still stands. Judging a class harshly because you don't like its limitations, or suggesting that it must necessarily be fixed for that same reason seems ridiculous when the class is quite popular on the table.

Kryx

2016-09-26, 09:00 AM

JumboWheat01

2016-09-26, 09:19 AM

How about we all go out, leave the forum for a bit, eat some ice cream, and stop this silly arguing.

Cybren

2016-09-26, 10:51 AM

Your points don't matter when you treat people with such disrespect. The post you made was unnecessarily aggressive and rude.

Some people come to this forum to endlessly argue with lots of rudeness and insults. I'm not one of those and I'm glad to see this type of discussion has greatly been diminished by more rational discussions as of late.

For example MrStabby and I above (and on spell points and the warlock (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?501699-spell-points-and-the-warlock)) have differing opinions, but we're able to treat eachother with respect while getting our point across and we reach a fair amount of common ground as a result.

Well, no, they matter, but they're rude. The points exist outside the person making them, but them being rude gives you a convenient reason to ignore them. (I do think I would like sorcerers more if they had more spells known, but in my case I dislike them because the first two subclasses were so lackluster.)

Shaofoo

2016-09-26, 11:11 AM

How about we all go out, leave the forum for a bit, eat some ice cream, and stop this silly arguing.

Nah when we come back we will just resume where we left off. We will never be able to stop arguing at all. We will have to hope we will just forget.

Asmotherion

2016-09-26, 11:15 AM

Wizards has put some serious effort into analyzing player feedback on the state of classes, and I actually rather enjoy the looks of the Ranger rework. Granted, I've only looked at the UA article and haven't given it a trial run, and sure, there appear to be some potential balance issues, but overall it looks like a far more satisfying kit and I'm actually entertaining the thought of rolling a Ranger now.

I feel like, generally speaking, the rest of the classes are on solid ground by comparison with the original Ranger, but there are still some parts of some classes/archetypes that feel underwhelming. While I understand that not every level is supposed to feel equally impactful, there are still some abilities/features that have such niche application and/or limited scope of ability that they just fail to satisfy (looking at you, GOOlock Create Thrall).

That being said, what class(es)/archetype(s) do you foresee them touching next?

I know WotC has noted the dissatisfaction with Four Elements monks' archetype abilities simply being other ways to spend ki (with the exception of Elemental Attunement), compared to other disciplines' free riders or cheaper ki-spending options, so I can't help but feel like a tweak might be headed that way.

I think the Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer needs a reboot... I mean, he is strong, but the fact that, you may be a Dragonborn Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer (Or just Dragon Bloodline sorcerer for the matter, I just want to emphasise Dragon theme), and be unable to permanently turn yourself into a true dragon, wile ALL other arcane casters can
(The Wizard, Warlock, even the Bard have access to True Polymorph), but you, the only Arcane caster who actually does have some true dragon blood in his veins cannot, is unacceptable.

Either give the Dragon Blood sorcerer access to True Polymorph as the spell, or change his Lv18 ability to "you become a true dragon" thingy. The latter is prefered by my standards. After all, his lv18 ability is just rubbish IMO.

It should be something among the lines of:

Dragonic Ascension:
At 18th level, you have found the hidden potential in your dragonic blood, and have unlocked the ability to take a dragonic form. You gain a Shapeshifting ability to turn into an adult dragon of your ancestry, or back into your true form. You gain the game statistics of your new form, except for you Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma scores, which remain the same. You gain all actions of your dragon form, except lair actions. You can still cast spells in your new form. When you shapeshift, your equipment melds into your new form, but you cannot profit from it, if it is not designed for a dragon.

I would be tempted to make the user use spell points to activate it, but other casters can remain in the form indefinitelly, and even shapeshift into their original form at will (with the shapeshifting trait). So no, it should cost no spell points. It is your birthright to become a dragon, if you dedicated yourself to being a sorcerer for 18 levels. Don't deny Dragon Sorcerers their Birthright! :smallredface:

PS: Even more rubbish is the fact that you have to pay spell points to get resistance to your element... You should have passive resistance, and pay the spell point cost for immunity. It's like 3.5 all over again. The Wizards were too concerned about making something too overpowered out of the Sorcerer that they nerfed him instead of making him as powerfull as he should be.

PS2: Also, the thing about not scaling your spellcasting ability modifire bonus to dammage but instead applying it only once is rubbish too. This needs to be De-errata-ed asap. This is true for both the Sorcerer AND the Wizard.

PS3: I think I'm gonna make a PETA-like organisation... I'll call it PETAC... People for the Ethical Treatment of Arcane Casters :3 (No disrespect to PETA with this comment, I like those people)

JumboWheat01

2016-09-26, 11:21 AM

Nah when we come back we will just resume where we left off. We will never be able to stop arguing at all. We will have to hope we will just forget.

So a night out drinking! Nothing helps one forget like several kegs of booze.

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-26, 06:32 PM

That's as compared to the rules for steatlh, detection, and surprise or spells or saving throws or attacks being in the PHB. A bonus to something detailed in the PHB is a lot more accessible to player interest than a bonus to something out of place in the DMG. Seriously, it's not even in the section on running the game or using skills (around page 240). It's ~130 pages away in the section on the hazards of wilderness survival (around page 110).

Again, so what? It's in the DMG, and it's a DM call. The actual page number makes sense because it puts it right in the section on the wilderness.

All you've done is repeat yourself, so let me make it more clear. I would contest that, for example, "the outlander can find water for 6 people provided that the land offers water" would mean that the the outlander does not find water if the land does not offer water. If the land does not offer water, then no one finds water.

The description of "abundant food and water sources" is "Abundant food and water sources." The next step is "Limited food and water sources" and finally "Very little, if any, food and water sources." That's all it says. I don't see how you've determined that "the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth" has to mean "abundant" but can't mean "limited" or "very little".

I was trying to point much more firmly at the specific line in question, that Outlander is limited to the commonality of the things in question. Where it's uncommon (not non-existent, but uncommon) I suppose we could try to clarify tweet Crawford on this and hope it gets verified or clarified in errata/future sage advice. I don't think I'm going to come around to your position on this one given the way the ability and the foraging text are written.

So outlanders get automatic success as a background and rangers get automatic success at level 13 with proficiency in the skill, a high investment in wisdom, and only in their favored terrains (of which they have 3 out of 8 choices.) In which case, the ranger automatically finds 2d6+8 pounds of food and 1d6+4 gallons of water, which only provides enough fresh water for a maximum of 5 people in a hot environment, or a minimum of 5 people normally.

Automatic success at the least difficult of foraging, and since characters can never have more than one background it kind of makes sense that it's powerful but only in very easy cases, same as the other background special abilities. They're powerful, but you can always do better with a more gifted and experienced character.

One change I would have favored would be editing Natural Explorer to provide 2 options for each tick, and adding one so the Ranger is capable of having the benefits in all terrain types.

Scuronotte

2016-09-26, 08:20 PM

I did exactly that in my Sorcerer Rework (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SJkLv-WO). Sorcerers being the only user of metamagic doesn't work for me, and not for nostalgic reasons - it just doesn't fit the fluff imo. It also leaves very very few feat options for other casters beyond just boost casting stat to 20 and advantage on Constitution saving throws. That's why I made Metamagic as feats (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/Hy-vX84M_)

The Cleric is a great class that is in an entirely different niche than a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Warlock. I would find those hard to compare. It is known as a very solid class.
The Warlock, as we're discussing in the other thread, is incredibly limited and I agree it needs some minor buffs. I give it 1 additional known spell from each level of it's patron spells. I also give it 1 extra spell slot, though I was thinking of making Hex a class feature lately. The slot progression is still too spread out. 1,2,11,17 has too big of gaps.

I am saying that there are problems with Sorcerer. I outline them in my Sorcerer Rework (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SJkLv-WO). The main ones being small spell list, lack of spells known, lack of recovery, lack of class identity (archetypes should be more impactful as that is the whole fluff of the Sorcerer - it's power origin).

The lack of recovery is huge issue as well. Many point out that Metamagic can be used to replenish expended spell slots, but then you have no SP for Metamagic. Other full spell casters have other abilities to use outside of spells: Bards have inspiration, skills, extra attack or cutting word, Clerics have Devine Channel, Land Druids have shape change, Wizards have their archetype's. Some full Casters also regain spell Slots after short rest: Land Druid, Warlock, & Wizards

That is why at 2 different game groups the spells known are 20 (only 5 more) and regain 4 SP at 10th level Makes it more enjoyable for us.