Unearthed Arcana Playtest 8: Bastions and Cantrips [Archive]

Amnestic

2023-10-05, 10:04 AM

Short version of the cantrip updates:-
• Acid Splash now creates a 5-foot-radius sphere
that can affect any creature caught in it, and it is
an Evocation instead of a Conjuration spell. The
school change unites this spell with the Sorcerer
and Wizard’s other direct-damage Acid spells.

• Blade Ward is now a Reaction that imposes
Disadvantage on a creature’s melee attack roll.

• Chill Touch is now a touch spell that deals 1d10
damage rather than 1d8, and it no longer has
the rarely used Undead-specific effect.

• Friends now forces the target to make a save
against being Charmed briefly.

• Poison Spray now has a range of 30 feet rather
than 10 feet, and it uses an attack roll rather
than a saving throw. Also, it is now a
Necromancy rather than a Conjuration spell.

• Produce Flame is now a Bonus Action, but the
attack portion is still an action. The range of the
light has increased to 20 feet, and the range of
the attack has increased to 60 feet. Also, the
attack can now target creatures or objects.

• Shillelagh now improves at higher levels, and it
gives you the option of dealing Force damage or
the weapon’s normal type.

• Shocking Grasp now shuts down Opportunity
Attacks rather than all Reactions. Shutting down
all Reactions is too powerful for a cantrip. This
cantrip has always been meant to provide a
partial Disengage, which it still does in this
version. Like other Lightning spells, the spell
also no longer makes distinctions about
whether the target is wearing metal.

• Spare the Dying is now a ranged rather than a
touch spell, and the range increases as you level
up. The spell is now also on the Druid list.

• True Strike is now an attack with a weapon that
uses your spellcasting ability rather than
Strength or Dexterity

True Strike's damage increases as you level too (+1d6 at 5/11/17), meaning spellcasters now have a viable cantrip for using magic weapons without requiring str/dex to be pumped like scagtrips.

MoiMagnus

2023-10-05, 10:05 AM

The bastion system looks interesting, but difficult to evaluate without reading it in details.

Though I hope they'll go back through the magic items to balance their power with respect to their rarity, the game shouldn't expect the average GM to have a full grasp on how powerful is each magic item before letting the player select the item they want out of the full list of items.

Psyren

2023-10-05, 10:21 AM

You beat me to it but I was watching the video that also includes really juicy UA6 feedback. I'll link to my OP here:

New off-cycle UA packet coming! Will cover the new Bastion (Downtime) system as well as cantrips. Then we'll get UA8 with class stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIJSH0F31VI

Summary:

- I don't have much to say about the Bastion system as it doesn't really interest me. The main difference between it and the 2014/Xan downtime rules is that it includes ways for NPCs to do stuff for you without your character being physically present, e.g. work orders and research.

Cantrip stuff!!
- Acid Splash is being changed to a 5' radius burst instead of hitting only two enemies.
- True Strike is becoming a Bladetrip similar to GFB/BB
- Blade Ward is becoming a Reaction against attack rolls, similar to UA Resistance
- Friends is losing the hostility clause

UA6 Feedback!
- All classes scored 70s and 80s, even Druid
- Rogue was the winner at 89%. It's pretty much a done deal. Cunning Strike got 94%!
- Druid was lowest at 70s but higher than it was in UA6. (How the hell Monk wasn't the lowest is beyond me.)
- Wildshape and Moon are still the lowest scoring things. Crawford wants one more pass at wild shape, so Druid is getting included again in UA8.
- They're continuing to listen to feedback from both the statblock and template camps.
- Monk will also be in UA8.
- The Monk had a lot of pain points. Ki/Disc points were the biggest.
- They want to make sure that monk abilities have EITHER a uses/day constraint OR a disc cost, not both.
- They want to reduce and even eliminate disc costs in various places.
- Shadow and 4 Elements both scored high enough that they don't need revision. Open Hand will likely be the only subclass returning.
- Ranger won't be returning, however in cases where the previous version of a feature scored better than UA6 (Favored Enemy, Foe Slayer, and Deft Explorer) they will be synthesizing old and new.
- He explained why Abjurer beat out Necromancer for the new PHB.

Unoriginal

2023-10-05, 10:30 AM

Psyren

2023-10-05, 10:36 AM

Don't know how anyone could look at any of the subclasses and declare they need no revision. Especially when it's for a class which they do admit needs revision.

To clarify, by "don't need revision" I mean they won't be included in the next packet. That doesn't rule out additional tweaks during development / book placement.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-05, 10:40 AM

To clarify, by "don't need revision" I mean they won't be included in the next packet. That doesn't rule out additional tweaks during development / book placement.

Yeah. "don't need revision" (which isn't a direct Crawford quote if I'm understanding you?) is a placeholder for "they won't be seeking more public feedback on it. Which, to me, says they're happy with the direction and high-level mechanical flow, but may tweak language and numbers.

That's kinda inevitable, as much as I rag on WotC. I go through many revision cycles like that--do something, get some feedback, and once I'm happy with the basic thrust, I may ask for feedback on the finished product, but in between I'm regularly tweaking the details/wording/etc.

Psyren

2023-10-05, 10:51 AM

Yeah. "don't need revision" (which isn't a direct Crawford quote if I'm understanding you?) is a placeholder for "they won't be seeking more public feedback on it. Which, to me, says they're happy with the direction and high-level mechanical flow, but may tweak language and numbers.

That's kinda inevitable, as much as I rag on WotC. I go through many revision cycles like that--do something, get some feedback, and once I'm happy with the basic thrust, I may ask for feedback on the finished product, but in between I'm regularly tweaking the details/wording/etc.

His exact words were "they both (Shadow and 4E) scored high enough that they don't need to go back out." So yeah, oversimplification on my part which is fueling existing fires.

GooeyChewie

2023-10-05, 10:56 AM

Just to Browse

2023-10-05, 10:56 AM

Bastion system seems very hacky. The attempt at crossing a downtime-based mechanic (week-long time frames, large gp investment) with a leveling-based mechanic (special facility requirements) leads to weird kludge.

This is the sort of system I'd expect to see in an adventure path rather than in the run-up to a new set of core books. That way the designers can show what adventures they expect to line up with 6-8 bastion turns per level and the sizeable gold investments. As it is, a ton of existing 5e content aren't a good fit for the Bastion minigame: DiA, ToH, CoS, OotA, ToD, LoX. I would prefer if the designers put effort into more general-purpose systems that integrate with published D&D content.

This all said, I'm optimistic that at least some effort is being put into improving the GM's tools in One D&D. More effort in this sphere would be great.

Amechra

2023-10-05, 11:03 AM

I don't know how to feel about Produce Flame being a bonus action that still requires you to spend your action to attack with it.

EDIT: I honestly hope that the Monk we see in the next UA is unrecognizable.

JackPhoenix

2023-10-05, 11:22 AM

KorvinStarmast

2023-10-05, 11:31 AM

You beat me to it but I was watching the video that also includes really juicy UA6 feedback. I'll link to my OP here: Oops, I have not offered UA 7 feedback yet. Is the call for it up yet?

GooeyChewie

2023-10-05, 11:53 AM

I don't know how to feel about Produce Flame being a bonus action that still requires you to spend your action to attack with it.

I like that I can get a light source as a bonus action. And I think the attack should take an action. What I don’t like is that if I want to attack with it and don’t already happen to have it up, it takes both my bonus action and regular action. I think it should allow you to forgo the bonus action if you attack with it immediately.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-05, 11:56 AM

While I don't care about D&Done anymore, "Bastions" drew my interest. After seeing the nonsensical and pointless level-based limitations, I have only one thing to say: Leave it up to WotC to screw up even such concept.

But I guess it explains the "high level tavernkeeper" meme, if you have to be level 13 to be able to build a pub.

Oof. Yeah. I haven't (and probably won't) actually read the UA for much the same reason as you.

But that bold? Yeah, that sounds like WotC. Personally, all this stuff is way too campaign and setting dependent to mechanize/standardize well. Heck, even in my own setting, I can think of a dozen places where starting a pub would be trivial (given some gold, and not even all that much) and others where it'd be a bureaucratic nightmare. And some where people who aren't local nobles aren't allowed to own land or operate businesses! And anything involving actual construction of fortifications is going to basically always be a custom job that's best handled via negotiating with the DM.

I've had a party who acquired a (ruined due to enemy action) shrine in the country. They wanted to fix it up as a home base and home for some of the PCs' dependents, accumulated allies, etc. I had to do some work to get a schedule of costs, which is one place that a table in the DMG could help--a basic "ok, building walls generally costs X per <distance unit>, Y if they're heavy fortifications. Towers take Z time and A cost per sq ft." And then some modifiers like "in a high-magic area, cut the time cost by X and increase the money cost by Y if they hire magic-using builders". Or something like that.

But level limits and trying to regularize it? D&D is firmly at this point a squad-level game. Trying to shoehorn in other things like that as general rules is always going to be squiffy.

Psyren

2023-10-05, 12:25 PM

I am surprised Shadows and 4E monk scored that high, simply because it is so rare for things to score that high. But if they did, it does make sense that they don’t need to put them in a new UA with practically no changes. They could just reference us back to the previous UA. He also did point out that they might be get another look in a new UA. Whether they do or not probably depends on how much change they decide to make from their own internal testing.

To be clear, Shadows and 4E scored in the 70s. That they don't feel the need for public iteration doesn't mean no iteration at all.

Oops, I have not offered UA 7 feedback yet. Is the call for it up yet?

Yeah it ended this morning, sorry. (I did give a 2-day warning in the UA 7 thread, so hopefully we got in a few stragglers.)

While I don't care about D&Done anymore, "Bastions" drew my interest. After seeing the nonsensical and pointless level-based limitations, I have only one thing to say: Leave it up to WotC to screw up even such concept.

But I guess it explains the "high level tavernkeeper" meme, if you have to be level 13 to be able to build a pub.

I struggle to care about downtime rules because sprawling/flabby sandbox campaigns with lots of breathing room don't appeal to me. To me, if a given problem needs adventurers to deal with it, that usually implies urgency.

With that said, I can understand their desire to provide tools to DMs who want to run those kinds of games but don't really know how, as well as their desire to have a general downtime framework that future products can reference. It's the same reason Paizo took the downtime/sim management stuff they compiled for Kingmaker and repurposed it for general use in Ultimate Campaign.

Zevox

2023-10-05, 12:36 PM

Haven't looked at the Bastion stuff yet. I probably will when I have more time, but in theory at least, it doesn't interest me much. Maybe in the right campaign it could be nice, but in a typical campaign for my group, I don't think it has a place.

For the cantrips, I mostly like what I see. Blade Ward in particular is a good revision, I think, and Friends and Poison Spray might see actual use now. I'm less happy with Shocking Grasp losing its advantage vs metal armor, and definitely think Produce Flame being bonus action to cast + action to throw is dumb and needs to go. True Strike I'm not so sure about in either direction. It's an interesting attempt at reworking it, but I'm not sure who wants it now? A pure caster probably prefers normal damage cantrips, while a gish doesn't want to give up doing multiple attacks and might have a better str/dex than casting stat (i.e. an Eldritch Knight).

Listened to the UA feedback video, an oof, terrible news that the Four Elements Monk scored high enough that they aren't even including it next time. That's the revision I most wanted to see in this whole playtest, above even getting a Warlock that isn't short rest dependent, and I was very unhappy with what we got - more so than I was with the original version, even. If that's only getting minor tweaks, I guess it really will only ever be homebrew that can give us a satisfying Bender Monk.

Happy to hear the Monk as a whole is still getting major revisions though, with an emphasis on ki points being less restrictive. Also happy that they're doing another pass on Wild Shape and Moon Druid, though not at all optimistic that I'll prefer the final result to the original 5e version. Not happy that Paladin is going forward as-is, still unhappy with smite's changes there. But hey, at least they got the message loud and clear about how good Cunning Strike was on the Rogue.

Oramac

2023-10-05, 12:52 PM

I don't personally care about the Bastion stuff too much, but it's nice to see them thinking about DM tools and such.

The cantrips are interesting, though.

Blade Ward is useful, though imposing DA on a single attack in exchange for a reaction seems like a heavy cost. Perhaps if it allowed seeing the original roll first? IDK.

Chill Touch is now actually touch. Cool. I thought the "negate all reactions" thing was quite useful, but I suppose I can see how they'd say it's too much for a cantrip.

Produce Flame is good. I agree that the action/bonus action thing is a little clunky, but it's a step in the right direction.

Shillelagh is nice. The die scaling is a little weird though. From 11th to 17th level feels weird. I get that it's technically a buff, but it just feels weird to use a smaller die, especially without increasing the cap.

Spare the Dying is really neat. I like the scaling range on it too, though 120 ft at 17th level might be a bit much.

True Strike is totally different. Though I guess now it might actually get used, so that's a plus.

the video that also includes really juicy UA6 feedback

It's official. WOTC hates paladins. And apparently most players do too, it seems, since the UA6 paladin scored high enough that they're not going to revisit it. I swear to God, if that abomination of Divine Smite ends up in the 2024 PHB, I'm done buying anything from WOTC.

Unoriginal

2023-10-05, 12:59 PM

But that bold? Yeah, that sounds like WotC. Personally, all this stuff is way too campaign and setting dependent to mechanize/standardize well. Heck, even in my own setting, I can think of a dozen places where starting a pub would be trivial (given some gold, and not even all that much) and others where it'd be a bureaucratic nightmare. And some where people who aren't local nobles aren't allowed to own land or operate businesses! And anything involving actual construction of fortifications is going to basically always be a custom job that's best handled via negotiating with the DM.

Even funnier, one of the plublished adventure let the PCs acquire a pub at like, lvl 2

Amnestic

2023-10-05, 01:03 PM

For the cantrips, I mostly like what I see. Blade Ward in particular is a good revision, I think, and Friends and Poison Spray might see actual use now. I'm less happy with Shocking Grasp losing its advantage vs metal armor, and definitely think Produce Flame being bonus action to cast + action to throw is dumb and needs to go. True Strike I'm not so sure about in either direction. It's an interesting attempt at reworking it, but I'm not sure who wants it now? A pure caster probably prefers normal damage cantrips, while a gish doesn't want to give up doing multiple attacks and might have a better str/dex than casting stat (i.e. an Eldritch Knight).

Bards that don't get extra attack will want it for sure. Deals more damage than Vicious Mockery, attack roll is often more likely to land than a saving throw, interacts positively with magic weapons (even a bog standard +1 that none of your martials want anymore because they've upgraded to something better), and can be used in either range or melee.

I could definitely see it as a viable choice for sorcs+wiz too.

One Tin Soldier

2023-10-05, 01:18 PM

I had some spare time to read through the Bastion material, and I’m excited to begin incorporating it into my campaigns. The mechanical hook of building up BP to eventually receive a magical item, or resurrection, or other benefit, I think is a big incentive for players to actually care about what’s going on in between adventures. And the benefits you can gain from individual facilities are cool! You can have a scriptorium full of apprentices creating magic scrolls for you to use, or a garden growing poisonous plants, or a theater where your party can be that rock band they’ve always wanted to be, or a dozens other things. There’s so many good roleplay hooks embedded in here, and I can imagine my groups getting really into the Sims-like process of mapping out their bastions.

Too bad that my Red Hand of Doom game is on too tight of an in-game timetable to make use of the system, and my homebrew campaign that’s much better suited to it just started a “get home from another plane” arc that will run for at least a couple months.

Psyren

2023-10-05, 01:24 PM

More detailed cantrip thoughts:

Acid Splash - Great change. Will be pretty powerful on an Evoker or Artillerist since the damage bonus applies to everyone in the area, but this is now actually a contender for Agonizing Blast too.

Blade Ward - Hey, is this better than Shield now? Unlike Shield, this can nullify crits too. (Though unlike Shield, this only applies to one attack, so I guess it falls behind later.)

Chill Touch - Oof, huge nerf by making this melee now (and I don't think the damage bump makes up for that) - but then again this might be warranted with all the high level creatures that depend on HP recovery.

Friends - I don't think the 1/LR limit per creature does enough to curtail the spammability of this one; if I'm the face, I'm throwing this around like candy. I like the range limit though - now bureaucratic officials in cities have a reason for all those barriers that keep the public at a distance. In fact, maybe reduce it to 5ft.

Poison Spray - Two huge buffs. This will probably see play now.

Produce Flame - I like that this stays on your hand even when thrown now, so you aren't chucking your light source around or needing to recast the spell. This should probably regain the "doesn't harm your equipment" clause though so that you aren't lighting your quarterstaff or gloves on fire.

Shillelagh - This cantrip is even closer to replacing the entire monk class now. The Force damage seems to be cementing the removal of magical bludgeoning etc.

Shocking Grasp - Bring back the metal clause :smallfrown:

Spare The Dying - would it really be so bad if this was 30ft? I'll take the buff though. (And thank the gods that 0HP + Stable is back.)

True Strike - I'm not getting the True Strike here; if an Eldritch Knight casts this, their attack is likely to get worse! I like the idea of making it a bladetrip but it should have an attack bonus of some kind; if not advantage, then at least +1d4. It should also allow the caster to choose whether they want to use their casting stat or stick with their physical.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-05, 01:39 PM

I get lots of people who want to do the whole "my hand becomes wreathed in flames" aesthetic effect.

Here's an idea for produce flame (which stock has a really stupid range): make it so it produces a flame in/around your hand you can use to throw with[1] repeatedly for a duration (with an action each time). That'd occupy a hand as a pseudo-weapon. Sorta a mini flame blade (which needs buffs)[2].

[1] or even make it a melee or ranged attack. So you can punch someone with a fiery hand or throw it for a shorter range than firebolt. Say 60 feet?
[2] you hear me people? I, PhoenixPhyre, think this spell[3] needs a buff.
[3] and there are others!

----------

As for true strike, I'm experimenting with a rework as a 1st level spell:

Bonus action, 60 ft, S.
You extend your hand and point a finger at a target in range. Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target's defenses. Your next attack against the creature until the end of your next turn has advantage and scores a critical hit on a 19 or 20.

MoiMagnus

2023-10-05, 01:46 PM

Personally, all this stuff is way too campaign and setting dependent to mechanize/standardize well.

While I won't defend the actual implementation suggested by WotC, I find this kind of content to be perfect for a DMG or a "someone's thing of everything" book.

The fact that it depends too much on the setting doesn't bother me. That's my job to adapt it. But what I care about is the "warranty by extensive playtest" that if I run the thing untouched:

this implementation will not lead to widely unexpected results with the GM thinking 'wait, it allows you to do WHAT?'
this implementation will not lead to actively frustrating/counterproductive gameplay for the players
the feature is not a waste of time/complexity and actually bring something interesting

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-05, 01:55 PM

While I won't defend the actual implementation suggested by WotC, I find this kind of content to be perfect for a DMG or a "someone's thing of everything" book.

The fact that it depends too much on the setting doesn't bother me. That's my job to adapt it. But what I care about is the "warranty by extensive playtest" that if I run the thing untouched:

this implementation will not lead to widely unexpected results with the GM thinking 'wait, it allows you to do WHAT?'
this implementation will not lead to actively frustrating/counterproductive gameplay for the players
the feature is not a waste of time/complexity and actually bring something interesting

I'd prefer they gave more modular guidance. Instead of trying to create an entire interlocking sub system, give the pieces. Save the whole thing for an adventure path where they can flesh it out in a specific context.

Amechra

2023-10-05, 01:56 PM

I like that I can get a light source as a bonus action. And I think the attack should take an action. What I don’t like is that if I want to attack with it and don’t already happen to have it up, it takes both my bonus action and regular action. I think it should allow you to forgo the bonus action if you attack with it immediately.

That's pretty much why I'm not sure how I feel about it.

...

The funny thing to me about the Bastion subsystem is that the only vaguely interesting thing in there are the rules for masterwork weapons (they cost 800gp and permanently become +1 weapons when you cast Magic Weapon on them. That's it. That's what they do).

It's a shame that those rules are so pointless ("congrats, you get to buy +1 weapons for 800gp if you have a Wizard in your party!"), but hey!

Damon_Tor

2023-10-05, 02:01 PM

I can't sign off on blade ward. Melee needs benefits over ranged, not PENALTIES. Every caster having a reaction to impose disadvantage on sword strikes but not arrows is backwards.

I like most of the rest of the cantrip changes.

Still digesting bastions. I want to like it, but a lot of it just makes me go wtf: where it really feels like they were stretching to come up with mechanical benefits. Building a pub isn't building a pub, it's giving yourself permanent enlarge (or other effects) via magic beer. Oooookay. What if I just want a pub? Without magic beer? Can I go and just buy that magic beer someplace without owning a pub? Why is this magic pub somehow producing an effect beyond what an alchemist artificer can produce with his potions? It's just weird.

I do like being able to raise ~1000 soldiers, though. Kinda badass, even if the DM wouldn't ever let me do anything with them for practical gameplay reasons.

Amechra

2023-10-05, 02:21 PM

My preference would be something kinda like the domain management system from Renegrade Crowns, where the "system" is just "here's a tracker for internal unrest and external threats — every so often, you have to deal with a problem now or you'll be overthrown". Focus on the fact that adventurers are going to adventure, and it'll be fine.

Nothing about the current set-up is going to fix the problem with downtime stuff in 5e, which is that the pace of the game is generally too fast for it to matter. Every game I've seen that successfully integrates an in-depth domain management system tend to have really slow-paced campaigns as their default (we're talking "the game might feasibly take generations to complete" slow).

Just to Browse

2023-10-05, 02:32 PM

Still digesting bastions. I want to like it, but a lot of it just makes me go wtf: where it really feels like they were stretching to come up with mechanical benefits. Building a pub isn't building a pub, it's giving yourself permanent enlarge (or other effects) via magic beer. Oooookay. What if I just want a pub? Without magic beer? Can I go and just buy that magic beer someplace without owning a pub? Why is this magic pub somehow producing an effect beyond what an alchemist artificer can produce with his potions? It's just weird.

Not just a pub + magic beer, you also get a weird spy network. Why do any of these 3 things need to be related?

DarknessEternal

2023-10-05, 02:37 PM

Bastions = no.

That is the only feedback it needs.

tokek

2023-10-05, 03:12 PM

As a mod for a living world server I will actually put a bit of time and effort into reviewing the bastion system. I can't really playtest it without potentially breaking a game that's been running a few years so I'm not doing that.

A few initial thoughts

1. They are trying to re-introduce the old AD&D idea of martial characters raising armies. Its in there, you need a fighting style or unarmored defence to take the upgrade. With the upgrade you can recruit a small army at a week's notice. I like it as a callback to older editions.

2. The bit about re-spawning in your bastion if you die is a hard no from me.

3. This looks to be either a parallel crafting system or a replacement one. I don't think most games would want both the existing system and this new one.

If we view the whole thing as an abstraction for the way the character is building fame and reputation in their region the I think it might work. It does need some playing through but I'm not sure quite how to do that with the pool of players I have so I will put some thought into it.

KorvinStarmast

2023-10-05, 03:51 PM

2. The bit about re-spawning in your bastion if you die is a hard no from me.
And it's too video gamey. Hearthstone, Diablo ... nvm.
I'll comment further after I've had a chance to look through this over the weekend.

JackPhoenix

2023-10-05, 03:55 PM

The funny thing to me about the Bastion subsystem is that the only vaguely interesting thing in there are the rules for masterwork weapons (they cost 800gp and permanently become +1 weapons when you cast Magic Weapon on them. That's it. That's what they do).

It's a shame that those rules are so pointless ("congrats, you get to buy +1 weapons for 800gp if you have a Wizard in your party!"), but hey!

Shame you can just buy the same weapon for about 350 gp (1d6*100), or craft it for 200 (or 500, depending which version of crafting rules you're using) gp.

Unoriginal

2023-10-05, 04:00 PM

Shame you can just buy the same weapon for about 350 gp (1d6*100), or craft it for 200 (or 500, depending which version of crafting rules you're using) gp.

Wizards asking for a whole bunch of money for reinventing something that was already available with less issues... that's a bit on the nose, isn't it?

JackPhoenix

2023-10-05, 04:04 PM

Wizards asking for a whole bunch of money for reinventing something that was already available with less issues... that's a bit on the nose, isn't it?

I wouldn't necessarily say less issues, there is a matter of what's available to buy, and crafting requires a schema and possibly exotic material, but... I won't disagree.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-05, 04:34 PM

1. They are trying to re-introduce the old AD&D idea of martial characters raising armies. Its in there, you need a fighting style or unarmored defence to take the upgrade. With the upgrade you can recruit a small army at a week's notice. I like it as a callback to older editions.

I don't like this, either part.

Why is it a martial class feature (except a hidden one) to be able to raise armies? That part's never made sense to me--leadership is orthogonal to class and stands outside of it.

Furthermore, being able to recruit a small army at a week's notice is super anti-versimilitude and shatters world-structures. It's basically "now we're running an RTS and can spit out an infinite number of men out of this Barracks structure, limited only by (short) time scales." Most places you can build a keep just don't have that kind of population density! Especially under arms! Nor nearly the gear to supply them.

Hard pass on all of it from my perspective.

zlefin

2023-10-05, 04:46 PM

Ah, just finished reading through it. The bastions seem nice and pleasing, I enjoyed reading through them. Reminds me a lot of kingmaker and the related rules for buildings that were amongst that pf stuff. I don' tknow how to assess them balance-wise, but it seemed reasonable as far as I could tell, some nice modest but useable bonuses. Good theming for building up a little base of your own.

Also mostly nice and clear; the only one I was uncertain on is the tming of the theater die, and there's probably rules elsewhere that cover that.

ZRN

2023-10-05, 04:53 PM

Why is it a martial class feature (except a hidden one) to be able to raise armies? That part's never made sense to me--leadership is orthogonal to class and stands outside of it.

Furthermore, being able to recruit a small army at a week's notice is super anti-versimilitude and shatters world-structures. It's basically "now we're running an RTS and can spit out an infinite number of men out of this Barracks structure, limited only by (short) time scales." Most places you can build a keep just don't have that kind of population density! Especially under arms! Nor nearly the gear to supply them.

I think the idea is that as a level 17+ martial character you have such a powerful reputation that soldiers will flock to your banner in times of need.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-05, 05:54 PM

I think the idea is that as a level 17+ martial character you have such a powerful reputation that soldiers will flock to your banner in times of need.

But from where? That fast? And why is it level locked? Basically, this makes no sense to me.

Aimeryan

2023-10-05, 06:05 PM

True Strike - I'm not getting the True Strike here; if an Eldritch Knight casts this, their attack is likely to get worse! I like the idea of making it a bladetrip but it should have an attack bonus of some kind; if not advantage, then at least +1d4. It should also allow the caster to choose whether they want to use their casting stat or stick with their physical.

Consider a Wizard with a Light Crossbow (or Longbow if Elf): D8+Int damage, +d6/2d6/3d6 at higher levels. Taking average damage against Fire Bolt, NO MAGICAL WEAPON:
Level 1-4 with 16 Int: d8+3 = 7.5 damage; Fire Bolt d10 = 5.5 damage
Level 4 with 18 Int: d8+4 = 8.5 damage; Firebolt d10 = 5.5 damage
Level 5-10 with 16 Int: d8+3+d6 = 11; Firebolt 2d10 = 11
Level 5-10 with 18 Int: d8+4+d6 = 12; Firebolt 2d10 = 11
Level 8-10 with 20 Int: d8+5+d6 = 13; Firebolt 2d10 = 11
Level 11-16 with 16 Int ASI: d8+3+2d6 = 14.5; Firebolt 3d10 = 16.5
Level 11-16 with 18 Int ASI: d8+4+2d6 = 15.5; Firebolt 3d10 = 16.5
Level 11-16 with 20 Int ASI: d8+5+2d6 = 16.5; Firebolt 3d10 = 16.5
Level 17-20 with 16 Int ASI: d8+3+3d6 = 18; Firebolt 4d10 = 22
Level 17-20 with 18 Int ASI: d8+4+3d6 = 19; Firebolt 4d10 = 22
Level 17-20 with 20 Int ASI: d8+5+3d6 = 20; Firebolt 4d10 = 22

Truestrike damage = weapon type or Radiant
Fire Bolt damage = Fire

I bolded the path I feel is most likely to occur, which has Tier 1 as True Strike being quite superior, Tier 2 being a little superior, Tier 3 being equal, Tier 4 falling behind. However, note that magical weapons favour Truestrike, so its fairly likely it would always be superior (albeit, cantrips not really coming into play at higher levels in any case). The damage types are difficult to judge, but favours having switchable ones for Truestrike (well, the d6 is always Radiant). They'll both be useful in their own situations, but Truestrike would be better on average.

tokek

2023-10-05, 06:07 PM

I don't like this, either part.

Why is it a martial class feature (except a hidden one) to be able to raise armies? That part's never made sense to me--leadership is orthogonal to class and stands outside of it.

Furthermore, being able to recruit a small army at a week's notice is super anti-versimilitude and shatters world-structures. It's basically "now we're running an RTS and can spit out an infinite number of men out of this Barracks structure, limited only by (short) time scales." Most places you can build a keep just don't have that kind of population density! Especially under arms! Nor nearly the gear to supply them.

Hard pass on all of it from my perspective.

It fits with the whole concept of heroism and heroic leadership. The warriors will follow someone who leads from the front - Alexander the Great or Aragorn rather than a modern general.

Its not really anti-anything its about the heroic genre. Its not a world sim - its about what a certain sort of hero is about in the genre. The warriors are there because over time they have been attracted by the reputation of the great warrior - hoping to catch their eye and grasp a few fragments of their glory.

Also its a totally clear call-back to AD&D. I'm fine with it.

tokek

2023-10-05, 06:14 PM

I think the idea is that as a level 17+ martial character you have such a powerful reputation that soldiers will flock to your banner in times of need.

This.

And by level 17 they will have been attracted to be in the area, hoping for a chance of even a tiny part of the glory of such a mighty legend. You light the beacons and they will come. At level 17 you are mightier than kings and more legendary. Why wouldn't they come?

All the complaining about how martial characters can't do anything out of combat. Give them something impressive they can do and we get different complaints.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-05, 06:18 PM

It fits with the whole concept of heroism and heroic leadership. The warriors will follow someone who leads from the front - Alexander the Great or Aragorn rather than a modern general.

Its not really anti-anything its about the heroic genre. Its not a world sim - its about what a certain sort of hero is about in the genre. The warriors are there because over time they have been attracted by the reputation of the great warrior - hoping to catch their eye and grasp a few fragments of their glory.

Also its a totally clear call-back to AD&D. I'm fine with it.

Except...many, if not most martials don't fit that mold. And haven't since 3e. Argument from tradition, to me, is one of the weakest forms of argument. Each edition must stand or fall on its own.

And saying that somehow you can magically (except entirely mundanely) replace hundreds or more soldiers every week? Yeah, that doesn't jibe with me. 100 soldiers indicates a standing population somewhere in the 10k+ range. And that's a large city[1] whose entire guard force you're pulling. Every week. Because cities don't have more than ~1% of their population under arms. Anything more are badly-trained, badly-equipped levies that you might be able to pull together in a month, as long as it's not one of the busy agricultural seasons. And you can plop this keep anywhere--in fact, the only places you're likely to get permission to do so are on the frontiers (since all the more settled places already have lords!). Which aren't exactly known for having high populations. Because if they did...they wouldn't need adventurers!

This sort of thing is so bound up in world-verisimilitude for me that shoving into "mechanics" makes things really ugly and me not willing to use them at all.

[1] D&D cities are small by actual medieval standpoints.

This.

And by level 17 they will have been attracted to be in the area, hoping for a chance of even a tiny part of the glory of such a mighty legend. You light the beacons and they will come. At level 17 you are mightier than kings and more legendary. Why wouldn't they come?

All the complaining about how martial characters can't do anything out of combat. Give them something impressive they can do and we get different complaints.

I'm totally fine with people gathering armies. I'm not fine with making it a "button you push" mechanically. Because how you do it needs to fit
1) the story so far--not all level 17+ characters are that kind of hero with a glowing reputation. Some don't want that kind of attention. Others have made more enemies than others.
2) Some places don't have that many people available on short notice. Especially armed and trained.
3) Most places already have leaders. Those leaders may rally to your call, but that's separate than what's going on here.

I'm fine with martials getting cool things. Shoehorning in a system that basically acts as an entirely separate minigame that few, if any, are willing to use means that you're not really giving them cool things. D&D is a squad-level game and has been for decades now. Give them individual-scale cool things. Not some hacky bolted on verisimilitude-shattering blob.

tokek

2023-10-05, 06:26 PM

And saying that somehow you can magically (except entirely mundanely) replace hundreds or more soldiers every week? Yeah, that doesn't jibe with me. 100 soldiers indicates a standing population somewhere in the 10k+ range. And that's a large city[1] whose entire guard force you're pulling. Every week. Because cities don't have more than ~1% of their population under arms. Anything more are badly-trained, badly-equipped levies that you might be able to pull together in a month, as long as it's not one of the busy agricultural seasons. And you can plop this keep anywhere--in fact, the only places you're likely to get permission to do so are on the frontiers (since all the more settled places already have lords!). Which aren't exactly known for having high populations. Because if they did...they wouldn't need adventurers!

A city with a 17th level fighter in it is in no way a normal city. It is the home to an epic hero.

You may as well debate how its unreasonable to expect to find 100 actors just sitting around ready for their big chance in Hollywood.

But if your particular martial is just not that sort then they don't have a war room or maybe they don't have a bastion at all. But if they have a bastion and it has a war room then you made the decision that they are exactly this sort of character.

Brookshw

2023-10-05, 07:40 PM

100% on board with Martials getting an army button. If you need fluff to justify why them and not casters, recognizability and relatability, the guy on the street understands what someone does when they swing a sword well but has no idea what Senor Finger Wiggles is doing.

Dislike the respawn option.

Amechra

2023-10-05, 07:49 PM

Why is it a martial class feature (except a hidden one) to be able to raise armies? That part's never made sense to me--leadership is orthogonal to class and stands outside of it.

It made sense in 1e, where the entire party was hiring dudes to support your adventuring party from the point where you could afford them. Those weird "oops you have an army and a keep now!" features are more like... OK, you've hit the level where you're a notable dude in-setting, here's your class-themed upgrade to the Hiring Dudes To Support You part of the game. That's why fighters got fighters, wizards got wizards, thieves got thieves...

It makes absolutely no sense in WotC D&D, though, where everything has been focused down to the level of two guys stabbing each-other. With acid.

LudicSavant

2023-10-05, 08:10 PM

My first impressions:

Acid Splash Significantly improved. Now a proper AoE (complete with not requiring the silly "a target you can see" clause), and works with Evoker stuff. Someone might actually take it now.

Shocking Grasp got ambushed with a nerf bat. No more situational Advantage, and no longer turns off Reactions (only Opportunity Attacks). Because that was "too powerful for a cantrip." Was it, though? :smallconfused:

Spare The Dying at least does something that a Healing Kit doesn't do automatically. Not much, but it's at least moving in the right direction.

Chill Touch is now melee-only instead of 120 feet, but deals xd10 damage instead of d8.

True Strike is now just another melee damage cantrip, competing with the likes of Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp. It only has a d6 for scaling, but can benefit from using a weapon. How well this shakes out will depend on what the rest of the system looks like, really.

Friends used to automatically give Advantage on social checks. Now it only gives Advantage on social checks if the target is humanoid and fails a saving throw. It also is now subject to any effect that blocks charms.

The only thing it has going for it is that it's now somewhat ambiguous whether someone knows you affected their mood with magic, but the answer could still very possibly be "yes, they do, look at those obvious casting components."

Produce Flame now eats your bonus action and your action, which is just downright excessive for what it does.

Shillelagh scales the weapon's damage die, but it's still going to underperform melee cantrips on a 'standard' druid. The real benefit will be for melee characters dipping for this cantrip.

Still annoyingly requires you to recast it every minute (which is just a quality of life issue, since it's resourceless to cast it over and over again).

Blade Ward is now a very spammable Reaction. Less attractive if you already have Shield or something, but cantrips can often be picked up by other characters.

Poison Spray is now the highest damage attack cantrip, and with a superior damage type to boot. It's like Toll the Dead with a bit less range, but bypasses Legendary/Magic Resistance.

Kane0

2023-10-05, 08:36 PM

Ooh goodie, now I can compare more of their spell fixes with my own!

Aimeryan

2023-10-05, 08:46 PM

True Strike is now just another melee damage cantrip, competing with the likes of Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp. It only has a d6 for scaling, but can benefit from using a weapon. How well this shakes out will depend on what the rest of the system looks like, really.

I did the math above with a light crossbow/longbow; it comes out well even before magic weapons come into play. It is not a melee cantrip.

Jakinbandw

2023-10-05, 08:46 PM

I really like the bastion system. From what I can tell, you could just build a pub right at level 5, it just wouldn't be a magical pub that attracts people from around the world to sit and talk where your servers can hear gossip. I'm mixed on the revival option. On one hand, it makes sense. The idea of BP is that your followers are going out and finding magic items and such. Having them find a 1 use item to raise you from the dead isn't unreasonable. On the other hand, if a party wipes, you know the cleric is going to be the one to spend the 100 points, and then will raise the rest of the party normally. This acts as a tax on healers, that I'm not sure I'm a fan of.

Also like the change to true strike. I was already thinking of playing a divine bard in the new system, and being able to use my charisma when I attack with a mace makes that far more viable.

LudicSavant

2023-10-05, 08:54 PM

I did the math above with a light crossbow/longbow; it comes out well even before magic weapons come into play. It is not a melee cantrip.

Oh true, it works with ranged weapons too!

As your own math shows, the unaugmented damage is in the ballpark of cantrips like Fire Bolt or Chill Touch (without magic items/etc).

What I am wondering is how it'll shake out when we see how much you can benefit from things like, say, weapon masteries, magic items, or the like.

Consider a Wizard with a Light Crossbow (or Longbow if Elf): D8+Int damage, +d6/2d6/3d6 at higher levels. Taking average damage against Fire Bolt, NO MAGICAL WEAPON:
Level 1-4 with 16 Int: d8+3 = 7.5 damage; Fire Bolt d10 = 5.5 damage
Level 4 with 18 Int: d8+4 = 8.5 damage; Firebolt d10 = 5.5 damage
Level 5-10 with 16 Int: d8+3+d6 = 11; Firebolt 2d10 = 11
Level 5-10 with 18 Int: d8+4+d6 = 12; Firebolt 2d10 = 11
Level 8-10 with 20 Int: d8+5+d6 = 13; Firebolt 2d10 = 11
Level 11-16 with 16 Int ASI: d8+3+2d6 = 14.5; Firebolt 3d10 = 16.5
Level 11-16 with 18 Int ASI: d8+4+2d6 = 15.5; Firebolt 3d10 = 16.5
Level 11-16 with 20 Int ASI: d8+5+2d6 = 16.5; Firebolt 3d10 = 16.5
Level 17-20 with 16 Int ASI: d8+3+3d6 = 18; Firebolt 4d10 = 22
Level 17-20 with 18 Int ASI: d8+4+3d6 = 19; Firebolt 4d10 = 22
Level 17-20 with 20 Int ASI: d8+5+3d6 = 20; Firebolt 4d10 = 22

Truestrike damage = weapon type or Radiant
Fire Bolt damage = Fire

I bolded the path I feel is most likely to occur, which has Tier 1 as True Strike being quite superior, Tier 2 being a little superior, Tier 3 being equal, Tier 4 falling behind. However, note that magical weapons favour Truestrike, so its fairly likely it would always be superior (albeit, cantrips not really coming into play at higher levels in any case). The damage types are difficult to judge, but favours having switchable ones for Truestrike (well, the d6 is always Radiant). They'll both be useful in their own situations, but Truestrike would be better on average.

Kane0

2023-10-05, 09:15 PM

I'm curious to see what people think about reaction cantrips. That's new ground.

Edit: And true AoE cantrips. Though we do have Sword Burst, Thunderclap and Word of Radiance.

Psyren

2023-10-05, 10:08 PM

Consider a Wizard with a Light Crossbow (or Longbow if Elf): D8+Int damage, +d6/2d6/3d6 at higher levels. Taking average damage against Fire Bolt, NO MAGICAL WEAPON:
Level 1-4 with 16 Int: d8+3 = 7.5 damage; Fire Bolt d10 = 5.5 damage
Level 4 with 18 Int: d8+4 = 8.5 damage; Firebolt d10 = 5.5 damage
Level 5-10 with 16 Int: d8+3+d6 = 11; Firebolt 2d10 = 11
Level 5-10 with 18 Int: d8+4+d6 = 12; Firebolt 2d10 = 11
Level 8-10 with 20 Int: d8+5+d6 = 13; Firebolt 2d10 = 11
Level 11-16 with 16 Int ASI: d8+3+2d6 = 14.5; Firebolt 3d10 = 16.5
Level 11-16 with 18 Int ASI: d8+4+2d6 = 15.5; Firebolt 3d10 = 16.5
Level 11-16 with 20 Int ASI: d8+5+2d6 = 16.5; Firebolt 3d10 = 16.5
Level 17-20 with 16 Int ASI: d8+3+3d6 = 18; Firebolt 4d10 = 22
Level 17-20 with 18 Int ASI: d8+4+3d6 = 19; Firebolt 4d10 = 22
Level 17-20 with 20 Int ASI: d8+5+3d6 = 20; Firebolt 4d10 = 22

Truestrike damage = weapon type or Radiant
Fire Bolt damage = Fire

I bolded the path I feel is most likely to occur, which has Tier 1 as True Strike being quite superior, Tier 2 being a little superior, Tier 3 being equal, Tier 4 falling behind. However, note that magical weapons favour Truestrike, so its fairly likely it would always be superior (albeit, cantrips not really coming into play at higher levels in any case). The damage types are difficult to judge, but favours having switchable ones for Truestrike (well, the d6 is always Radiant). They'll both be useful in their own situations, but Truestrike would be better on average.

I'm not saying it's not better for casters using weapons - but should it be? If the wizard's best magic attack is to grab a crossbow something may have gone wrong somewhere. True Strike should be the core gish cantrip.

Friends used to automatically give Advantage on social checks. Now it only gives Advantage on social checks if the target is humanoid and fails a saving throw. It also is now subject to any effect that blocks charms.

The only thing it has going for it is that it's now somewhat ambiguous whether someone knows you affected their mood with magic, but the answer could still very possibly be "yes, they do, look at those obvious casting components."

I totally agree that it should still be noticeable. You're reapplying your makeup mid-conversation, anyone who understands arcane magic should at least have a chance to sense something's up :smallbiggrin:

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people avoided it in practice purely because of the auto-hostility clause though.

Produce Flame now eats your bonus action and your action, which is just downright excessive for what it does.

This I'm not so sure of; you have a decent chance of having it up before a fight if you're using it as a light source. In addition, it doubles as Bonus Action Light if you don't need the ranged function right away (or ever.)

Still annoyingly requires you to recast it every minute (which is just a quality of life issue, since it's resourceless to cast it over and over again).

Agreed - This is one of the few things I think PF2 has over 5e, they codified a way to continually cast a short term resourceless buff so that it's up when combat starts.

Theodoxus

2023-10-05, 10:17 PM

I'm curious to see what people think about reaction cantrips. That's new ground.

I'm a little sad, since the change to Blade Ward mirrors what I think Shield should do instead - but I guess if the DM is telling you what the roll was to hit, you'll know if BW is better (for anything above your AC+5 and especially crits) or Shield... but I'm not sure how many DMs telegraph attacks with that much granularity.

Kane0

2023-10-05, 11:10 PM

Well you could still make shield after the roll rather than before, plus it would last for multiple attacks and blocks magic missiles

gloryblaze

2023-10-05, 11:35 PM

My first impressions:

Shocking Grasp got ambushed with a nerf bat. No more situational Advantage, and no longer turns off Reactions (only Opportunity Attacks). Because that was "too powerful for a cantrip." Was it, though? :smallconfused:

I'd bet dollars to donuts that this isn't about shocking grasp's performance from 2014 - 2022. Rather, it's referring to the fact that WotC has been experimenting recently with monsters that would have had Legendary Actions back in 2014 instead having multiple reactions per round. For example, Vecna from the Vecna Dossier, Charmane Daymore from Keys from the Golden Vault, or the Archon of Boundaries (and several other creatures) from the new Eldraine Monstrous Compendium. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this kind of design in Planescape when it drops later this month.

So if they want to replace Legendary Actions with multiple reactions, they probably don't want casters to be able to shut off half of a boss's action economy at-will with no save.

EDIT: whoops, said true strike when i meant shocking grasp at first. The true strike change most certainly is due to poor performance, lol

Kane0

2023-10-06, 12:01 AM

I'd bet dollars to donuts that this isn't about True Strike's performance from 2014 - 2022. Rather, it's referring to the fact that WotC has been experimenting recently with monsters that would have had Legendary Actions back in 2014 instead having multiple reactions per round.

Astute. See also open hand monk

LudicSavant

2023-10-06, 12:05 AM

And true AoE cantrips. Though we do have Sword Burst, Thunderclap and Word of Radiance.

I've long been of the opinion that Acid Splash should simply be a true AoE. So I'm totally on board with that one.

Merlecory

2023-10-06, 12:22 AM

Spare The Dying at least does something that a Healing Kit doesn't do automatically. Not much, but it's at least moving in the right direction.

I guess this is kinda spilling in from the mundane equipment thread, but does a cantrip need to do something more than an item with finite uses?

Sad to see the shocking grasp metal interaction go though. Seems very par for the course for the 5.1 UA

ZRN

2023-10-06, 12:26 AM

I'm totally fine with people gathering armies. I'm not fine with making it a "button you push" mechanically. Because how you do it needs to fit
1) the story so far--not all level 17+ characters are that kind of hero with a glowing reputation. Some don't want that kind of attention. Others have made more enemies than others.
2) Some places don't have that many people available on short notice. Especially armed and trained.
3) Most places already have leaders. Those leaders may rally to your call, but that's separate than what's going on here.

Remember that this is a DMG excerpt - the "you" pushing buttons is the DM.

1. They've probably got SOME reputation for lucrative violence, which is probably good for recruiting soldiers.
2. A DM who cares about verisimilitude won't let you build an epic barracks in the middle of nowhere.
3. Part of the mechanic of the epic barracks thing is that you recruit lieutenants and THEY rally soldiers. So the lieutenants are the local "leaders" in your model.

LudicSavant

2023-10-06, 12:26 AM

I guess this is kinda spilling in from the mundane equipment thread, but does a cantrip need to do something more than an item with finite uses? It does need to do something more than an item that you can get a lifetime supply of for a small handful of gp, yes.

Cantrip slots are actually a pretty valuable resource, that can do rather nice things, like Guidance, Minor Illusion, Shape Water, Mage Hand, or Control Flames.

Schwann145

2023-10-06, 01:07 AM

If cantrips weren't such a limited/serious character investment, it wouldn't be an issue. But since they are, it's definitely a problem for a cheap mundane shop purchase to copy ones effects.

Kane0

2023-10-06, 01:41 AM

Cantrips are limited? Its not hard to start with like 6 at level one.

Schwann145

2023-10-06, 01:55 AM

A feat (to get up to that 6) is yes, a serious investment.
And, in the grand scheme of things, 6 cantrips really isn't that many, despite being more than most people ever get.

LudicSavant

2023-10-06, 02:05 AM

Cantrips are limited? Its not hard to start with like 6 at level one.

There are 46 cantrips in the game.

Moreover, those cantrips were costing you what, a class level, race, and feat? That's a lot more costly than a few gold pieces.

Leon

2023-10-06, 02:13 AM

Bastions: an Updated to 5e (which means watered down) Stronghold Builders Guide. If you have or can find the older book use it, it will be better than this lite take.

Theodoxus

2023-10-06, 05:48 AM

Well you could still make shield after the roll rather than before, plus it would last for multiple attacks and blocks magic missiles

Except they're both reactions... so that wouldn't work. You'd need to know which was optimal for the specific attack. But I guess that's part of the fun of playing a caster. Although, with this change I probably wouldn't pick up Shield unless I knew I was going to be facing a lot of arcane casters who would be tossing out MMs.

Curious, do you think Shield should also negate Eldritch Blast? (If the attack roll is above your AC+5) They're both force effects...

MoiMagnus

2023-10-06, 06:03 AM

Furthermore, being able to recruit a small army at a week's notice is super anti-versimilitude and shatters world-structures. It's basically "now we're running an RTS and can spit out an infinite number of men out of this Barracks structure, limited only by (short) time scales." Most places you can build a keep just don't have that kind of population density! Especially under arms! Nor nearly the gear to supply them.

It's the main issue with "long rest every day" approach. As soon as you have army stuff, they scale don't match.
Each time we had a campaign dealing with those, we slowed down the long rest to once per week, once per month, or once per trimester, to have both matching with one another.

We've currently settled on the following compromise:

one long rest per week, but with a "slow" playstyle, where we only have a handful of combat encounter per week (so as many encounter per week as regular tables would have per day)
and logistics speed up by a factor 4, so anything that would take a month in real life takes a week in the universe (and you're supposed to suspend your disbelief about that part)

Within this set up, this new bastion actions would happen every 1.5 month, for a real life equivalent of every semester. And it seems that it could work quite well. Unfortunately, I doubt WotC will include that as GM advise.

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 06:51 AM

So, they're going to improve weapon masteries now that cantrips are shown to be getting buffs all around, right?

Right?

I mean, dang, at this point they should just remove the Rogue and Fighter (the only two classes that can be made non-magical, I mean, Bar Arian Barbarian is mostly magic now days) and replace them with Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight as base classes.

Theodoxus

2023-10-06, 09:11 AM

I kinda liked Bar Arian... was thinking of naming my next Tav that... though now all I see is "Brian" is short for Barbarian... /shrug

Psyren

2023-10-06, 09:19 AM

Mongobear

2023-10-06, 10:18 AM

Wonder if they're firing Crawford when the new books don't sell as much as desired, or if they're firing someone else as a more comvenient scapegoat and keep Crawford around a few more years.

Don't know how anyone could look at any of the subclasses and declare they need no revision. Especially when it's for a class which they do admit needs revision.

Firing Crawford would be nothing but a plus for D&D as a whole. My local group compares him to Kathleen Kennedy as far as how detrimental he is to their respective franchises.

titi

2023-10-06, 10:21 AM

Merlecory

2023-10-06, 10:37 AM

Mongobear

2023-10-06, 11:07 AM

Sticking my head in the lion's mouth here, but are cantrips super limited? There are 46 total in the game, but probably not that many meaningfully available to you. Additionally, would you really care about many of them? If I have fire bolt, how much does create bonfire matter? Poison spray?

Prestidigitation is flavorful, but do I want it, and Druid craft, and thaumaturgy?

To be clear, I recognize that there are several very powerful cantrips. My original point was that cantrips are (were?) the most basic of magic, practiced extensively (I would not volunteer to be the {S}victim{/S} subject here). They are nearly effortless. Do they really need to do much more than a mundane item?

In older editions, you'd be absolutely right. Cantrips were very basic, and effortless. But somewhere between 4e and 5e, theyve turned into high efficiency spammable attacks, sometimes that perform way above leveled spells (hello, Eldritch Blast and Scagtrips).

I remember the 3.X versions of the various attack cantrips, they dealt 1d3 of their relevant damage type AND they were limited use, just like spell slots. The 5e versions are stronger than most leveled spells from back then, at least for the first few levels.

I feel like the Cantrips in 5e need to either be limited and deal good damage, or spammable and deal mediocre damage, instead of being an infinite power source with scaling damage that keeps them comparable to most weapon attacks if not stronger, and the stuff like Agonizing Blast and other Cantrip buffs wouldn't be nearly as OP.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-06, 11:16 AM

Crawford said in an interview (I think the UA7 release video?) that their design intent is for all Barbarians and Monks to be magical/supernatural in some base/thematic way. So the only classes that are capable of being "nonmagical" are Rogues and Fighters.
Somebody ****ing kill me...

Creatures in your menagerie count as bastion defenders.

The armory allows you to make weapons and armor for all your defenders

You can have armored bears defending your bakery

Greatest system (oversight) ever
Lmao!

Honored Guest: And what is over here?
Guildmaster: Ah, this is our famous bakery, where we make our honey cakes that are desired throughout all the lands.
Honored Guest: Have you trouble with thieves?
Guildmaster: No. The bakery is guarded by our highly trained armored bears. *opens door*
Armored Bears: *trashing the bakery, covered in honey and flour, lets out deafening roar at the guildmaster and honored guest*

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 11:30 AM

Crawford said in an interview (I think the UA7 release video?) that their design intent is for all Barbarians and Monks to be magical/supernatural in some base/thematic way. So the only classes that are capable of being "nonmagical" are Rogues and Fighters.

In base 5e, Barbarian has 2 subclasses that are nonmagical and the Monk's fluff is 100% magic/supernatural no matter what pple say so the intent shows through.

Which, I'm ok with, but damn... Either give some love for non-magicals or just admit that you don't want them in your game.

Firing Crawford would be nothing but a plus for D&D as a whole. My local group compares him to Kathleen Kennedy as far as how detrimental he is to their respective franchises.

Kathleen Kennedy helped give us a lot of great stuff tho, like, Jurassic Park may not be a movie without her. Can't help but think she was given the wrong role, Lucasfilm, and I can't blame her too much for taking it. Same with Crawford, WotC knew what he was about and just keeps keeping on.

Merlecory

2023-10-06, 11:40 AM

*Snip*

I feel like the Cantrips in 5e need to either be limited and deal good damage, or spammable and deal mediocre damage, instead of being an infinite power source with scaling damage that keeps them comparable to most weapon attacks if not stronger, and the stuff like Agonizing Blast and other Cantrip buffs wouldn't be nearly as OP.

I'm pretty ok with cantrips being spammable attacks. Being a wizard and using a sling to attack, rather than your magic is lame. I'm more at odds with cantrips being great utility. Light replacing a torch feels fine to me, but guidance seems a little out of line. It's closer to the first level bless, but always available. Who hasn't heard at least one person yell "I cast guidance!" when someone reaches for a d20?

JackPhoenix

2023-10-06, 11:40 AM

Creatures in your menagerie count as bastion defenders.

The armory allows you to make weapons and armor for all your defenders

You can have armored bears defending your bakery

Greatest system (oversight) ever

They'd be generally worse off, as they aren't proficient in armor, anyway. And in the bastion attack mechanic, it doesn't matter if the defender is a commoner or a bear, their stats don't matter.

MoiMagnus

2023-10-06, 12:08 PM

I'm pretty ok with cantrips being spammable attacks. Being a wizard and using a sling to attack, rather than your magic is lame.

More precisely, I would say that if with your "average wizard build", there are some turns where the most effect things to do is to use a weapon, then it's a failure of class design.

It can be due to many factors (at-will magic being too weak, using weapons as a mage being too good, etc) and it can he solved in many ways (strong at-will effects, multiple-turn spellcasting making it so you don't have the time for at-will effects).

I only hate the end result of using a weapon as an "average wizard", but there are many ways to sidestep this issue.

("Average wizard" excludes builds like bladesinger, but I would also prefer if those were not strictly better than regular wizard)

Psyren

2023-10-06, 12:13 PM

In older editions, you'd be absolutely right. Cantrips were very basic, and effortless. But somewhere between 4e and 5e, theyve turned into high efficiency spammable attacks, sometimes that perform way above leveled spells (hello, Eldritch Blast and Scagtrips).

I remember the 3.X versions of the various attack cantrips, they dealt 1d3 of their relevant damage type AND they were limited use, just like spell slots. The 5e versions are stronger than most leveled spells from back then, at least for the first few levels.

Well, yeah - because whipping out the crossbow sucked / wasn't fun. If anything, the precursor to modern cantrips were Reserve Feats.

Firing Crawford would be nothing but a plus for D&D as a whole. My local group compares him to Kathleen Kennedy as far as how detrimental he is to their respective franchises.

All I can say is that I'm grateful said local group carries no weight with personnel decisions in either franchise.

Somebody ****ing kill me...

Here's the exact quote:

"Danger Sense from 2014 is back at 2nd level and we've now made it so it works even if you have the Blinded or Deafened condition. We wanted to make it easier for the Barbarian to use this feature particularly given the fact that many Barbarian features - they're not *magical* per se, but there is an extraordinary quality to them. Barbarian is one of those classes in kind of an interesting gray area between our full-on magical classes, and then our classes like the Fighter and the Rogue that at sort of their base form have no magic; the Barbarian because of their Rage and some of their other capabilities are in this interesting realm in between full-on magic over here and no magic over here. Monk is another example of a class in that in-between space. And so, with that in mind, we decided to relax the restriction on Danger Sense."

Source: UA7 Release Video

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-06, 12:20 PM

Ah, ok. That's fine. I thought it was like a return to 4E where all of their rages are some manifestation of elemental energy or transformation or something.

Psyren

2023-10-06, 12:24 PM

Ah, ok. That's fine. I thought it was like a return to 4E where all of their rages are some manifestation of elemental energy or transformation or something.

Uh, well... it is primal energy though.

UA7 class overview:

"Barbarians are warriors defined by their connection to the primal forces of the multiverse, which manifests as a Rage. Far more than a mere emotion, and not limited to anger or fury, a Barbarian’s Rage is an incarnation of a predator’s ferocity, a storm’s unrelenting assault, and the churning turmoil of the sea."

UA7 Rage description:

"You can imbue yourself with a primal power that is called your Rage, a force that grants you extraordinary might and resilience."

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-06, 12:25 PM

No, that's fine. I mean... those things can be explained away. I'm strong because I'm strong, not because of "primal energy". Transforming into an inferno that burns everything around him is less easy to explain lol.

Merlecory

2023-10-06, 12:27 PM

Psyren

2023-10-06, 12:27 PM

I agree, becoming an inferno should require something additional to the base class itself - like a specific subclass, feat, or magic item.

Damon_Tor

2023-10-06, 12:39 PM

With acid splash being eviction, now evoker wizards have an aoe to sculpt from level 1. They claimed that there weren't many spells that a low level wizard would cast that needed sculpting. Not true now

Would be kind of rad if they could actually, you know, sculpt their spells: allow them to add some squares to the edges of their spells as well as remove them. Maximum number of 5'*5' squares added or subtracted in this way equal to your proficiency bonus or something. That way if enemies aren't clustered quite close enough you could nab one or two extra guys in the blast.

Monster Manuel

2023-10-06, 12:48 PM

Acid Splash Significantly improved. Now a proper AoE (complete with not requiring the silly "a target you can see" clause), and works with Evoker stuff.

Completely agree this is a massive improvement. Speaking of Evoker stuff, though, I'm curious how it interacts with Sculpt Spell; you can exclude 1+ spell level allies, and this has no spell level. So, I guess, you can exclude 1 ally? Which is fine, given the small radius of the effect, that's probably all you'll generally need.

But I do think it's amusing that they moved Sculpt Spell to Level 6, arguing that there were few good synergies with spells before you got to that level, and then turned around and said "here, have an AoE Evocation cantrip at level 1!"
*edit - Merlecory beat me to the punch with this observation. I type too slow*

One concern I have about the Playtest 6 feedback is that Bard was among the classes that rated high enough that it didn't need another round of playtesting. That's fine, but the ability to select which spell list to start with was a big part of their balance and identity, and that's changed entirely since they did away with the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists. I don't think we can say how the Bard is really doing until we see what they look like with a Bard spell list. I mean, it's fair to assume we just go back to the 2014 list, but how will Magical Secrets work? I worry that they consider Bard a done deal, but there have to be substantial changes to the class, as it was written in Playtest 6, and I think plowing ahead without considering those implications may result in a bad outcome.

GooeyChewie

2023-10-06, 12:55 PM

Lmao!

Honored Guest: And what is over here?
Guildmaster: Ah, this is our famous bakery, where we make our honey cakes that are desired throughout all the lands.
Honored Guest: Have you trouble with thieves?
Guildmaster: No. The bakery is guarded by our highly trained armored bears. *opens door*
Armored Bears: *trashing the bakery, covered in honey and flour, lets out deafening roar at the guildmaster and honored guest*

And now I will teach you how to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. When the man armed with a banana approached you, pull this level to release the man-eating tiger. Once the tiger has eaten the man armed with the banana, simply eat the banana, thus disarming him.

All D&D eventually devolves into Month Python, after all.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-06, 01:01 PM

And now I will teach you how to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. When the man armed with a banana approached you, pull this level to release the man-eating tiger. Once the tiger has eaten the man armed with the banana, simply eat the banana, thus disarming him.

All D&D eventually devolves into Month Python, after all.
Lol

This does occur. Every time my party is being (overly) cautious I'm like "Can't I have a little peril?" :smallamused:

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 01:37 PM

Well, yeah - because whipping out the crossbow sucked / wasn't fun. If anything, the precursor to modern cantrips were Reserve Feats.

All I can say is that I'm grateful said local group carries no weight with personnel decisions in either franchise.

Here's the exact quote:

"Danger Sense from 2014 is back at 2nd level and we've now made it so it works even if you have the Blinded or Deafened condition. We wanted to make it easier for the Barbarian to use this feature particularly given the fact that many Barbarian features - they're not *magical* per se, but there is an extraordinary quality to them. Barbarian is one of those classes in kind of an interesting gray area between our full-on magical classes, and then our classes like the Fighter and the Rogue that at sort of their base form have no magic; the Barbarian because of their Rage and some of their other capabilities are in this interesting realm in between full-on magic over here and no magic over here. Monk is another example of a class in that in-between space. And so, with that in mind, we decided to relax the restriction on Danger Sense."

Source: UA7 Release Video

I think the issue here is that WotC even doesn't understand that spellcasting isn't the only thing that makes up magic as magic. Or doesn't want to admit it so that their whole "make everything a spell" seems more legit or whatever.

There's no gray area what so ever.

Barbarians are magical, they just aren't spellcasters.

Spellcasters are magical but not all magical beings and things are spellcasters, Squares and Rectangles.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-06, 02:07 PM

I think the issue here is that WotC even doesn't understand that spellcasting isn't the only thing that makes up magic as magic. Or doesn't want to admit it so that their whole "make everything a spell" seems more legit or whatever.

There's no gray area what so ever.

Barbarians are magical, they just aren't spellcasters.

Spellcasters are magical but not all magical beings and things are spellcasters, Squares and Rectangles.
In a similar vein, I also don't like how some of the bastion facilities require proficiency with holy symbols or druidic focuses or spellcasting components. My character is extremely devout in one of our current games, but can't use a holy symbol. Seems weird that one the one hand we are told "everything in D&D is magical, the whole universe is suffused with this magic, and that's why warriors in D&D are so amazing" but then also "if you want to do magic stuff you need to be a spellcaster".

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-06, 02:08 PM

Unoriginal

2023-10-06, 02:21 PM

The way I'd word it is:

WotC doesn't get or doesn't want to admit that if a guy kills a dragon with a sword, the guy is just as fantastical as the dragon.

titi

2023-10-06, 02:25 PM

I think the issue here is that WotC even doesn't understand that spellcasting isn't the only thing that makes up magic as magic. Or doesn't want to admit it so that their whole "make everything a spell" seems more legit or whatever.

There's no gray area what so ever.

Barbarians are magical, they just aren't spellcasters.

Spellcasters are magical but not all magical beings and things are spellcasters, Squares and Rectangles.

Except Conan, the archetypal barbarian, isn't magical, and yet he would fit almost perfectly with the UA barbarian
The gray area isn't an accident. It's here so that those who want barbarians to be magical can coexist with those who don't

Unoriginal

2023-10-06, 02:32 PM

Except Conan, the archetypal barbarian, isn't magical, and yet he would fit almost perfectly with the UA barbarian

He would not.

Conan does not actually fit the DnD Barbarian.

Mongobear

2023-10-06, 02:34 PM

Except Conan, the archetypal barbarian, isn't magical, and yet he would fit almost perfectly with the UA barbarian
The gray area isn't an accident. It's here so that those who want barbarians to be magical can coexist with those who don't

Conan started out his life as the literal Definition of a Thief, he was just stacked and powerful so he was a good Warrior as well.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-06, 02:37 PM

Conan doesn't fit a D&D Rogue either.

tokek

2023-10-06, 02:44 PM

In a similar vein, I also don't like how some of the bastion facilities require proficiency with holy symbols or druidic focuses or spellcasting components. My character is extremely devout in one of our current games, but can't use a holy symbol. Seems weird that one the one hand we are told "everything in D&D is magical, the whole universe is suffused with this magic, and that's why warriors in D&D are so amazing" but then also "if you want to do magic stuff you need to be a spellcaster".

Its clearly an attempt to make these part of the class fantasy. So you can't just say your wizard is good with a rapier so they get all the warrior good stuff.

Whether its the most elegant or best attempt I'm not sure but that is the clear intent. Personally I would be more strict. Even from my first pass through I think my feeback is that a requisite should be on class level not total level - so if you want a training area you must be lvl 9 in a class with Expertise in a skill, Fighting Style feature, or Unarmored Defense feature. Otherwise I feel like it is just another thing that you can leverage with multiclass dip which does not quite feel right to me.

Unoriginal

2023-10-06, 02:45 PM

"Appeal to the Forebears" simply does not work with DnD.

DnD is its own, no matter the inspirations.

The Barbarian isn't Conan, the Wizard isn't Gandalf and the 4 Elements Monk isn't Aang.

titi

2023-10-06, 02:46 PM

He would not.

Conan does not actually fit the DnD Barbarian.

If I remember correctly, he has at least one moment that could be considered a rage, or even a relentless rage : his first story when he fights off 10 dudes and then a demon.
Plus in the ua barbarian is good at the skills Conan is shown to be good at (perception, suvival, stealth, intimidation, acrobatics).

The thing he doesn't necessarily fit in is the unarmored part and the recless attacks.

Although I might be wrong, it's been quite a while since I've read any Conan story

(also I'm almost certain Conan was a warrior of his clan before he left and became a thief, then a mercenary)

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-06, 02:47 PM

The way I'd word it is:

WotC doesn't get or doesn't want to admit that if a guy kills a dragon with a sword, the guy is just as fantastical as the dragon.

For me, in a fantastical world, trying to parse out and separate "magical" from "non-magical" is a futile waste of time. Everyone has power of one sort of or another. Everyone of any importance (ie all PCs) have abilities that go beyond the real world, because much of the world they inhabit goes beyond the real world. Thus, everyone is fantastical. The Charles Atlas superpower is still a superpower--just because you got there through training and hard work and (theoretically) anyone in the setting can do it does not negate the fact that you are superpowered.

Now some people use more flashy, open, intentional "magic". Some of the time (only a small fraction) that's in the form of spells. Other times it's energy blasts, blurring out through a strike, or having a strong enough aura of "fighting spirit" that spells shatter on contact. Or many other things.

Everyone is magical, there is no room for "I'm just an ordinary Earth Joe." How they're fantastical/magical differs, and there's room for less blatant magic and much much room for "doesn't cast spells."

So what I'm saying is...I agree.

"Appeal to the Forebears" simply does not work with DnD.

DnD is its own, no matter the inspirations.

The Barbarian isn't Conan, the Wizard isn't Gandalf and the 4 Elements Monk isn't Aang.

Amen to this. And this even applies to earlier editions of D&D. Argument by Historical Reference is not persuasive in any way. "Tolkien did it", "Gygax did it", "Conan did it"--these mean nothing unless you're talking about Tolkien's, Gygax's, or Conan's stories specifically!

titi

2023-10-06, 03:01 PM

"Appeal to the Forebears" simply does not work with DnD.

DnD is its own, no matter the inspirations.

The Barbarian isn't Conan, the Wizard isn't Gandalf and the 4 Elements Monk isn't Aang.

I apologize if I wasn't clear.
I didn't mean to say "barbarians should be like Conan"

What I mean is that they specifically left vague wether base barbs are magical or not so that those who want to play out as Conan can

I don't have an opinion on how barbs should be. I just think that saying "there's no gray area" when there's a gray area deliberatly made is wrong

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-06, 03:09 PM

I apologize if I wasn't clear.
I didn't mean to say "barbarians should be like Conan"

What I mean is that they specifically left vague wether base barbs are magical or not so that those who want to play out as Conan can

I don't have an opinion on how barbs should be. I just think that saying "there's no gray area" when there's a gray area deliberatly made is wrong

Except you already can't play as Conan. That's off the table a long time ago. You can't play as any fictional character from outside of 5e D&D, because 5e D&D (and D&D in general) does not even attempt to emulate those characters.

Barbarians have always had "supernatural" in their ability set. Rage is defined as giving supernatural strength in the class description. Barbarians have always been fantastical, it's just WotC's (and this forum's, to be clear) blinkered insistance that magic === spells that muddies the waters. Give up that false assumption and everything is clear. Including for fighters and rogues!

Fighters can make 8 aimed longbow shots in 6 seconds, while running 30 feet and healing wounds that would kill normal folks (second wind + the Champion capstone). That doesn't sound...mundane...to me. And most of the other subclasses are even more obviously "fantastical".

Rogues can literally dodge a fireball at ground zero, in a featureless box, without moving more than 5 ft. And can, in principle, do so an infinite number of times every 6 seconds, day in and day out. In fact, they can do so so successfully that they suffer no chance of significant injury[1]. So it's not even "they get scorched but not dead", it's they don't even get scorched! If that's not fantastical...I'm not sure what is.

[1] A level 20 rogue with capped DEX has a +11 to dex saves. They automatically pass any DC 12 or lower Dex saving throw, taking no damage if Evasion can trigger. Thus, a stream of wizards casting burning hands with a DC 12 or lower dex save DC cannot harm such a rogue while they are conscious. Even if there are a literally unbounded number of them cycling through every single round.

BRC

2023-10-06, 03:12 PM

Conan doesn't fit a D&D Rogue either.

Were I to stat Conan in 5e, he's a Fighter with decent Dex and proficiency in stealth.

You don't need the rogue class to sneak around and steal stuff, and his fighting style is very much "Really buff" + "really good at murdering people".

With the Barbarian, I feel like they're trapped in a corner via a couple good ideas.

First, you've got the idea that a class's mechanics shouldn't define their theming. A Rogue need not inherently be a criminal, the mechanics of the Rogue are "Lots of skills" "Fast" and "Dex-based opportunistic fighter who exploits advantages to deliver devastating, precise strikes". Despite the names of the sub-classes, they don't inherently need to be a Thief, assassin, or Trickster.

And that's good. Burdening classes, especially non-caster classes, with a bunch of features that are bound to a single background just limits characters.

But with the Barbarian, the core class fantasy is "Good with weapons", "Gets mad" and basically the Outlander background. They've decided that "Good with weapons" is the Fighter's thing. Narratively, Barbarians are just the Fighter's angry cousin from "The Wilderness"

A non-magic (Not the same thing as non-fantastical) Barbarian is narratively identical to a fighter that gets angry, so rather than trying to dig into what makes the Barbarian a different take on a Guy Who Is Good With Weapons, they're leaning into Rage as Superpowers.

For me, in a fantastical world, trying to parse out and separate "magical" from "non-magical" is a futile waste of time. Everyone has power of one sort of or another. Everyone of any importance (ie all PCs) have abilities that go beyond the real world, because much of the world they inhabit goes beyond the real world. Thus, everyone is fantastical. The Charles Atlas superpower is still a superpower--just because you got there through training and hard work and (theoretically) anyone in the setting can do it does not negate the fact that you are superpowered.

Now some people use more flashy, open, intentional "magic". Some of the time (only a small fraction) that's in the form of spells. Other times it's energy blasts, blurring out through a strike, or having a strong enough aura of "fighting spirit" that spells shatter on contact. Or many other things.

Everyone is magical, there is no room for "I'm just an ordinary Earth Joe." How they're fantastical/magical differs, and there's room for less blatant magic and much much room for "doesn't cast spells."

So what I'm saying is...I agree.

The thing about the Guy at the Gym is that it's a valid fantasy, to want to play a character whose defined by "Mundane" skill and strength rather than Magic. Considering what D&D draws upon, I feel like I SHOULD be able to play a fighter whose sole source of power is that they are Really Good At Fighting With Swords, without needing to call in them channeling their Fighting Spirit or receiving blessings from the Gods of Battle.

But this is a fantasy game. We should be expanding our image of what it means to be "Really good at fighting", of what a "Mundane" skill is. And I don't think we need to explain it.

Consider, in D&D 5e, a Fighter11/Rouge 2, two "Mundane" classes, can with the addition of no magical items, in roughly six seconds

Run 60 feet into a crowd of people (Bonus action dash), make six attacks a great sword (3 attacks+Action Surge), and then kill the seventh as they turn to run away (Reaction), all while wearing full plate.

Rather than trying to parse out that as a "Mundane" feat, I think we just need to express that as a thing people can do when they get good enough with swords and expand play options appropriately.

titi

2023-10-06, 03:17 PM

Except you already can't play as Conan. That's off the table a long time ago. You can't play as any fictional character from outside of 5e D&D, because 5e D&D (and D&D in general) does not even attempt to emulate those characters.

Barbarians have always had "supernatural" in their ability set. Rage is defined as giving supernatural strength in the class description. Barbarians have always been fantastical, it's just WotC's (and this forum's, to be clear) blinkered insistance that magic === spells that muddies the waters. Give up that false assumption and everything is clear. Including for fighters and rogues!

Fighters can make 8 aimed longbow shots in 6 seconds, while running 30 feet and healing wounds that would kill normal folks (second wind + the Champion capstone). That doesn't sound...mundane...to me. And most of the other subclasses are even more obviously "fantastical".

Rogues can literally dodge a fireball at ground zero, in a featureless box, without moving more than 5 ft. And can, in principle, do so an infinite number of times every 6 seconds, day in and day out. In fact, they can do so so successfully that they suffer no chance of significant injury[1]. So it's not even "they get scorched but not dead", it's they don't even get scorched! If that's not fantastical...I'm not sure what is.

[1] A level 20 rogue with capped DEX has a +11 to dex saves. They automatically pass any DC 12 or lower Dex saving throw, taking no damage if Evasion can trigger. Thus, a stream of wizards casting burning hands with a DC 12 or lower dex save DC cannot harm such a rogue while they are conscious. Even if there are a literally unbounded number of them cycling through every single round.

Fantastical and magical aren't really synonyms, tho. Yes the PC are characters with absurd abilities that you would write stories out of, but it doesn't mean they're magic.

A dumb exemple : superman has insane powers, yet none of them comes from magic

Kane0

2023-10-06, 03:55 PM

So you can't just say your wizard is good with a rapier so they get all the warrior good stuff.

Tangentially related, but they can now choose True Strike and Blade Ward and be a discount gish at half the price!

Mongobear

2023-10-06, 04:04 PM

If I remember correctly, he has at least one moment that could be considered a rage, or even a relentless rage : his first story when he fights off 10 dudes and then a demon.
Plus in the ua barbarian is good at the skills Conan is shown to be good at (perception, suvival, stealth, intimidation, acrobatics).

The thing he doesn't necessarily fit in is the unarmored part and the recless attacks.

Although I might be wrong, it's been quite a while since I've read any Conan story

(also I'm almost certain Conan was a warrior of his clan before he left and became a thief, then a mercenary)

His village was attacked when he was a super young kid, maybe like 10 y/o tops. He knew a lot of stuff like how to fight because his Father was their Clans leader, but he wasnt a properly recognized Warrior (he didn't pass his Manhood trial until at most a few days before they were wiped out.) Then he got sold into slavery, bought to be a gladiator, sent to the East and trained to be a Swordmaster, etc. The only thing that really fits him as a Barbarian would be his origins, being less civilized than normal people in the south.

He is more Fighter than anything, then a dip into Rogue for awhile for Thievery. He very rarely, if ever, get angry like the D&D Rage trope. If anything he is the opposite, almost calm, cool, and collected into a state of hyper-awareness in battle, the main times he ever really shows emotions are when the battle is won, like in the first movie with James Earl Jones, where he freaks out for a second before chopping his head off and tossing it into his worshippers.

Mongobear

2023-10-06, 04:13 PM

*snip*

But this is a fantasy game. We should be expanding our image of what it means to be "Really good at fighting", of what a "Mundane" skill is. And I don't think we need to explain it.

Consider, in D&D 5e, a Fighter11/Rouge 2, two "Mundane" classes, can with the addition of no magical items, in roughly six seconds

Run 60 feet into a crowd of people (Bonus action dash), make six attacks a great sword (3 attacks+Action Surge), and then kill the seventh as they turn to run away (Reaction), all while wearing full plate.

Rather than trying to parse out that as a "Mundane" feat, I think we just need to express that as a thing people can do when they get good enough with swords and expand play options appropriately.

The issue here is people who think "running into a crowd and killing 7 people with 7 attacks in 6 seconds" means literally winding up 7 times and swinging with full effort that many times. It's not.

D&D has for decades now, explained combat as a series of dodges, parries, maneuvers, etc that may or may not strike their target. You example of taking down 7 different guys could literally be a "whirlwind" move where he runs in and just wails a wide arc in front of him, cleaving through all those guys in one powerful swing. Not wind up, swing, kill, reset 7 consecutive times. Too many people try to explain D&D combat like its a turn-based video game, where you run up and perform a combo/series of attacks one at a time, it isn't, and hasnt been like that for ages.

EDIT: whoops, apolgies dor the double post, i figured someone else wouldve replied between those.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-06, 04:27 PM

Fantastical and magical aren't really synonyms, tho. Yes the PC are characters with absurd abilities that you would write stories out of, but it doesn't mean they're magic.

A dumb exemple : superman has insane powers, yet none of them comes from magic

In a fantastical world, it's close enough. Defining it otherwise just leads to argument by definition--you say X is not magical because you define magical so as to exclude X. That's circular.

My definition for everything I do and say is fairly all-encompassing, because all other definitions are simultaneously over and under-inclusive.

That word is used throughout these documents, and deserves a little more reflection. "Magic", as used here, is all those things that separate the fictional world in which the game takes place from the real world in which the players act. Spells? Magic. Dragons? Magic. Heroic mortals breaking "normal" constraints? Magic. It's magic all the way down.

Trying to define magic in in-universe terms is purely circular and has no clean definitions. We know that in D&D, "magic" is in and through everything. That's flat out stated in the PHB and in Sage Advice. "Magic" from the perspective of certain spells and abilities is more restrictive, but that's the (stupid, IMO) definition that says "magic === spells + items". Which is what causes all the problems and uncertainty and debate.

Aimeryan

2023-10-06, 04:42 PM

I'm not saying it's not better for casters using weapons - but should it be? If the wizard's best magic attack is to grab a crossbow something may have gone wrong somewhere. True Strike should be the core gish cantrip.

To be honest, I don't disagree. Any ideas on how to make it specifically good for a gish but not otherwise?

BRC

2023-10-06, 05:19 PM

The issue here is people who think "running into a crowd and killing 7 people with 7 attacks in 6 seconds" means literally winding up 7 times and swinging with full effort that many times. It's not.

D&D has for decades now, explained combat as a series of dodges, parries, maneuvers, etc that may or may not strike their target. You example of taking down 7 different guys could literally be a "whirlwind" move where he runs in and just wails a wide arc in front of him, cleaving through all those guys in one powerful swing. Not wind up, swing, kill, reset 7 consecutive times. Too many people try to explain D&D combat like its a turn-based video game, where you run up and perform a combo/series of attacks one at a time, it isn't, and hasnt been like that for ages.

EDIT: whoops, apolgies dor the double post, i figured someone else wouldve replied between those.

Running 60 feet and then swinging a greatsword in a single whirlwind swing, cleaving through each person Is still an impossibly fantastical feat in my book.

(Also, if we want to pick nits, per 5e rules, he could run that 60 feet, stopping every 10 feet to kill an evenly spaced enemy soldier, thus necessitating narrating it as 6 separate attacks, but that's besides the point.)

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-06, 05:22 PM

Stopping every 10ft to kill someone? Not sure 1d8+Str is going to do that.

Amechra

2023-10-06, 05:23 PM

You example of taking down 7 different guys could literally be a "whirlwind" move where he runs in and just wails a wide arc in front of him, cleaving through all those guys in one powerful swing.

Given that doing that would involve superhuman strength anyway...

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 05:25 PM

The issue here is people who think "running into a crowd and killing 7 people with 7 attacks in 6 seconds" means literally winding up 7 times and swinging with full effort that many times. It's not.

D&D has for decades now, explained combat as a series of dodges, parries, maneuvers, etc that may or may not strike their target. You example of taking down 7 different guys could literally be a "whirlwind" move where he runs in and just wails a wide arc in front of him, cleaving through all those guys in one powerful swing. Not wind up, swing, kill, reset 7 consecutive times. Too many people try to explain D&D combat like its a turn-based video game, where you run up and perform a combo/series of attacks one at a time, it isn't, and hasnt been like that for ages.

EDIT: whoops, apolgies dor the double post, i figured someone else wouldve replied between those.

What's more is that HP isn't just "meat" it's also luck, willpower, etc...

People, especially WotC, really ignore that a lot.

Would love to see fighters get to actually fight by creating scenarios where they aren't just move and hit.

JackPhoenix

2023-10-06, 06:14 PM

Conan doesn't fit a D&D Rogue either.

Of course not. He's a fighter/thief, per Gary Gygax himself:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hf4eg6KfDoM/TAdr5E0swqI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/UTxvvQRAp9A/s1600/ConanStats.gif

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 06:28 PM

The biggest reason you can't turn book or videogame characters into D&D characters is because they would need to be DMNPCs and not PCs.

Kane0

2023-10-06, 06:52 PM

I reckon this reaction version of blade ward is a bit much

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 07:13 PM

I reckon this reaction version of blade ward is a bit much

Feels like it's a really good as a defensive option for a melee Fighter. One per round isn't a lot but Fighter's OA aren't really the best thing ever. Sure, weapon masteries help but the OA may never trigger but it's pretty likely the melee fighter will be attacked by a melee attack.

Psyren

2023-10-06, 07:14 PM

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 07:30 PM

I genuinely don't understand your complaint. They're agreeing with you that D&D Barbarians are magical :smallconfused:

You're probably confused because I'm not complaining.

I'm rejecting the original notion that there's a gray area with regards to the Barbarian.

"Barbarian is one of those classes in kind of an interesting gray area between our full-on magical classes, and then our classes like the Fighter and the Rogue that at sort of their base form have no magic..." UA Video

There is no gray area. Barbarians are 100% magical. WotC has been pushing this idea that magical = spellcaster when that isn't the case at all. There are plenty of magic in, pretty much any fantasy, that isn't spellcasters.

Psyren

2023-10-06, 07:41 PM

You're probably confused because I'm not complaining.

I'm rejecting the original notion that there's a gray area with regards to the Barbarian.

"Barbarian is one of those classes in kind of an interesting gray area between our full-on magical classes, and then our classes like the Fighter and the Rogue that at sort of their base form have no magic..." UA Video

There is no gray area. Barbarians are 100% magical. WotC has been pushing this idea that magical = spellcaster when that isn't the case at all. There are plenty of magic in, pretty much any fantasy, that isn't spellcasters.

His exact words were "full-on magical." Saying Barbarians and Monks are not that (baseline) is accurate in my view.

Snowbluff

2023-10-06, 07:48 PM

I reckon this reaction version of blade ward is a bit much

I think I agree. I'm not sure what to do, honestly. Maybe make it only affect a character 1/rest, and have it work on allies as well?

Really it just seems like an auto-include. I do think there are a lot of reaction abilities in this game. Everyone can pretty easily have all of their reactions covered between fighting styles, feats, spells, or base class features. This being a cantrip, however, make's a much better than a lot of cantrips that may not see play.

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 07:54 PM

His exact words were "full-on magical." Saying Barbarians and Monks are not that (baseline) is accurate in my view.

And, they are full on magical.

There is no gray area, I mean, they put it in the fluff even. In Base 5e there was a whole section called "The Magic of Ki". In the playtest they have "You can imbue yourself with a primal power that is called Rage, a force that grants you extraordinary might...".

There is no gray area, they are magical. They just aren't spellcasters.

Saying otherwise is like saying that Paladins aren't spellcasters because they get martial weapons and heavy armor.

Edit: Unless your argument is that they don't even read their own stuff and are just going off what is in their head at the moment... Then I guess you have a point, but I'm going off what D&D books and playtest packets actually say. There is no gray area and their insistence that there is, is objectively wrong.

Kane0

2023-10-06, 07:57 PM

Feels like it's a really good as a defensive option for a melee Fighter. One per round isn't a lot but Fighter's OA aren't really the best thing ever. Sure, weapon masteries help but the OA may never trigger but it's pretty likely the melee fighter will be attacked by a melee attack.

Not to mention all the other classes that generally dont have much use for their reaction, at least until mid to late levels. In tier 1 especially this is really good because of how limited your shields are, and its available on twice as many classes

Psyren

2023-10-06, 08:05 PM

And, they are full on magical.

No, just magical. And less so than Paladins and Rangers for that matter, at least baseline.

Unless you genuinely think a Berserker or Battlerager is equally as magical as Oath of the Ancients - and if you do, we might have to agree to disagree.

Witty Username

2023-10-06, 08:07 PM

It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people avoided [Friends] in practice purely because of the auto-hostility clause though.

And it was unclear how long the hostility would last (permanently?) and how it applied, "Does the person filled with burning rage at your being gain special knowledge of who you are, or can it be directed to a disguise?

Its clunky and frustrating and poorly designed, I prefer that to be more DMs purview, like charm animal.

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 08:11 PM

Not to mention all the other classes that generally dont have much use for their reaction, at least until mid to late levels. In tier 1 especially this is really good because of how limited your shields are, and its available on twice as many classes

I wonder if they have a reasoning that this cantrip can exist but shields can't just do the same thing as a base option. Like, why is it a fighting style to protect others, but not yourself? I feel like shield proficiency and a cantrip can equate to each other since they are both class features and both require (at least used to) one feat to gain.

No, just magical. And less so than Paladins and Rangers for that matter, at least baseline.

Unless you genuinely think a Berserker or Battlerager is equally as magical as Oath of the Ancients - and if you do, we might have to agree to disagree.

Rage is magical. Full stop. It's using Primal Power is enhance your character. So yeah, even a Berserker is magical now, you can't have a Barbarian without magic no matter what you do.

Your argument is like saying that a Paladin isn't a spellcaster just because they aren't a full caster like a Cleric. They are both spellcasters because they both get access to spellcasting, just one gets it in a more limited capacity.

Psyren

2023-10-06, 08:11 PM

And it was unclear how long the hostility would last (permanently?) and how it applied, "Does the person filled with burning rage at your being gain special knowledge of who you are, or can it be directed to a disguise?

Its clunky and frustrating and poorly designed, I prefer that to be more DMs purview, like charm animal.

100% agreed. It should be based on whether they notice, the context of what you used it for etc.

Furthermore, "hostility" wasn't well defined either. Will an official you use this on call the guards on you? Launch themselves at you in a slavering fury? Try to give you extra fees and citations? Merely make snide comments next time you come in to renew your adventuring license?

I do think they need to do something to keep it from being "I have advantage on every social check vs every humanoid I meet" - and I think the new range limit is a solid starting point. Reduce that to 5ft, and anyone suspicious of you simply has to make sure you're out of kissing range.

Rage is magical. Full stop.

I know. That doesn't make Barbarians equally magical to Paladins or Sorcerers.

Your argument is like saying that a Paladin isn't a spellcaster just because they aren't a full caster like a Cleric. They are both spellcasters because they both get access to spellcasting, just one gets it in a more limited capacity.

So you agree then? Different classes have different levels of magic? Because that IS what I'm saying :smallconfused:

Witty Username

2023-10-06, 08:23 PM

Of course not. He's a fighter/thief, per Gary Gygax himself:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hf4eg6KfDoM/TAdr5E0swqI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/UTxvvQRAp9A/s1600/ConanStats.gif

I think in 5e that would be fighter with criminal backround. I know next to nothing about Conan proper, I am more familiar with Conan the Librarian at this point. Just trying to parse the info.

Also, Str 19 WTF?

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-06, 08:23 PM

Oh warriors got an at-will reaction ability to protect themselves in combat?

Oh, sorry, that's the spellcasters. Of course lol. :smallfurious:

JackPhoenix

2023-10-06, 08:25 PM

Furthermore, "hostility" wasn't well defined either. Will an official you use this on call the guards on you? Launch themselves at you in a slavering fury? Try to give you extra fees and citations? Merely make snide comments next time you come in to renew your adventuring license?

"A hostile creature opposes the adventurers and their goals but doesn't necessarily attack them on sight. For example, a condescending noble might wish to see a group of upstart adventurers fail so as to keep them from becoming rivals for the king's attention, thwarting them with slander and scheming rather than direct threats and violence."

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-06, 08:27 PM

Of course not. He's a fighter/thief, per Gary Gygax himself:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hf4eg6KfDoM/TAdr5E0swqI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/UTxvvQRAp9A/s1600/ConanStats.gif
Martials should have stats like this all the time.

What does the percentile next to Strength indicate?

Also, I like how Conan becomes good over time :smallcool:

Psyren

2023-10-06, 08:28 PM

"A hostile creature opposes the adventurers and their goals but doesn't necessarily attack them on sight. For example, a condescending noble might wish to see a group of upstart adventurers fail so as to keep them from becoming rivals for the king's attention, thwarting them with slander and scheming rather than direct threats and violence."

"Doesn't necessarily" is still a vague consequence. And if you have to adjudicate the results anyway, it might as well not be mandatory.

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 08:31 PM

100% agreed. It should be based on whether they notice, the context of what you used it for etc.

Furthermore, "hostility" wasn't well defined either. Will an official you use this on call the guards on you? Launch themselves at you in a slavering fury? Try to give you extra fees and citations? Merely make snide comments next time you come in to renew your adventuring license?

I do think they need to do something to keep it from being "I have advantage on every social check vs every humanoid I meet" - and I think the new range limit is a solid starting point. Reduce that to 5ft, and anyone suspicious of you simply has to make sure you're out of kissing range.

I know. That doesn't make Barbarians equally magical to Paladins or Sorcerers.

So you agree then? Different classes have different levels of magic? Because that IS what I'm saying :smallconfused:

You know what, I have no time for your... Unique sort of conversation. No thanks.

There is no gray area, Barbarians are magical, pretend otherwise all you want but I'm not falling further into whatever you're trying to do.

Oh warriors got an at-will reaction ability to protect themselves in combat?

Oh, sorry, that's the spellcasters. Of course lol. :smallfurious:

I think WotC should just bite the bullet and kill off the Fighter and Rogue and replace them with the Eldritch Knight (maybe rename to Swordmage?) and Arcane Trickster (or maybe call it a Beguiler?)

Not that I want that, but it seems to be what WotC wants and they should just own it.

JackPhoenix

2023-10-06, 08:33 PM

Martials should have stats like this all the time.

What does the percentile next to Strength indicate?

Also, I like how Conan becomes good over time :smallcool:

Back in the day, martials (and only martials) used to have "exceptional strength" beyond Str 18, expressed by percentage, and with bonuses to attack and damage based on the value. 18/00 is the peak possible human strength, 19 is outright superhuman (Conan was described as being stronger than any man, and Gygax was a bit obsessed with him... he hated the movies because they weren't 100% accurate to the books)

"Doesn't necessarily" is still a vague consequence. And if you have to adjudicate the results anyway, it might as well not be mandatory.

It's a social interaction, of course it requires adjudication. NPCs *are* supposed to have individual personalities and behavior.

Psyren

2023-10-06, 08:37 PM

There is no gray area, Barbarians are magical, pretend otherwise all you want but I'm not falling further into whatever you're trying to do.

So you think every class in the game is equally magical then. Crawford disagrees and so do I.

It's a social interaction, of course it requires adjudication. NPCs *are* supposed to have individual personalities and behavior.

Agreed - but my point is, that definition doesn't take any of the possibilities I listed off the table, and it's a wide range. So forcing that adjudication shouldn't be baked into the spell, especially not as a Grod-attempt at limiting it.

JackPhoenix

2023-10-06, 08:40 PM

Agreed - but my point is, that definition doesn't take any of the possibilities I listed off the table, and it's a wide range. So forcing that adjudication shouldn't be baked into the spell, especially not as a Grod-attempt at limiting it.

Then they should just remove the spell from the game, because, again, social interactions require the adjudication anyway. Hostile or friendly, NPCs aren't mindless robots (unless they are) and thus their behavior should vary.

Witty Username

2023-10-06, 08:52 PM

Back in the day, martials (and only martials) used to have "exceptional strength" beyond Str 18, expressed by percentage, and with bonuses to attack and damage based on the value. 18/00 is the peak possible human strength, 19 is outright superhuman (Conan was described as being stronger than any man, and Gygax was a bit obsessed with him... he hated the movies because they weren't 100% accurate to the books)

For the Baldur's gate numbers, since I am more familiar with those than AD&D proper and just to get a grip of the difference a strength 18 character had a +1 to their attack bonus with melee weapons, a strength 18/00 had a +3 (flipping the numbers to translate THAC0 to human-speak). so being a fighter could more than double your effective strength at 18. It was some unnecessary complexity but it made fighter classes pretty desirable if you had high physical scores. Note that 18/00 was also described in 1E as being stronger than the world strongest body builder recorded (at time of the AD&D PHB) and that would make Conan, even further beyond.

Psyren

2023-10-06, 08:55 PM

Then they should just remove the spell from the game, because, again, social interactions require the adjudication anyway.

Orrrrr.... they could just remove that specific clause. You know, like they did :smalltongue:

Kane0

2023-10-06, 09:01 PM

I wonder if they have a reasoning that this cantrip can exist but shields can't just do the same thing as a base option. Like, why is it a fighting style to protect others, but not yourself? I feel like shield proficiency and a cantrip can equate to each other since they are both class features and both require (at least used to) one feat to gain.

Or a shield 'weapon mastery' even.

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 09:02 PM

Or a shield 'weapon mastery' even.

"Why would we give a spell a weapon mastery???" - WotC (probably)

JackPhoenix

2023-10-06, 09:03 PM

Orrrrr.... they could just remove that specific clause. You know, like they did :smalltongue:

And it doesn't matter, because they added "a sense of friendship" instead, so it still requires adjudication. Worse, with the decreased range, the victim now knows you've cast a spell at it. So, in a typical WotC fashion, one step forward, two steps back.

Or a shield 'weapon mastery' even.

There are games that treat shields as weapons, and it generally works better than 5e's "armor, but not really".

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 09:07 PM

There are games that treat shields as weapons, and it generally works better than 5e's "armor, but not really".

Hey, to be fair, they're also "weapons but not really" or whatever they're calling improvised weapons.

Psyren

2023-10-06, 09:16 PM

And it doesn't matter, because they added "a sense of friendship" instead, so it still requires adjudication.

That's descriptive text. "Hostile," as you yourself cited, is not.

Snowbluff

2023-10-06, 09:21 PM

Unoriginal

2023-10-06, 09:43 PM

Why? Both fighter and rogue have at will reaction defensive features.

They have?

His village was attacked when he was a super young kid, maybe like 10 y/o tops. He knew a lot of stuff like how to fight because his Father was their Clans leader, but he wasnt a properly recognized Warrior (he didn't pass his Manhood trial until at most a few days before they were wiped out.) Then he got sold into slavery, bought to be a gladiator, sent to the East and trained to be a Swordmaster, etc. The only thing that really fits him as a Barbarian would be his origins, being less civilized than normal people in the south.

He is more Fighter than anything, then a dip into Rogue for awhile for Thievery. He very rarely, if ever, get angry like the D&D Rage trope. If anything he is the opposite, almost calm, cool, and collected into a state of hyper-awareness in battle, the main times he ever really shows emotions are when the battle is won, like in the first movie with James Earl Jones, where he freaks out for a second before chopping his head off and tossing it into his worshippers.

This is Movie!Conan, a very different character from Howard's Conan.

Howard's Conan stayed in Cimmeria until his teenage years, and the harsh living conditions and day-to-day living made him stronger and tougher than most men (alongside with making him an extraordinary climber). It is unclear if he was learned any fighting there, as while later he boasted about killing beasts bare-handed during this period of his life to an opponent while they're mutually strangling each other and Conan was acting as if it was no big deal, he admitted after his victory that he was bluffing.

What is clear, however, is that the teenaged Conan left Cimmeria forever (due to plainly hating the place) and went to the neighboring Aesir, where he joined the war against the Vanir. There he became a formidable warrior, and during a near-death experience he slayed two sons of Ymir, the Frost Giant.

After this, Conan went south, where he began an intense but dubiously successful career as a rogue and bravo. His accomplishments during this period include deciding to free a mostly benevolent extraterrestrial entity while trying to rob a wizard's tower, killing an offspring of the serpent-god Seth during a museum robbery gone wrong, and being one of the only two people to escape the many weird traps of a crooked but ingenious priest's mansion, which was widely known as a death sentence. Conan learns to use a bow around that time.

One last escape from the lawmen put Conan on the road of his legend, when he boards a ship who will later be targeted by the pirate leader Bêlit. After a fierce battle, Conan and Bêlit become lovers and Conan begins his pirating days. Which last long enough for him to become an expert sailor and leader, and one of the most successful pirates of the age. It is only when Bêlit is killed while trying to claim the riches of a temple deep in the southern jungles that Conan abandons this life.

The years after that tend to follow a pattern of Conan finding a tribe, mercenary company, outlaw group or even city guards, becoming the leader, only to have to leave it behind (or being made to leave) in unfavorable circumstances. Many of Conan's encounters with demons, monsters, lost cities and spellcasters are during this period. Regardless, Conan slowly make his way back north.

Now older, stronger and more skilled, Conan eventually becomes king of Aquilona after slaying its tyrant. This period of his life includes fending off assassinations, having to fight one last demon with a magic-imbued sword, leading knights to help allied realms and to defend against territorial aggression, and having to beat two separate alliances of treacherous nobles backed by two separate powerful sorcerers (the second one being much more dangerous as the sorcerer was an ancient dead one reanimated by an artifact and the alliance of nobles being composed of people both in and out of Aquilona).

Howard's Conan is a man of powerful emotions, "with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth" being part of his iconic description. There are several times where his anger flares while he fights, but it's arguable how helpful it is to him in combat (there is at least one instance where he's so angry that he tries to stab one of his enemies through the curtain he was hiding behind, and it ends in utter failure).

He is described as never being a defensive fighter, even when surrounded, and being as quick, agile and powerful as a panther. Conan is also endurant enough that he managed to cling to life even while being crucified and left to die in a desert, surviving with minimal healing once someone cut the cross down while he was still on it. However, he always wear as complete an armor as practical/available, which notably saves his life several times. As king of Aquilona leading mounted knights in battle, his armor was covering enough for people to mistake another man wearing it for him. Conan used any weapon he could get his hands on, from an ox's bone, a stool or other improvised blunt instruments to a two-headed ax, with a variety of daggers, swords and the like in-between, not to mention his powerful hands if he didn't have or didn't need anything else at the time.

All in all I think Movie!Conan and Howard!Conan would be friends if they met, but Howard!Conan would consider Movie!Conan an joyless buzzkill who needs to let loose and find some direction or ambition in his life while Movie!Conan would consider Howard!Conan as an impressive but exhausting man to be around.

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 10:17 PM

Why? Both fighter and rogue have at will reaction defensive features.

And there's so much more they can do.

But it goes well, well, beyond reaction abilities.

WotC has been itching to phase out martials (non-magical classes, not martial weapon) which is certainly a choice and I just think they should own it and not half rear-end it. Never half rear-end it, always give the full rear-end when you do something.

I prefer a more 4e approach but hey, rip the band-aid off if you're gonna do something.

Kane0

2023-10-06, 10:19 PM

They have?

Protection/Interception style and Uncanny dodge respectively

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-06, 10:28 PM

Protection/Interception style and Uncanny dodge respectively

It's really hurts that's pretty much it (Rogue has some more and the fighter gets EK so spells ..) and there's like 5 level 1 spells that are a reaction, some of which even scale with level.

A Fighter that is a master of martial reactions could be cool

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-06, 10:36 PM

Yeah, you can't protect yourself with Protection/Interception.

titi

2023-10-07, 12:33 AM

Could an echo knight protect his echo with protection/interception?

Pex

2023-10-07, 01:11 AM

Oof. Yeah. I haven't (and probably won't) actually read the UA for much the same reason as you.

But that bold? Yeah, that sounds like WotC. Personally, all this stuff is way too campaign and setting dependent to mechanize/standardize well. Heck, even in my own setting, I can think of a dozen places where starting a pub would be trivial (given some gold, and not even all that much) and others where it'd be a bureaucratic nightmare. And some where people who aren't local nobles aren't allowed to own land or operate businesses! And anything involving actual construction of fortifications is going to basically always be a custom job that's best handled via negotiating with the DM.

I've had a party who acquired a (ruined due to enemy action) shrine in the country. They wanted to fix it up as a home base and home for some of the PCs' dependents, accumulated allies, etc. I had to do some work to get a schedule of costs, which is one place that a table in the DMG could help--a basic "ok, building walls generally costs X per <distance unit>, Y if they're heavy fortifications. Towers take Z time and A cost per sq ft." And then some modifiers like "in a high-magic area, cut the time cost by X and increase the money cost by Y if they hire magic-using builders". Or something like that.

But level limits and trying to regularize it? D&D is firmly at this point a squad-level game. Trying to shoehorn in other things like that as general rules is always going to be squiffy.

For DMs who don't want to, can't, or don't know how to spend the time to come up with such rules, having them in the DMG is the perfect place and quite appropriate to have. If the DM cares enough to bother he can fiddle around with it to suit his campaign just right, but for many DMs having these rules saves them time and energy not having to do it themselves if the players decide they want to set up their own place - a keep, a business, a temple, a tower, a guild, or whatever. Some players like to do that. If you do not need these rules hooray for you, but that's no reason to deprive other DMs who would welcome the assist.

Edit: It's a separate issue for someone not liking the current implementation of the bastion rules, but they are to exist at all in some fashion in 5.5E DMG is a good thing.

ZRN

2023-10-07, 01:36 AM

And, they are full on magical.

There is no gray area, I mean, they put it in the fluff even. In Base 5e there was a whole section called "The Magic of Ki". In the playtest they have "You can imbue yourself with a primal power that is called Rage, a force that grants you extraordinary might...".

There is no gray area, they are magical. They just aren't spellcasters.

Saying otherwise is like saying that Paladins aren't spellcasters because they get martial weapons and heavy armor.

This is indeed the default "fluff." The tricky thing is that the fluff in 5e is intentionally pretty malleable. With zero changes to the mechanics of the game you could say that a berserker's abilities are completely nonmagical, and I think it's a fair guess that a lot of tables do this. You couldn't do that with a spellcaster like a paladin, and it'd be challenging to do so with, say, a monk who can walk on water.

Pex

2023-10-07, 01:41 AM

Except...many, if not most martials don't fit that mold. And haven't since 3e. Argument from tradition, to me, is one of the weakest forms of argument. Each edition must stand or fall on its own.

And saying that somehow you can magically (except entirely mundanely) replace hundreds or more soldiers every week? Yeah, that doesn't jibe with me. 100 soldiers indicates a standing population somewhere in the 10k+ range. And that's a large city[1] whose entire guard force you're pulling. Every week. Because cities don't have more than ~1% of their population under arms. Anything more are badly-trained, badly-equipped levies that you might be able to pull together in a month, as long as it's not one of the busy agricultural seasons. And you can plop this keep anywhere--in fact, the only places you're likely to get permission to do so are on the frontiers (since all the more settled places already have lords!). Which aren't exactly known for having high populations. Because if they did...they wouldn't need adventurers!

This sort of thing is so bound up in world-verisimilitude for me that shoving into "mechanics" makes things really ugly and me not willing to use them at all.

[1] D&D cities are small by actual medieval standpoints.

I'm totally fine with people gathering armies. I'm not fine with making it a "button you push" mechanically. Because how you do it needs to fit
1) the story so far--not all level 17+ characters are that kind of hero with a glowing reputation. Some don't want that kind of attention. Others have made more enemies than others.
2) Some places don't have that many people available on short notice. Especially armed and trained.
3) Most places already have leaders. Those leaders may rally to your call, but that's separate than what's going on here.

I'm fine with martials getting cool things. Shoehorning in a system that basically acts as an entirely separate minigame that few, if any, are willing to use means that you're not really giving them cool things. D&D is a squad-level game and has been for decades now. Give them individual-scale cool things. Not some hacky bolted on verisimilitude-shattering blob.

The warriors that aren't into this don't have to do this. This is not a class feature. This is not something they must do. They don't need to have any bastion at all if they want to be the wandering stranger, save the town, then leave with children pleading for them to come back. For those warrior players who want to do this, here are rules the DM can use instead of make it up but not having a clue how to do it. You have a point that maybe it shouldn't only be warriors. Having soldiers rules could be used for the necromancer having an undead army. The cleric can have religious fanatics. The monk has his students. You'll get people complaining warriors don't have something exclusive anymore, but someone will always complain when anything happens. If the warrior wants a bastion but not an army, he can do that too. He can have his garden or private smithy or run a bar or whatever he wants.

Sticking my head in the lion's mouth here, but are cantrips super limited? There are 46 total in the game, but probably not that many meaningfully available to you. Additionally, would you really care about many of them? If I have fire bolt, how much does create bonfire matter? Poison spray?

Prestidigitation is flavorful, but do I want it, and Druid craft, and thaumaturgy?

To be clear, I recognize that there are several very powerful cantrips. My original point was that cantrips are (were?) the most basic of magic, practiced extensively (I would not volunteer to be the {S}victim{/S} subject here). They are nearly effortless. Do they really need to do much more than a mundane item?

Fire Bolt for the damage. Create Bonfire when you want the bad guy to move from that specific spot or it's a choke point and lots of bad guys have to move through it.

In older editions, you'd be absolutely right. Cantrips were very basic, and effortless. But somewhere between 4e and 5e, theyve turned into high efficiency spammable attacks, sometimes that perform way above leveled spells (hello, Eldritch Blast and Scagtrips).

I remember the 3.X versions of the various attack cantrips, they dealt 1d3 of their relevant damage type AND they were limited use, just like spell slots. The 5e versions are stronger than most leveled spells from back then, at least for the first few levels.

I feel like the Cantrips in 5e need to either be limited and deal good damage, or spammable and deal mediocre damage, instead of being an infinite power source with scaling damage that keeps them comparable to most weapon attacks if not stronger, and the stuff like Agonizing Blast and other Cantrip buffs wouldn't be nearly as OP.

5E Cantrips works just fine because they lowered the total number of spell slots spellcasters have. Players need to conserve their slots to last the game day. Cantrips help them do that. They need to remain relevant comparable to the level of the party and still feel like you're playing a spellcaster. Casting a spell is more aesthetically please than using a bow for the players who want to feel like they are playing a spellcaster. Those who still want to use weapons are welcome to do so. If Fire Bolt is better than Chromatic Orb, the problem is Chromatic Orb not Fire Bolt.

animewatcha

2023-10-07, 02:46 AM

ARMORY
Level 5 Bastion Facility
Prerequisite: None
Space: Roomy
Hirelings: 1
Order: Trade (1d4 BP)
An Armory contains mannequins for displaying
armor, hooks on the walls for holding shields,
racks for storing weapons, and wooden chests
for holding ammunition. It is often connected to
(or situated near) a Barracks.
When you issue the Trade order to this
facility, you commission the facility’s hireling to
stock the Armory with armor, shields, weapons,
and ammunition. This equipment costs you 100
GP plus an extra 100 GP for each Bastion
Defender in your Bastion. If your Bastion has a
Smithy, the total cost is halved.
While your Armory is stocked, your Bastion
Defenders are harder to kill. When any event
causes you to roll dice to determine if your
Bastion loses one or more of its defenders (see
“Bastion Events” at the end of this document),
roll a d8 in place of each d6 you would normally
roll. When the event is over, the equipment in
your Armory is expended regardless of how
many Bastion Defenders you have or how many
you lost, leaving your Armory depleted until
you issue another Trade order to the facility
and pay the cost to restock it.

So I, a level 1 spellcaster-ey person use a cat/flyer familiar to initiate an event called 'attack the facility'. Cat/flyer proceeds to say attack said facility which automatically ruins materials, activities, etc. because WOTC didn't cover this scenario in their almighty bastion ruleset. So the 'BASTION DEFENDERS' spend 200+ gold for armor, shield, weapons, and ammunition to defend against this simple cat/flyer when a simple slingshot would do the job all the same. I a simple level 1 spellcaster-ey person either recall or just summon another cat/flyer familiar for just 10 gp. Meanwhile the facility is ruined as has to spend hundreds of GP to replace their things while the equipment from the armor is expended 'NO MATTER WHAT' and must spend another 200+ gold for more armor, shield, weapons, and ammunition.

By Golley, Let's Start Bankrupting dem Bastions.

titi

2023-10-07, 04:02 AM

Bosh

2023-10-07, 04:52 AM

I think WotC should just bite the bullet and kill off the Fighter and Rogue and replace them with the Eldritch Knight (maybe rename to Swordmage?) and Arcane Trickster (or maybe call it a Beguiler?)

Not that I want that, but it seems to be what WotC wants and they should just own it.

As a cranky old gamer who wants to yell at kids to get off his lawn (started in 1990 with Rules Cyclopedia) this is how this debate looks to me:

3.* Era WotC: I've got a great idea! Let's remove a lot of the limits on casters! We can water down Vancian casting to make them more flexible, reduce the gap in HPs between casters and fighters, make it harder to interrupt spells, and also make it so that instead of having higher level fighters be freaking awesome at saving throws to the extent that they could shrug off a lot of magic, we'll make it so that their saves have a hard time keeping up with saving throws. Since having a ****-ton of spells obviously isn't enough let's rain down a whole bunch of class abilities on casters for good measure.

3.* Era WotC: whaaaaaat? Casters are overpowered now? Who could have possibly foreseen this. I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED.

4e Era WotC: since putting back in the restrictions on casters from TSR-D&D is obviously completely out of the question, the only way that martials can be balanced is by rewriting the basic way that their classes work from the ground up.

5e Era WotC: OK, OK, people didn't like us rewriting the basic way that classes worked from the ground up, let's backtrack. If we slap on Concentration rules things should work out. It shouldn't be a big deal that 2/3 of saves will inevitably fall badly behind DCs, wizards get the same HPs as rogues, the only way to interrupt a spell is with a spell, and we're getting rid of Vancian casting making all casters a lot more flexible, after all martials can swing their sword all day long and casters can't cast their spells all day long. That should balance things!

5e Era WotC: Casters should be able to cast spells all day long. It's not as if wizards can wear armor.

5e Era WotC: Wizards should be able to wear armor, but if they do it requires feats, a dip, or taking a race that doesn't give an Int boost.

5e Era WotC: Cancel that, Wizards should be able to get both armor proficiencies and an Int boost from their race selection.

5e Era WotC: whaaaaaat? Casters are overpowered now? Who could have possibly foreseen this. I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED. Hey, it's not as bad as 3.*ed, suck it up.

6e UA WotC: you know what would improve class balance? Handing out big boosts to cantrips including one that lets casters hand out disadvantage on people trying to eat them whenever they freaking want. Oh and weapon attacks with casting stats! MADness and niche protection are for peasants! We'll throw martials a few bones and things should be fine.

Theoretical Future WotC: since putting back in the restrictions on casters from TSR-D&D is obviously completely out of the question, the only way that fighters and rogues can be balanced is by rewriting the basic way that their classes work from the ground up.

Me: *headdesk*

Although I'd like to see some targeted boosts handed out to the martial classes (specifically out of combat boosts for martials generally, making them better at making saves, and changing the skill system to better nail down specifically what skill monkey classes like rogues can do with things like the changes to the hiding rules in the UAs being a step in the right direction) the main issue isn't with martials, it's with casters. The main problems can be solved by breaking out the nerf bat and giving casters a good hard bashing. Just put back in the restrictions on casters that kept them in check in TSR-D&D and if people don't like Vancian casting and making spells easy to interrupt then put in different restrictions like the old 5e playtest limited number of spell slots and the like.

The problem isn't with martials, it's with casters. Martials shouldn't have to be massively changed from what they traditionally have done in D&D because casters are too strong.

stoutstien

2023-10-07, 04:54 AM

Could an echo knight protect his echo with protection/interception?

You can but I don't see why you would as it limits both by positioning and the fact the echo only has 1hp.

Unoriginal

2023-10-07, 05:18 AM

The problem isn't with martials, it's with casters. Martials shouldn't have to be massively changed from what they traditionally have done in D&D because casters are too strong.

I think that premise doesn't work. Martials don't need to be "massively changed", they just need to be allowed to do more stuff that is part of their class's or the general adventurer's fantasy.

Casters could be handled just by adding the proper limitations to a few out-of-bound spells and a few adjustments to casting , but that doesn't change that Martials having more stuff would be good.

Problem is that WotC is as bad as giving as it is at taking away.

Even in the 3.X era most of the published spells were means as trap options to make the really good options shine.

Bosh

2023-10-07, 07:24 AM

I think that premise doesn't work. Martials don't need to be "massively changed", they just need to be allowed to do more stuff that is part of their class's or the general adventurer's fantasy.

Casters could be handled just by adding the proper limitations to a few out-of-bound spells and a few adjustments to casting , but that doesn't change that Martials having more stuff would be good.

Problem is that WotC is as bad as giving as it is at taking away.

Even in the 3.X era most of the published spells were means as trap options to make the really good options shine.

Well there's a range here. I want most of the changes to be smacking casters with the nerf bat, the person I was responding to (Mindflayer_Inc) wants fighters and rogues to be replaced completely with martial classes and you're somewhere in the middle.

It just seems to me that most of these conversations get framed more as "how can we change martials?" than "how can we nerf casters" when nerfing casters is easier to do, especially when a lot of those nerfs are just sitting right there (old TSR-D&D limitations on casters that WotC has removed).

Merlecory

2023-10-07, 07:54 AM

Fire Bolt for the damage. Create Bonfire when you want the bad guy to move from that specific spot or it's a choke point and lots of bad guys have to move through it.

My point was not that you could construe a situation in which those 2 cantrips had different effects, my point was that having one greatly reduced your interest in the second. Having both would reduce your interest in poison spray further still.

Snowbluff

2023-10-07, 07:56 AM

3.* Era WotC: whaaaaaat? Casters are overpowered now? Who could have possibly foreseen this. I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED.

5e Era WotC: Cancel that, Wizards should be able to get both armor proficiencies and an Int boost from their race selection.

5e Era WotC: whaaaaaat? Casters are overpowered now? Who could have possibly foreseen this. I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED. Hey, it's not as bad as 3.*ed, suck it up.

I don't think these points are entirely cogent. Wizards having armor prof in 5e isn't really a comparison because 3.5 wizards had a lot of spells like Luminous Armor and ways of removing the limitations on what armor they could wear like Mithril. The benefits 5e casters have over 3.5 ones are utterly paltry compared to just simply how much better 3.5 spells are and the lack of regular concentration requirements. Phantasmal Killer would kill monsters in 3.5. Polymorph is a much better spell. Haste isn't limited to a single creature. And this is just skimming through the PHB spells.

I'm not really convinced casters are generally overpowered to begin with (usually I see the occasional problem spell or complaints from people not following the rules), especially if the reasoning involves cantrips being good so people aren't twiddling their thumbs while they sit on their 1 allowed concentration.

5E Cantrips works just fine because they lowered the total number of spell slots spellcasters have. Players need to conserve their slots to last the game day. Cantrips help them do that. They need to remain relevant comparable to the level of the party and still feel like you're playing a spellcaster. Casting a spell is more aesthetically please than using a bow for the players who want to feel like they are playing a spellcaster. Those who still want to use weapons are welcome to do so. If Fire Bolt is better than Chromatic Orb, the problem is Chromatic Orb not Fire Bolt.

Very much this. Cantrips are fun! I like the little side effects. Attacking an enemy with a frost bolt can change how one has to move on their turn Shcoking grasp can get around opportunity attacks or other reactions. Chill Touch can end a creature's regeneration.

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-07, 07:57 AM

As a cranky old gamer who wants to yell at kids to get off his lawn (started in 1990 with Rules Cyclopedia) this is how this debate looks to me:

3.* Era WotC: I've got a great idea! Let's remove a lot of the limits on casters! We can water down Vancian casting to make them more flexible, reduce the gap in HPs between casters and fighters, make it harder to interrupt spells, and also make it so that instead of having higher level fighters be freaking awesome at saving throws to the extent that they could shrug off a lot of magic, we'll make it so that their saves have a hard time keeping up with saving throws. Since having a ****-ton of spells obviously isn't enough let's rain down a whole bunch of class abilities on casters for good measure.

3.* Era WotC: whaaaaaat? Casters are overpowered now? Who could have possibly foreseen this. I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED.

4e Era WotC: since putting back in the restrictions on casters from TSR-D&D is obviously completely out of the question, the only way that martials can be balanced is by rewriting the basic way that their classes work from the ground up.

5e Era WotC: OK, OK, people didn't like us rewriting the basic way that classes worked from the ground up, let's backtrack. If we slap on Concentration rules things should work out. It shouldn't be a big deal that 2/3 of saves will inevitably fall badly behind DCs, wizards get the same HPs as rogues, the only way to interrupt a spell is with a spell, and we're getting rid of Vancian casting making all casters a lot more flexible, after all martials can swing their sword all day long and casters can't cast their spells all day long. That should balance things!

5e Era WotC: Casters should be able to cast spells all day long. It's not as if wizards can wear armor.

5e Era WotC: Wizards should be able to wear armor, but if they do it requires feats, a dip, or taking a race that doesn't give an Int boost.

5e Era WotC: Cancel that, Wizards should be able to get both armor proficiencies and an Int boost from their race selection.

5e Era WotC: whaaaaaat? Casters are overpowered now? Who could have possibly foreseen this. I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED. Hey, it's not as bad as 3.*ed, suck it up.

6e UA WotC: you know what would improve class balance? Handing out big boosts to cantrips including one that lets casters hand out disadvantage on people trying to eat them whenever they freaking want. Oh and weapon attacks with casting stats! MADness and niche protection are for peasants! We'll throw martials a few bones and things should be fine.

Theoretical Future WotC: since putting back in the restrictions on casters from TSR-D&D is obviously completely out of the question, the only way that fighters and rogues can be balanced is by rewriting the basic way that their classes work from the ground up.

Me: *headdesk*

Although I'd like to see some targeted boosts handed out to the martial classes (specifically out of combat boosts for martials generally, making them better at making saves, and changing the skill system to better nail down specifically what skill monkey classes like rogues can do with things like the changes to the hiding rules in the UAs being a step in the right direction) the main issue isn't with martials, it's with casters. The main problems can be solved by breaking out the nerf bat and giving casters a good hard bashing. Just put back in the restrictions on casters that kept them in check in TSR-D&D and if people don't like Vancian casting and making spells easy to interrupt then put in different restrictions like the old 5e playtest limited number of spell slots and the like.

The problem isn't with martials, it's with casters. Martials shouldn't have to be massively changed from what they traditionally have done in D&D because casters are too strong.

First, just want to say I've been playing since 2e in the 90's, was on the young side but I remember playing Wizards and being scared for my character's life like no other game since (for good and bad)

I think 4e had the right idea but executed the look of the game wrong, most of 4e is just 3e alternate rules and Unearthed Arcana stuff after all.

That right idea is "make everyone awesome". You don't have to balance the fighter and the wizard if they are both doin their awesome things. 4e Fighters weren't as balanced with Wizards as people like to think, wizards were still busted most of the time, but fighters got to stand up to the game and have their own little "shut up and sit down cause I said so" moments.

That's what is missing in 5e (bc the Fighter and Rogue are based off the Slayer and Thief from 4e Essentials, but the 5e versions are even worse most of the time) which were classes meant to make Fighter/Rogue "simple".

Do I want a game where non-magicals characters can do awesome things? Where a character using mundane tools and items can use their brain and be a threat to combat, exploration, and social encounters? Yes.

Is that the game WotC wants to make? No. WotC just doesn't want to make that sort of game. So, I'm done fighting them on it.

I think the best thing for D&D as a whole would be for WotC to make the game they want to make (or get new devs and start over with reboot but 6e or whatever it's called won't be that, sooo too late for that).

The problem is with everything. Every class should be fun to play. Restrict casters too much and they aren't very fun. Martials are restricted and they aren't as fun. Problem is WorC just doesn't want to make a game where martials are let loose, so for D&D, martials are the problem when our take the design ideologies to mind.

Snowbluff

2023-10-07, 08:29 AM

That right idea is "make everyone awesome". You don't have to balance the fighter and the wizard if they are both doin their awesome things. 4e Fighters weren't as balanced with Wizards as people like to think, wizards were still busted most of the time, but fighters got to stand up to the game and have their own little "shut up and sit down cause I said so" moments.
4e definitely did just give up (tm), however. Martial and Arcane were labels more than anything. Everyone functioned in fundamentally the same way, which heavily constrained game development. If you weren't always down for AEDU, you will bounce off.

Fighter and Wizard had the same role. Defenders and Controllers are just characters who are designed with altering enemy behavior in mind, with one often being weapon based and the other being implement based. However, fighters also could just do damage if needed, and were often without obvious weaknesses in their defending kit compared to some of their counterparts. A wizard could be pretty easily walled by a solo, just not having the right control effects that would be meaningful, and they have a spellbook so imagine how much worse off other controllers can be in a bad situation. So balance wasn't really always there.

The problem is with everything. Every class should be fun to play. Restrict casters too much and they aren't very fun. Martials are restricted and they aren't as fun. Problem is WorC just doesn't want to make a game where martials are let loose, so for D&D, martials are the problem when our take the design ideologies to mind.
There definitely is a floor to effectiveness. I pointed out a 4e example earlier, but also there is PF2, which a lot of people think that casters are a wonderful combination of hard to play, designed to be ineffective, hardly benefit at all from the new system mechanics, and also there doesn't seem to be an adventuring day so it seems to be balanced around a 5MWD.

Sparky McDibben

2023-10-07, 08:41 AM

5WMD

Weapons of mass destruction are not a balancing mechanic.

Blatant Beast

2023-10-07, 08:44 AM

Even in the 3.X era most of the published spells were means as trap options to make the really good options shine.

I do not know how much of 3e design made this an intentional choice after Monte Cook left. I think sometimes they just designed some stinkers.

There certainly was enough chaff in the spells of late 3x products that Admiral Ackbar's voice probably went hoarse.

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-07, 09:08 AM

4e definitely did just give up (tm), however. Martial and Arcane were labels more than anything. Everyone functioned in fundamentally the same way, which heavily constrained game development. If you weren't always down for AEDU, you will bounce off.

Fighter and Wizard had the same role. Defenders and Controllers are just characters who are designed with altering enemy behavior in mind, with one often being weapon based and the other being implement based. However, fighters also could just do damage if needed, and were often without obvious weaknesses in their defending kit compared to some of their counterparts. A wizard could be pretty easily walled by a solo, just not having the right control effects that would be meaningful, and they have a spellbook so imagine how much worse off other controllers can be in a bad situation. So balance wasn't really always there.

There definitely is a floor to effectiveness. I pointed out a 4e example earlier, but also there is PF2, which a lot of people think that casters are a wonderful combination of hard to play, designed to be ineffective, hardly benefit at all from the new system mechanics, and also there doesn't seem to be an adventuring day so it seems to be balanced around a 5WMD.

If you think everyone functioned the same, you didn't play enough 4e. The classes had class features and roles that made them work and play vastly different. This meme has been going on since 2008 and it's been wrong since day one. It's like saying the 5e Paladin and 5e Wizard plays the same because they both have spellslots, they just don't even though they have similar core mechanics. You could even say that the Warblade from 3e is the same as the 3e Wizard, they both have resource management that they can expend to do fantastical stuff. Plays totally the same, right?

Defenders and Controllers could have been one role, but controllers tend to be able to control the field whereas controls/defends a specific point. One of the biggest things people wanted in 4e was Martial Controllers for a reason, because Defenders just weren't Controllers (there was hope for the Monk to at least be a martial arts controller, but they made it a striker).

But regardless, the idea is sound. Make everyone awesome. You don't have to make everyone broken, you just need to make everyone awesome and the only time WotC attempted this, is in 4e (well, mostly, there's the Seeker... Which uhh... I guess they did attempt to make it awesome but just failed really bad).

The Battlemaster in 5e is a good example of how to make everyone awesome. Have the maneuvers give at-will options and then options that expand when you use power points endurance or whatever you want to call it. Have that be the base option for the fighter. Want a simple fighter? Just take simple maneuvers or have a subclass that removes maneuvers (yeah 5e doesn't like to remove things but we already changed a core ideology so go wild with it).

Thing is, WotC just doesn't want to do any of this. They don't want martial (fighter/rogues) and mundane things (items) to get int he way of magic. So, Just lean into it and make them awesome the only way WotC wants to make anything awesome.

Weapons of mass destruction are not a balancing mechanic.

Have to be fair here, it works for other TTRPG systems and videogames.

Snowbluff

2023-10-07, 09:36 AM

If you think everyone functioned the same, you didn't play enough 4e. The classes had class features and roles that made them work and play vastly different. This meme has been going on since 2008 and it's been wrong since day one. It's like saying the 5e Paladin and 5e Wizard plays the same because they both have spellslots, they just don't even though they have similar core mechanics. You could even say that the Warblade from 3e is the same as the 3e Wizard, they both have resource management that they can expend to do fantastical stuff. Plays totally the same, right?

"Everyone didn't function the same" is blatant mythology about 4e. I regularly play 4e and I will tell you that they are designed with the same resource system. I say it in my post, AEDU. The furthest you get is power points, which are just scaling an at will to an encounter with an encounter resource. Everyone has the one use of their one power of that one level. Every example you gave from other systems is not constrained to this extent. Paladins have some spells but they also have alternate ways to use them (smite) on top of channel divinity. A warblade doesn't recharge their resource on the day like a wizard, rather recovering them in combat using a recharge mechanic, and this is one of many awesome resource mechanics in 3.5.

Also defenders are definitely just melee controllers. They even have AoE, more than monk for sure. :smallbiggrin:

I don't think 4e does a very good job of making everyone awesome. It's a constrained system design, which comes with it's own upsides and drawbacks, but I don't think that it has parity to 3.5 or 5e.

The Battlemaster in 5e is a good example of how to make everyone awesome. Have the maneuvers give at-will options and then options that expand when you use power points endurance or whatever you want to call it. Have that be the base option for the fighter. Want a simple fighter? Just take simple maneuvers or have a subclass that removes maneuvers (yeah 5e doesn't like to remove things but we already changed a core ideology so go wild with it). Also they are doing this with weapon masteries. They basically just add an effect at will.

Though I would like weapon masteries expanded to non-combat uses like maneuvers were. I don't think melee guys lack variety in combat, but out of combat they are more limited. Having a swim speed from a trident, pole vaulting with a polearm, using a pick to climb, or smashing a lock with a hammer could be cool.

JackPhoenix

2023-10-07, 09:41 AM

Weapons of mass destruction are not a balancing mechanic.

I dunno, MAD has worked decently well so far...

RogueJK

2023-10-07, 09:49 AM

Hoo boy... I forsee this new True Strike being rife for overoptimization in a variety of builds, since it combines a SCAGtrip's scaling weapon attack damage with Shillelagh's casting stat to attack/damage. And unlike BB/GFB it works with ranged weapons. This represents a huge boost to just about any single-attack Gish, even more than BB/GFB was.

For example:

-Paladin 2/Sorcerer X: Now you can be a Sorhexadin without having to take the Hexblade dip.

-Paladin 2/Whispers Bard X: Now you can nova even harder on an attack than the Sorcadin, with your divine smites + psychic "smites" + True Strike, all without having to bump DEX or STR.

-Iron Wizard Abjurer: Now you don't need to bump STR/DEX beyond the minimum for your armor, and can focus just on INT. Even being a ranged Iron Wizard if you want. Perhaps something like a Knowledge Cleric 1/Abjurer X "Iron Scholar". You've got armor and shield, with INT-based scaling weapon attacks, a nice HP buffer, and the Wizard's wide array of defensive spells, plus super high INT skills with Guidance to boot.

-Non-Hexblade/Non-Bladelock Warlocks: Now you can be a quasi-Hexblade without being locked into the Hexblade patron.

-Celestial Warlock Generalist: Now can be doing Weapon+CHA+CHA radiant damage without having to go the Tomelock Green Flame Shillelagh route, opening up the build to Celestial Chain/Talisman Warlocks. Or even viable Celestial Bladelocks who want to take a different Invocation than Thirsting Blade.

-Any Non-Swords/Valor Bards: Now they have a great ranged attack option that allows them to continue to focus on boosting CHA.

-Whispers Bardcher: CHA-based ranged bow attacks, with ranged psychic "smites", plus Magical Secrets like Conjure Volley and Find Greater Steed. Rain down radiant psychic arrows and volleys of AoE arrows from the heavens while riding your Pegasus Greater Steed.

-Arcana Cleric Frontliner: Already a great build, now no longer needs to spend a feat or dip for Shillelagh to get those WIS-based scaling melee attacks.

-Arcana Cleric X/Fey Wanderer Ranger 3: You're now also the Party Face, with +WIS to Face skills and Expertise in one of them from Canny, in addition to being a solid WIS-SAD frontliner. Your attacks are doing Weapon+WIS+WIS+Xd8 radiant+1d4 psychic damage. You can even do it from range with no drop in your damage output, plus being able to leverage the Archery fighting style.

-Swashbuckler Rogue: Picture a VHuman/CLineage/MotM Kobold Swashbuckler with True Strike from racial Sorcerer cantrip or Magic Initiate Sorcerer and a high CHA, playing as the Party Face with face skill Expertise and heavy-hitting CHA-based Sneak Attack True Strikes, plus a super high Initiative. Can even do it from range.

-Arcane Trickster Rogue: Can now prioritize INT over DEX.

-Arcana Cleric 1/Mastermind Rogue X: Prioritize WIS over DEX, with WIS-based scaling Sneak Attacks, and super high Insight and Perception.

Etc.

jjordan

2023-10-07, 10:59 AM

Oof. Yeah. I haven't (and probably won't) actually read the UA for much the same reason as you.

But that bold? Yeah, that sounds like WotC. Personally, all this stuff is way too campaign and setting dependent to mechanize/standardize well. Heck, even in my own setting, I can think of a dozen places where starting a pub would be trivial (given some gold, and not even all that much) and others where it'd be a bureaucratic nightmare. And some where people who aren't local nobles aren't allowed to own land or operate businesses! And anything involving actual construction of fortifications is going to basically always be a custom job that's best handled via negotiating with the DM.

I've had a party who acquired a (ruined due to enemy action) shrine in the country. They wanted to fix it up as a home base and home for some of the PCs' dependents, accumulated allies, etc. I had to do some work to get a schedule of costs, which is one place that a table in the DMG could help--a basic "ok, building walls generally costs X per <distance unit>, Y if they're heavy fortifications. Towers take Z time and A cost per sq ft." And then some modifiers like "in a high-magic area, cut the time cost by X and increase the money cost by Y if they hire magic-using builders". Or something like that.

But level limits and trying to regularize it? D&D is firmly at this point a squad-level game. Trying to shoehorn in other things like that as general rules is always going to be squiffy.
I agree with your points. But, as D&D continues drift (rush?) toward becoming a video-game style TTRPG, this all makes perfect sense.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-07, 11:01 AM

I don't think 4e does a very good job of making everyone awesome.
Lol, whatever job anyone thinks it does at making martials awesome is 1 trillion times greater than what 5E has achieved.

Snowbluff

2023-10-07, 11:10 AM

Lol, whatever job anyone thinks it does at making martials awesome is 1 trillion times greater than what 5E has achieved.

It would mean going back to an edition where the best martial at will is Twin Strike. Where you get the ability to... attack twice. Something anyone can do in 5e. A lot of powers for martials are like this, actually. Most exploits could easily be replicated by a 5e character with their baseline abilities, or with something like battlemaster and the marking variant. It has come up in discussions here before. It's weird to me that people seem to still think that 4e was this revolution in game design when really it shaved a little from the bottom and a huge amount of the top from the power scaling.

MoiMagnus

2023-10-07, 11:33 AM

It just seems to me that most of these conversations get framed more as "how can we change martials?" than "how can we nerf casters" when nerfing casters is easier to do, especially when a lot of those nerfs are just sitting right there (old TSR-D&D limitations on casters that WotC has removed).

The restrictions were removed because a significant portion of players are interested by neither the old casters (too constrained) or the old martials (not magical enough), or at least frustrated by both.

In an alternative universe where D&D was not a quasi-monopoly on RPGs, those peoples would simply play another RPG better adapted to their taste (e.g. some mix of superhero RPGs and D&D). But WotC actively fears this alternative world, so will do whatever is possible to keep peoples which would actively hate the gameplay of the old times.

And if I'm honest with myself, I'm probably one of those peoples.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-07, 11:48 AM

It's weird to me that people seem to still think that 4e was this revolution in game design when really it shaved a little from the bottom and a huge amount of the top from the power scaling.
It's not weird to me that you think this, because the first thing you bring up is Twin Strike.

Fighters in 4E are much more interesting and capable of more than in 5E. Stances, utility powers, magic items, at-will attacks with riders, stopping enemies with Opp Attacks, etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Wizards, on the other hand, can't say the same. Hence the furor, the mythology, and the current edition.

Snowbluff

2023-10-07, 12:11 PM

Fighters in 4E are much more interesting and capable of more than in 5E. Stances, utility powers, magic items, at-will attacks with riders, stopping enemies with Opp Attacks, etc etc etc etc etc etc.

So utilities like battlemaster's non combat maneuvers and various active fighting styles, at will with riders that are all over the edition like swarmkeeper and also shoving and attacking is possible for every extra attacker and weapon masteries being added in 2024, stopping enemies with opp attacks like Sentinel. It's replicable. 4e only contains a small facet of what is doable in 5e. It's a weird argument to say 4e characters are more capable and then specifically list the features that 5e characters get. :smalltongue:

But that is the problem with 4e as well. This is the precise level of play and resource management. If you don't like AEDU or only some people like it at the table don't like it, it's a no go. There isn't a different resource system for people to fall back on for other play styles. It's like saying "every class is a battlemaster now. You only have superiority dice of your classes flavor."

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-07, 12:21 PM

So utilities like battlemaster's non combat maneuvers and various active fighting styles, at will with riders that are all over the edition like swarmkeeper and also shoving and attacking is possible for every extra attacker and weapon masteries being added in 2024, stopping enemies with opp attacks like Sentinel. It's replicable. 4e only contains a small facet of what is doable in 5e. It's a weird argument to say 4e characters are more capable and then specifically list the features that 5e characters get. :smalltongue:
These are not the same thing. I know it sounds good on a forum post but you're really diminishing the differences between 4E combat and 5E combat.

Pex

2023-10-07, 12:49 PM

My point was not that you could construe a situation in which those 2 cantrips had different effects, my point was that having one greatly reduced your interest in the second. Having both would reduce your interest in poison spray further still.

So if one spell is not exclusively better than the other why is it a bother a player wouldn't want both? Let the player choose his fun and have at it. As a personal matter my druid in a current game has both Produce Flame and Create Bonfire, and I'm perfectly happy with it.

If you think everyone functioned the same, you didn't play enough 4e. The classes had class features and roles that made them work and play vastly different. This meme has been going on since 2008 and it's been wrong since day one. It's like saying the 5e Paladin and 5e Wizard plays the same because they both have spellslots, they just don't even though they have similar core mechanics. You could even say that the Warblade from 3e is the same as the 3e Wizard, they both have resource management that they can expend to do fantastical stuff. Plays totally the same, right?

Defenders and Controllers could have been one role, but controllers tend to be able to control the field whereas controls/defends a specific point. One of the biggest things people wanted in 4e was Martial Controllers for a reason, because Defenders just weren't Controllers (there was hope for the Monk to at least be a martial arts controller, but they made it a striker).

But regardless, the idea is sound. Make everyone awesome. You don't have to make everyone broken, you just need to make everyone awesome and the only time WotC attempted this, is in 4e (well, mostly, there's the Seeker... Which uhh... I guess they did attempt to make it awesome but just failed really bad).

The Battlemaster in 5e is a good example of how to make everyone awesome. Have the maneuvers give at-will options and then options that expand when you use power points endurance or whatever you want to call it. Have that be the base option for the fighter. Want a simple fighter? Just take simple maneuvers or have a subclass that removes maneuvers (yeah 5e doesn't like to remove things but we already changed a core ideology so go wild with it).

Thing is, WotC just doesn't want to do any of this. They don't want martial (fighter/rogues) and mundane things (items) to get int he way of magic. So, Just lean into it and make them awesome the only way WotC wants to make anything awesome.

Have to be fair here, it works for other TTRPG systems and videogames.

4E

Everyone has one power.
X[W] damage of type (color) + Condition.
X can be 0. X increases as level increases.
Condition = 1) Allow someone to heal himself 2) Harmful effect, save ends. Severity of harm increases with level 3) Someone moves.

If power is At Will, X is small for the level and Condition minimal if it exists.
If power is Encounter, X is consistent with the level.
If power is Daily, X is large for the level.

Magic items
If Weapon change (color) otherwise +1 Daily Power

(Color) does nothing for most of the game. Once in a while a monster will care about (color).

Hoo boy... I forsee this new True Strike being rife for overoptimization in a variety of builds, since it combines a SCAGtrip's scaling weapon attack damage with Shillelagh's casting stat to attack/damage. And unlike BB/GFB it works with ranged weapons. This represents a huge boost to just about any single-attack Gish, even more than BB/GFB was.

"Overoptimization" or working as intended, feature not bug. Something being an awesome is supposed to happen. The fact that you have provided lots of different options instead of One And Only One leads to conclude this is not overoptimization at all but rather simply a normal option that can be used in a variety of ways for players to have different experiences using one Cantrip, i.e. a Cantrip doing what it should be doing.

Aimeryan

2023-10-07, 01:43 PM

-Arcane Trickster Rogue: Can now prioritize INT over DEX.

Bow cantrip for Rogue, yeah that's pretty good.

RogueJK

2023-10-07, 01:53 PM

"Overoptimization" or working as intended, feature not bug. Something being an awesome is supposed to happen. The fact that you have provided lots of different options instead of One And Only One leads to conclude this is not overoptimization at all but rather simply a normal option that can be used in a variety of ways for players to have different experiences using one Cantrip, i.e. a Cantrip doing what it should be doing.

The issue is that rather than making a significant number of standard PC builds better, it's mainly just taking a bunch of the already stronger/strongest optimized builds and making them even that much stronger. It's raising the ceiling for those top builds, rather than raising the floor for very many other more standard builds.

Sorcadins, Bardadins, Iron Wizards, Celestial Generalists, Arcana Frontliners, Arcane Tricksters, SCAGtrip Rogues, etc. don't need to be any stronger or more SAD.

Whereas, as demonstrated in some of the math examples earlier in the thread, this new True Strike isn't really a significant boost over a standard cantrip like Fire Bolt for a normal Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock. (And demonstrably inferior to EB on an EB-centric Warlock.)

The only "normal" PCs gaining much benefit from it would be non-Swords/Valor Bards, or potentially non-Hexblade non-Bladelock Warlocks who really want to make weapon attacks. That's surely not a bad thing for those Bards as their offensive cantrip options are lacking to begin with, but it's still going to be inferior to EB for nearly all of those type of Warlock builds, and those type of Warlocks can already access the existing SCAGtrips anyway so this is really only making them slightly more SAD.

Mindflayer_Inc

2023-10-07, 02:06 PM

So if one spell is not exclusively better than the other why is it a bother a player wouldn't want both? Let the player choose his fun and have at it. As a personal matter my druid in a current game has both Produce Flame and Create Bonfire, and I'm perfectly happy with it.

4E

Everyone has one power.
X[W] damage of type (color) + Condition.
X can be 0. X increases as level increases.
Condition = 1) Allow someone to heal himself 2) Harmful effect, save ends. Severity of harm increases with level 3) Someone moves.

If power is At Will, X is small for the level and Condition minimal if it exists.
If power is Encounter, X is consistent with the level.
If power is Daily, X is large for the level.

Magic items
If Weapon change (color) otherwise +1 Daily Power

(Color) does nothing for most of the game. Once in a while a monster will care about (color).

"Overoptimization" or working as intended, feature not bug. Something being an awesome is supposed to happen. The fact that you have provided lots of different options instead of One And Only One leads to conclude this is not overoptimization at all but rather simply a normal option that can be used in a variety of ways for players to have different experiences using one Cantrip, i.e. a Cantrip doing what it should be doing.

Play a 4e Wizard like a 4e Fighter and that Wizard dies in about... One or two rounds (depending if you have a leader with healing capabilities, which a Cleric and Warlord play differently too).

Ignoring the actual classes and how they actually play... Well, as I said, it's like saying that a 5e Paladin and a 5e Wizard plays the same just because they both get spell slots.

Even when those two classes are casting spells, they don't play the same.

Snowbluff

2023-10-07, 02:22 PM

Bow cantrip for Rogue, yeah that's pretty good.

This is a fairly good point. Usually I would rate melee rogues as being generally better due to all of the combo options they have, like Booming Blade. Being able to have some extra cantrip damage would be pretty interesting for a bow rogue.

Warlock'sFriend

2023-10-07, 03:24 PM

Kane0

2023-10-07, 03:33 PM

Though I would like weapon masteries expanded to non-combat uses like maneuvers were. I don't think melee guys lack variety in combat, but out of combat they are more limited. Having a swim speed from a trident, pole vaulting with a polearm, using a pick to climb, or smashing a lock with a hammer could be cool.
Oh that sounds awesome! Got any more?

Hoo boy... I forsee this new True Strike being rife for overoptimization in a variety of builds, since it combines a SCAGtrip's scaling weapon attack damage with Shillelagh's casting stat to attack/damage. And unlike BB/GFB it works with ranged weapons. This represents a huge boost to just about any single-attack Gish, even more than BB/GFB was.

Yeah I'm not sure if i like this bladetrip version of true strike. I think i would have preferred something that works with spell attacks so i can land those ray spells, especially at low levels where missing really stings...

RogueJK

2023-10-07, 03:37 PM

I like that chill touch exchanged a raise in damage for becoming a touch spell. As a warlock player, it makes it into a thematic melee choice for when I can't eldritch blast an adjacent target. Plus it works with familiars!

Now I have eldritch blast for ranged attacks, chill touch for melee attacks, and mind sliver for save attacks. It feels well rounded.

It also works out well for Death Clerics, who can grab Chill Touch via Reaper, and then use it in conjunction with their CD Touch of Death quasi-smite (which requires a melee attack).

Psyren

2023-10-07, 03:37 PM

-Arcane Trickster Rogue: Can now prioritize INT over DEX.

Bow cantrip for Rogue, yeah that's pretty good.

I mean... can they? You still need Dex for your first two levels, for your AC, to sneak around, and likely for traps etc. I think trying to use this on a rogue is just going to make them MAD unnecessarily.

Bosh

2023-10-07, 03:38 PM

I don't think these points are entirely cogent. Wizards having armor prof in 5e isn't really a comparison because 3.5 wizards had a lot of spells like Luminous Armor and ways of removing the limitations on what armor they could wear like Mithril. The benefits 5e casters have over 3.5 ones are utterly paltry compared to just simply how much better 3.5 spells are and the lack of regular concentration requirements. Phantasmal Killer would kill monsters in 3.5. Polymorph is a much better spell. Haste isn't limited to a single creature. And this is just skimming through the PHB spells.

I'm not really convinced casters are generally overpowered to begin with (usually I see the occasional problem spell or complaints from people not following the rules), especially if the reasoning involves cantrips being good so people aren't twiddling their thumbs while they sit on their 1 allowed concentration.

5e nerfed some overpowered spells and put in concentration but also gave casters a lot of new stuff (a lot more class/subclass abilities just as a start). Concentration is a big enough nerf to make 5e casters more balanced than 3.*ed but wizards absolutely dwarf fighters in out of combat power. And that's a real problem.

First, just want to say I've been playing since 2e in the 90's, was on the young side but I remember playing Wizards and being scared for my character's life like no other game since (for good and bad)

I think 4e had the right idea but executed the look of the game wrong, most of 4e is just 3e alternate rules and Unearthed Arcana stuff after all.

That right idea is "make everyone awesome". You don't have to balance the fighter and the wizard if they are both doin their awesome things. 4e Fighters weren't as balanced with Wizards as people like to think, wizards were still busted most of the time, but fighters got to stand up to the game and have their own little "shut up and sit down cause I said so" moments.

That's what is missing in 5e (bc the Fighter and Rogue are based off the Slayer and Thief from 4e Essentials, but the 5e versions are even worse most of the time) which were classes meant to make Fighter/Rogue "simple".

Do I want a game where non-magicals characters can do awesome things? Where a character using mundane tools and items can use their brain and be a threat to combat, exploration, and social encounters? Yes.

Is that the game WotC wants to make? No. WotC just doesn't want to make that sort of game. So, I'm done fighting them on it.

I think the best thing for D&D as a whole would be for WotC to make the game they want to make (or get new devs and start over with reboot but 6e or whatever it's called won't be that, sooo too late for that).

The problem is with everything. Every class should be fun to play. Restrict casters too much and they aren't very fun. Martials are restricted and they aren't as fun. Problem is WorC just doesn't want to make a game where martials are let loose, so for D&D, martials are the problem when our take the design ideologies to mind.

Some of the most fun I've had in 5e was as a thief (the fast hands ability is love) and with the UA 6 tweaks I think rogues are basically a good awesome functional class. They work fine, they don't really need anything beyond what they have. It's just that when you have a bard in the party that's about as good at skills as you AND has full casting on top of that, it just feels bad. To go back to the old analogy, there's nothing really inherently wrong with being absolutely awesome at a BMX bike, the problem is ****ing Angel Summoner (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taCa8qBgIFY).

Now some martial classes need to be raised up to the level of rogues, specifically outside of combat, and the casters need to be hit with the nerf bat to be brought down to the level of rogues and then I'd be happy (aside with my more general issues with how skills work in 5e).

Also simple characters are underrated. Playing a lo of Indie/OSR games with simpler characters than a lot of 5e characters really show me the benefits of that. More complicated characters can make combat take foreeeeeeeeeever. Fights in 5e tend to take a lot longer than in TSR-D&D, in large part because characters are more complicated. With simpler characters you can really shorten the time it takes to adjudicate fights which leaves more time for exploration, roleplay, investigation, or just more fights.

As far as restrictions, I LIKE restrictions. Feeling like I have my back against the wall with few options has resulted in some of my most fun D&D memories. It's just if I have restrictions and the other guy doesn't that's no fun. Just look at Concentration rules in 5e they're a MASSIVE restriction on casters and arguably the best single rule idea on 5e. Throw some more restrictions on casters in the same vein as concentration and I'm good to go.

The restrictions were removed because a significant portion of players are interested by neither the old casters (too constrained) or the old martials (not magical enough), or at least frustrated by both.

In an alternative universe where D&D was not a quasi-monopoly on RPGs, those peoples would simply play another RPG better adapted to their taste (e.g. some mix of superhero RPGs and D&D). But WotC actively fears this alternative world, so will do whatever is possible to keep peoples which would actively hate the gameplay of the old times.

And if I'm honest with myself, I'm probably one of those peoples.

A lot of people don't want constraints on casters, don't want 4e-style abilities on martials, and don't want class imbalance. People want contradictory things and you can't please everyone.

In any case I think some well thought out constraints on casters could get accepted. 5e concentration rules were a MASSIVE constraint placed on casters and now they're widely accepted and you'd have people looking at you like you had two heads if you suggested removing them. The right additional restrictions on casters, in the vein of concentration, would bring things into line.

RogueJK

2023-10-07, 03:40 PM

I mean... can they? You still need Dex for your first two levels, for your AC, to sneak around, and likely for traps etc. I think trying to use this on a rogue is just going to make them MAD unnecessarily.

The typical AT would likely be starting with like a 16-17 DEX and 16 INT. But then they'd have to continue to boost DEX to 20 to keep scaling their attacks. They're a Sneak Attacker first and a caster second.

This allows the AT to start out the same, with 16 DEX and 16-17 INT, and then either aim for getting INT to 20 first, or a more balanced 18/18 if they want to split the difference. They can be an even more effective caster without sacrificing their Sneak Attacks. Plus they can more effectively switch-hit with either a scaling melee or scaling ranged attack, since this new True Strike works with ranged attacks too, and unlike a ranged spell cantrip you can Sneak Attack with it at range.

The first 3 levels would play the same, with a +3 to either stat regardless. And AC would be within a point or two of each other at any given time. (Plus AC is slightly less of an issue if you're at range than up close.)

Amechra

2023-10-07, 04:44 PM

Oh, hey, I found a ~relevant quote~ while chatting with a friend the other day:

On "wimpy wizards": "If your problem is 'Wizards are too weak to stand up to much,' then yes, I see it, and we have upped the power of wizards a bit in 3E D&D to compensate for that - now people can play a single-classed wizard at all levels and not think they need to be protected from goblins, giant centipedes, and stray pebbles. Not only do wizards get bonus spells for high Int, they also have better familiars and some cool feats. 🙂 Basically, I'll repeat what we have said often: the classes are now balanced at all levels, and so there's no obvious fantastic or lame character class."

It's important to realize that modern D&D spellcasters are a result of trying to make wizards as cool and competent as fighters... and then absolutely screwing that up because they'd just bought the IP, were interested in a different style of game, and didn't playtest as strenuously as they should've.

Psyren

2023-10-07, 05:24 PM

Oh, hey, I found a ~relevant quote~ while chatting with a friend the other day:

It's important to realize that modern D&D spellcasters are a result of trying to make wizards as cool and competent as fighters... and then absolutely screwing that up because they'd just bought the IP, were interested in a different style of game, and didn't playtest as strenuously as they should've.

SKR's credibility aside, "Balanced at all levels" doesn't necessarily mean "against each other." In 3.5, any group of 4 level 20 PC classes each with level 20 WBL can take on any printed CR 20 monster; it might be (much) easier for some than others, but it's doable for all. So he's not technically wrong; no edition of D&D is designed as a pvp game.

The typical AT would likely be starting with like a 16-17 DEX and 16 INT. But then they'd have to continue to boost DEX to 20 to keep scaling their attacks. They're a Sneak Attacker first and a caster second.

This allows the AT to start out the same, with 16 DEX and 16-17 INT, and then either aim for getting INT to 20 first, or a more balanced 18/18 if they want to split the difference. They can be an even more effective caster without sacrificing their Sneak Attacks. Plus they can more effectively switch-hit with either a scaling melee or scaling ranged attack, since this new True Strike works with ranged attacks too, and unlike a ranged spell cantrip you can Sneak Attack with it at range.

The first 3 levels would play the same, with a +3 to either stat regardless. And AC would be within a point or two of each other at any given time. (Plus AC is slightly less of an issue if you're at range than up close.)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that AT prioritizing Int wouldn't be viable. It definitely would, especially since Rogue gets an extra ASI to max both key stats out considerably faster than other MAD classes like Monk and Ranger.

Rather, I was just emphasizing the tradeoffs the player would have to manage before then, i.e. once you hit level 4 you arrive at a crossroads where focusing on either Dex or Int has pros and cons, and you'll have to live with those cons until your next ASI.

One thing I would argue against though is the "typical AT." I think 14 Int is not only perfectly acceptable for a good AT, I think it's more common than going for 16-20. There are a lot of great AT spells that don't need high spell attack or DCs - Message, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Haste etc.

Pex

2023-10-07, 05:34 PM

A lot of people don't want constraints on casters, don't want 4e-style abilities on martials, and don't want class imbalance. People want contradictory things and you can't please everyone.

In any case I think some well thought out constraints on casters could get accepted. 5e concentration rules were a MASSIVE constraint placed on casters and now they're widely accepted and you'd have people looking at you like you had two heads if you suggested removing them. The right additional restrictions on casters, in the vein of concentration, would bring things into line.

No. Restraints on casters is not the problem. The problem is what those desired restraints actually are. No armor. Not a problem. Cannot know every spell published. Not a problem. Lose hit points thus be closer to death to cast a spell. Problem. Lose turns for casting a spell. Problem. Lose sanity for casting a spell. Problem. Lose ability to cast spells for a while once you cast. Problem.

Amechra

2023-10-07, 06:11 PM

SKR's credibility aside...

Please note: this wasn't SKR posting about the game in retrospect. This was him, on the official 3e message board, answering concerns about the Wizard sucking again in 3e, during the lead-up to its release. Link to the archived news site I got that quote from, since said message boards haven't existed for a long time. (https://www.enworld.org/ericnoah/3eoldnews4.htm) And the important thing is the stated design intent, not whether or not they achieved that intent (which they very much didn't). Also 3.5 is completely irrelevant in the context of this quote, so I'm inclined to think that you got confused because I forgot to include a date in the quote — late November 1999, for anyone who doesn't want to click the link. I do suggest exploring the site, though, since it's pretty fascinating from a historical perspective.

Damon_Tor

2023-10-07, 06:18 PM

Aimeryan

2023-10-07, 06:26 PM

The typical AT would likely be starting with like a 16-17 DEX and 16 INT. But then they'd have to continue to boost DEX to 20 to keep scaling their attacks. They're a Sneak Attacker first and a caster second.

This allows the AT to start out the same, with 16 DEX and 16-17 INT, and then either aim for getting INT to 20 first, or a more balanced 18/18 if they want to split the difference. They can be an even more effective caster without sacrificing their Sneak Attacks. Plus they can more effectively switch-hit with either a scaling melee or scaling ranged attack, since this new True Strike works with ranged attacks too, and unlike a ranged spell cantrip you can Sneak Attack with it at range.

The first 3 levels would play the same, with a +3 to either stat regardless. And AC would be within a point or two of each other at any given time. (Plus AC is slightly less of an issue if you're at range than up close.)

Possible that a Fighter dip for medium armor, shield, and pistol proficiency might help swing the AC the other way too (and get a better weapon die).

Zevox

2023-10-07, 07:15 PM

Psyren

2023-10-07, 07:26 PM

Please note: this wasn't SKR posting about the game in retrospect. This was him, on the official 3e message board, answering concerns about the Wizard sucking again in 3e, during the lead-up to its release. Link to the archived news site I got that quote from, since said message boards haven't existed for a long time. (https://www.enworld.org/ericnoah/3eoldnews4.htm) And the important thing is the stated design intent, not whether or not they achieved that intent (which they very much didn't). Also 3.5 is completely irrelevant in the context of this quote, so I'm inclined to think that you got confused because I forgot to include a date in the quote — late November 1999, for anyone who doesn't want to click the link. I do suggest exploring the site, though, since it's pretty fascinating from a historical perspective.

I'm not debating SKR's history, I was debating your conclusion:

modern D&D spellcasters are a result of trying to make wizards as cool and competent as fighters and then absolutely screwing that up

Namely, that their goal wasn't quite what you say, rather it was to to make every class capable of standing on its own from 1-20 (assuming level-appropriate gear across that journey.) I'm arguing that they succeeded at that in 3.5e, and subsequent editions refined that philosophy even further.

There are plenty of tables which "skip the tutorial" and start at 3rd level.

And that's great, but cantrip design should account for tables that start at level 1; arguably, moreso than those that start at level 3.
If their intent is for True Strike to be the ideal cantrip option for builds that rely almost exclusively on their mental stat, they're succeeding - but I don't think that should be the goal.

Trask

2023-10-07, 07:43 PM

He would not.

Conan does not actually fit the DnD Barbarian.

He fits it just fine. Howard even describes him as "no defensive fighter", he goes all out in every fight, takes huge risks all the time. And whenever he's fighting a horde of enemies, he ends up torn to shreds, dripping blood and strips of flesh but still able to stand and fight. And he almost always has the ability to sense danger by the hairs on the back of his neck standing up.

More than his strength or awareness his defining fighting characteristic is his unbelievable resilience, overwhelming ferocity, and ability to strike fear in his enemies with his "volcanic blue eyes".

Sounds like a perfectly fine Barbarian to me.

Unoriginal

2023-10-07, 08:07 PM

And whenever he's fighting a horde of enemies, he ends up torn to shreds, dripping blood and strips of flesh

Quite inaccurate.

Conan rarely gets hurts against an horde of enemies, thanks to his agility, ferocity and his tendency to wear the best armor available.

When Conan gets hurt, it's generally while fighting a single superhuman opponent, The only time I recall where he gets significantly wounded while facing a group of human foes is because a crazed bard tries to stab him to death while he's trying all he can to *not* kill said bard. After which he makes short work of the bard and the other wannabe-assassins.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-07, 08:11 PM

Play a 4e Wizard like a 4e Fighter and that Wizard dies in about... One or two rounds (depending if you have a leader with healing capabilities, which a Cleric and Warlord play differently too).

Ignoring the actual classes and how they actually play... Well, as I said, it's like saying that a 5e Paladin and a 5e Wizard plays the same just because they both get spell slots.

Even when those two classes are casting spells, they don't play the same.
Agreed. Not to mention that rests were much shorter in 4E so you *always* have your abilities, as opposed to the sacred amazing "Battle Master" that has to ration his "superiority" dice between encounters lol.

Generally, people will complain that 4E made everyone the same. Then they will turn around and tell you exactly how to build your cookie cutter character and exactly what same feats and spells and class features to take. Can't roll your eyes hard enough.

Trask

2023-10-07, 08:15 PM

Quite inaccurate.

Conan rarely gets hurts against an horde of enemies, thanks to his agility, ferocity and his tendency to wear the best armor available.

When Conan gets hurt, it's generally while fighting a single superhuman opponent, The only time I recall where he gets significantly wounded while facing a group of human foes is because a crazed bard tries to stab him to death while he's trying all he can to *not* kill said bard. After which he makes short work of the bard and the other wannabe-assassins.

I'm thinking specifically of the scene in Queen of the Black Coast where Conan faces off against Belits pirates and they all swarm him on the deck. He is completely unarmored by the way, as he often is. And also the point was that he has near superhuman pain tolerance and ability to take punishment. In the one story with the drugged out city, Conan fights that tentacular and fanged demon and comes back into the room so bloody the girl narrator says he barely looks human. Clearly wounds that would have killed a lesser man, thus near superhuman endurance.

Or when he is ambushed in his room in the Phoenix on the Sword, or when Kull and Bran Mak Morn (Proto Conans) almost fight the Men Under the Lake and the Worms of the Earth respectively and boast how many he will kill before he is slain. We have no reason to disbelieve him.

And even if we're going with "agility" as his main defense (which is true), a Barbarian is still likely to beat a fighter in that department, unless you want to suggest Conan is a Dex fighter with a rapier. I still haven't seen any argument that Conan doesn't resemble a Barbarian, he seems to resemble one just fine to me.

LudicSavant

2023-10-07, 08:20 PM

And even if we're going with "agility" as his main defense (which is true), a Barbarian is still likely to beat a fighter in that department, unless you want to suggest Conan is a Dex fighter with a rapier. I still haven't seen any argument that Conan doesn't resemble a Barbarian, he seems to resemble one just fine to me.

I would suggest that, contrary to 5e, iconic Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks are often strong and agile, rather than one or the other.

Trask

2023-10-07, 08:23 PM

I would suggest that, contrary to 5e, iconic Fighters, Barbarians, and Monks are often strong and agile, rather than one or the other.

Yes that is true, although it seems to be a bit of a can of worms now. Back in the day when Dex modified AC regardless of what armor you were wearing and only Strength could apply to your melee attacks it was more "realistic" in that way. A good fighter couldn't afford to dump either really.

LudicSavant

2023-10-07, 08:24 PM

Yes but that's a whole different discussion. Indeed. Just saying it as an aside.

Trask

2023-10-07, 08:27 PM

Indeed. Just saying it as an aside.

Didn't mean that to sound dismissive. I've often thought of that as well. Ive always thought it was a big shame with fighters particularly, because I've always had this one image of a fighter using sword and bow as very cool. And I don't feel like using a rapier and wearing leather. Oh well.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-07, 08:41 PM

Didn't mean that to sound dismissive. I've often thought of that as well. Ive always thought it was a big shame with fighters particularly, because I've always had this one image of a fighter using sword and bow as very cool. And I don't feel like using a rapier and wearing leather. Oh well.
It's a big shame that characters are forced into these types of choices, and especially for warriors. Protagonists are often strong, tough, and agile, as well as cunning and charismatic.

In D&D you're just a dunce, and everyone is as tough and agile as you are.

Unoriginal

2023-10-07, 08:52 PM

I'm thinking specifically of the scene in Queen of the Black Coast where Conan faces off against Belits pirates and they all swarm him on the deck. He is completely unarmored by the way, as he often is.

He is wearing armor, during that fight:

"In an instant he was the center of a hurricane of stabbing spears and lashing clubs. But he moved in a blinding blur of steel. Spears bent on his armor or swished empty air, and his sword sang its death-song."

"Invulnerable in his armor, his back against the mast, he heaped mangled corpses at his feet until his enemies gave back panting in rage and fear. Then as they lifted their spears to cast them, and he tensed himself to leap and die in the midst of them, a shrill cry froze the lifted arms. They stood like statues, the black giants poised for the spearcasts, the mailed swordsman with his dripping blade."

I'll grant you that this particular combat includes Conan being described as in something similar to a Barbarian's Rage, Howard directly saying that "fighting-madness" is upon him, but it's one of the few times where it does happen.

I still haven't seen any argument that Conan doesn't resemble a Barbarian, he seems to resemble one just fine to me.

The point I was making is that *resembling* isn't being. Conan is not a D&D character in general or a 5e character in particular.

Conan is one of the major inspirations for the Barbarian class, but inspirations are just that. He's no more a D&D Barbarian than Herakles or Fafhrd.

Psyren

2023-10-07, 09:40 PM

The point I was making is that *resembling* isn't being. Conan is not a D&D character in general or a 5e character in particular.

Conan is one of the major inspirations for the Barbarian class, but inspirations are just that. He's no more a D&D Barbarian than Herakles or Fafhrd.

Exactly this.

Which isn't to say that you can't get closer to building a special protagonist like Conan - but to do that, you have to move away from the standard chargen rules. Someone like Conan or Elminster or Drizz't probably didn't start with normal 27 Point Buy for instance - they're special because they're special. Conan likely has at least decent scores in every attribute.

It's a big shame that characters are forced into these types of choices, and especially for warriors. Protagonists are often strong, tough, and agile, as well as cunning and charismatic.

In D&D you're just a dunce, and everyone is as tough and agile as you are.

See above - if you want to recreate a famous literary or mythological protagonist, your first step is to unshackle them from standard character creation rules.

Snowbluff

2023-10-07, 09:58 PM

Oh that sounds awesome! Got any more?
Uh, we'll I've thought of a couple more. Maybe a small houserule pamphlet could be written, but I'm not really sure how these would be implement. Polearms adding 5 feet to jump height and distance once per turn sounds alright. Maybe the climbing ones just give a small climb speed. Not sure about hammers smashing locks, maybe make a strength prof check?

Crossbows or bows could maybe shoot a line, either attaching a grappling hook somewhere or snagging something to bring it to you (like a mundane mage hand).
Flails/whips could help you swing across gaps or grab onto things by wrapping onto them.
Axes could kill doors.
I'm not sure what to do about swords. Maybe a show-off flourish or something, a social oriented option for intimidating or impressing people.
Dagger could maybe get something similar to hammers, letting you throw a dagger into a lock to unlock or jam it.

Some of these are pretty silly and a couple are feeling redundant, but it is something I've pondered about a bit. :smallsmile:

Yeah I'm not sure if i like this bladetrip version of true strike. I think i would have preferred something that works with spell attacks so i can land those ray spells, especially at low levels where missing really stings...
It is weird to me that the old versions are basically replaced. I don't think blade ward or true strike were good, but these new spells don't really fill the same niche. A separate, buffed versions of those spells could be put into the game.

Pex

2023-10-07, 10:53 PM

Read over the Bastion rules. Eh. They're functional for what they're supposed to do, I suppose, but I still can't say they've made me interested in them. Feels like it'd take a fairly specific campaign, or a very different type of campaign than my group generally does, to want to use something like this. And potentially different characters, too - I find it hard to imagine any of the characters from my group's last couple of campaigns even wanting to set up a base like this.

You don't have to use them, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist for the tables and their campaigns where setting up a base is appropriate. It happens a lot where PCs want a keep or run a business. In Dragon Heist players get their own tavern as part of the module if they want it.

Zevox

2023-10-07, 11:17 PM

You don't have to use them, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist for the tables and their campaigns where setting up a base is appropriate.
Sure, didn't mean to imply they shouldn't. Just giving my own personal view on them.

titi

2023-10-08, 01:02 AM

Exactly this.

Which isn't to say that you can't get closer to building a special protagonist like Conan - but to do that, you have to move away from the standard chargen rules. Someone like Conan or Elminster or Drizz't probably didn't start with normal 27 Point Buy for instance - they're special because they're special. Conan likely has at least decent scores in every attribute.

See above - if you want to recreate a famous literary or mythological protagonist, your first step is to unshackle them from standard character creation rules.

Point buy isn't the standard character creation rule tho, just one of the standard ones.

In fact, I think it's possible rolling for stats is more common, because it's more exciting and generally takes takes less thinking (which usually means less time)

I'm not saying rolling for stats is enough to recreate the strongest of litterature, just that it's a step

Psyren

2023-10-08, 01:14 AM

Point buy isn't the standard character creation rule tho, just one of the standard ones.

In fact, I think it's possible rolling for stats is more common, because it's more exciting and generally takes takes less thinking (which usually means less time)

I'm not saying rolling for stats is enough to recreate the strongest of litterature, just that it's a step

Then he got really good rolls and you can disregard the other two. My point is that building Conan does mean someone with solid, if not outright high, mental and physical stats.

tokek

2023-10-08, 02:21 AM

It's really hurts that's pretty much it (Rogue has some more and the fighter gets EK so spells ..) and there's like 5 level 1 spells that are a reaction, some of which even scale with level.

A Fighter that is a master of martial reactions could be cool

Rune Knight has you covered. Runic Shield, Cloud Rune, Stone Rune, Storm Rune

Rune Knight has many high impact reactions even before you look to feats or fighting styles that add reactions..

Trask

2023-10-08, 01:18 PM

I like that the bastion rules are included, even if I'm not wild about their presentation (too much focus on getting nonsensical advantages from each type of bastion, and respawning...that has to be a joke).

It calls back to old school D&D where building a stronghold was an expected part of a character's development, and actually factored into their class abilities to some extent. A magic-user needed their tower to craft magic items for example, and a fighter becoming the lord of a stronghold was actually a part of their class' overall power. Its not for everyone, as in I think its unfashionable nowadays, and I see a lot of people making the valid complaint that it doesn't fit their playstyle or interest them, but I would argue that its in the keeping of D&D tropes and tradition and it represents WotC actually trying to beef up the later levels and the purpose and focus of D&D.

Its a zero to hero game, and that includes accumulating power and wealth and becoming a big deal. We already accept that a character will go from humble origins to world-shaking strength over the course of a campaign, which is already a pretty crazy assumption to make as far as "worldbuilding" is concerned, so why not include strongholds in that? It creates some framework and purpose for a Fighter to say "I want to become Lord of this area we've saved and raise an army to battle evil" rather than requiring the player to first formulate the idea on their own, pitch it to the DM, have the DM agree, and then have the DM completely make it up on their own.

I think its a good step, personally because it adds a new dimension to the game that is in keeping with its roots and also surprisingly common in D&D adjacent fantasy games and whatnot. Many games just give a character a cool base camp over the course of a story, and provide them with followers and hangers-on, special smiths or otherwise exceptional artisans to improve their gear and perform services for them. It feels like a natural progression of the hero quest. You might ask, "Why would a character suddenly acquire a base and followers just by leveling up?" IDK why does a Barbarian suddenly sprout the ability to summon magic ghosts when he rages or a wizard suddenly learn how to throw fireballs from one day to the next? The game is already a "worldbuilding" mess. Its always been more about the hero quest and fun than verisimilitude.

Kane0

2023-10-08, 02:32 PM

-Snip-
Indeed. There is a reason why Kingmaker is such a popular adventure.

Unoriginal

2023-10-08, 02:42 PM

In Dragon Heist players get their own tavern as part of the module if they want it.

Given that they're getting the deed for the tavern at lvl 2ish, how would that work with the Bastion system?

jjordan

2023-10-08, 03:10 PM

Given that they're getting the deed for the tavern at lvl 2ish, how would that work with the Bastion system? It wouldn't. It's not a bastion and doesn't produce the resources a bastion produces. Not every piece of real estate needs to be a bastion.

Unoriginal

2023-10-08, 03:15 PM

It wouldn't. It's not a bastion and doesn't produce the resources a bastion produces. Not every piece of real estate needs to be a bastion.

So just to make sure I understand you clearly, are you saying that you can't apply the Bastion system to it, or are you saying that it's possible but you don't have to?

Hurrashane

2023-10-08, 03:16 PM

I like the bastion system I think it's a pretty good first go. I'd like to see more things upgrading as you go, like being able to get a bar early that you can get like, rumors from eventually upgrading into the one with a spy network and magic beverages.Just to see a bit more growth there.

I really like the new true strike. I really want to make an elven mage who uses their bow proficiency (I don't remember if they still get that in the one d&d UAs) magic arrows, yo. It's just neat. I don't care if it's optimal it's really cool.

jjordan

2023-10-08, 05:12 PM

So just to make sure I understand you clearly, are you saying that you can't apply the Bastion system to it, or are you saying that it's possible but you don't have to? The latter. When you get down to it, these are guidelines/suggestions for play. Apply them in anyway you want.

Pex

2023-10-08, 05:37 PM

Given that they're getting the deed for the tavern at lvl 2ish, how would that work with the Bastion system?

As discussed with Boxley it takes time to set up. Trollskull Manor would be fully functional and operational by the time the campaign ends at level 5, when the Bastion Rules kick in. It sets up their base for further adventures after the module.

Kane0

2023-10-08, 06:11 PM

I really like the new true strike. I really want to make an elven mage who uses their bow proficiency (I don't remember if they still get that in the one d&d UAs) magic arrows, yo. It's just neat. I don't care if it's optimal it's really cool.

Oh that's a good thought, maybe we can even give it to the Arcane Archer fighter.

Psyren

2023-10-08, 08:38 PM

So just to make sure I understand you clearly, are you saying that you can't apply the Bastion system to it, or are you saying that it's possible but you don't have to?

If you get it at level 2, it's not a Bastion, as the earliest those come online is level 5.

I don't see why it couldn't become one later though, if such a home base can fit into that campaign to begin with.

Goobahfish

2023-10-08, 09:28 PM

The Bastion system feels like a new game tacked on to D&D.

Not that it is a strictly bad thing, but if you are going to play 'resource management', it would be more fun to play on a timescale that isn't punctuated by D&D games? All I see this doing is encouraging parties to... 'chill' until they get whatever bonus they can find in the massive list which is needed for some niche character concept.

Cantrip changes... are mostly fine. True Strike seems overtuned. D6+3/4 == D12. So why do anything but true-strike if you have access to a shortbow etc.

Jakinbandw

2023-10-09, 12:27 AM

The Bastion system feels like a new game tacked on to D&D.

So I'm making a homebrew RPG that has bastion style rules. I think people underestimate how much the random encounter chart adds to the game. Things like bandits attacking generally act as a call to action for PCs, as they don't like people showing up and breaking their stuff. All the travelers, dragons and such? It's all wonderful plothooks to start adventures.

While it might look separated, it gives players control over their magic items and new useful abilities, while at the same time giving the GM an endless supply of plothooks. I honestly think that it is the best tool out there for making a better game. Investment, plothooks, control, a resource sink. It's honestly great to see DnD take a small step in this direction.

Kane0

2023-10-09, 01:32 AM

Almost like a subsystem. Plugs into but is distinct from the core mechanics. See also: spellcasting.

follacchioso

2023-10-09, 07:11 AM

MoiMagnus

2023-10-09, 08:12 AM

I think the new Blade Ward cantrip would slow the game down. Essentially, the DM would have to pause every time a monster attacks a spellcasting PC in melee, to ask them whether they use Blade Ward or not, before rolling the attack.

This is especially bad in Play-by-Post games, where players and DM could be in different time zones, so the game would really have to wait until PC and DM have time to interact. This is similar to what is supposed to happen with Counterspell, where the DM is supposed to ask players "do you want to counterspell?" before revealing what the spell is.

The new cantrip also imposes a choice on the player, on whether to use Blade Ward before the attack is rolled, or Shield after the attack is rolled and it hits. I think that was is going to happen in practice is that the DM is going to roll the attacks without asking, giving the players the choice to declare Blade Ward retroactively if the monster hits. It seems like a badly designed mechanics.

I think I agree.

Reaction effects should always trigger "after the fact", otherwise it's kind of a slog.

Shield's timing is better than this new BW. (Though not perfect. The best timing to reduce the slog is "after knowing the damage", so the GM can say '18 against your AC, for 23 damages, deal with it' and then continue resolving the other enemies while the player decide whether to take the damage or use a power.)

Saelethil

2023-10-09, 11:25 AM

What if Blade Ward was non-magical BPS reduction that scaled at 5, 11, and 17. Something like PB + 1d4?

Witty Username

2023-10-09, 11:37 AM

A complete aside,
Should we get a more comprehensive material for playtest, like a beta release? It is kinda frustrating how many things in playtest packets depend on other things in the game. And getting a sense of what interacts with what is hard to track. A full PDF of OneD&D to play with just before release to catch the worst stuff would be nice, but I am not sure if that would be reasonable to expect since that would likely lose alot of purchasers of the new edition (since they will just copy the info).

Should we get a full playtest, or be content with the initial release? and expect a copious amount of errata.

Psyren

2023-10-09, 11:41 AM

What if Blade Ward was non-magical BPS reduction that scaled at 5, 11, and 17. Something like PB + 1d4?

Well... all signs point to "magical/nonmagical BPS" no longer being a thing in One, replaced with Force damage. But that means Blade Ward won't interact with magical damage in that respect anyway.

Goobahfish

2023-10-09, 10:15 PM

So I'm making a homebrew RPG that has bastion style rules. I think people underestimate how much the random encounter chart adds to the game. Things like bandits attacking generally act as a call to action for PCs, as they don't like people showing up and breaking their stuff. All the travelers, dragons and such? It's all wonderful plothooks to start adventures.

While it might look separated, it gives players control over their magic items and new useful abilities, while at the same time giving the GM an endless supply of plothooks. I honestly think that it is the best tool out there for making a better game. Investment, plothooks, control, a resource sink. It's honestly great to see DnD take a small step in this direction.

Oh, I get how it interfaces with the existing game. But the thing is, that 'managing a bastion and guards and stuff' is kind of... what the DM does? The three pillars are 'murder things, finding things to murder, threatening things that you will murder them'. This definitely feels like a 4th pillar.

I think the random encounter table is interesting, but at the same time, it sounds almost like a campaign premise rather than D&D in general.

Almost like a subsystem. Plugs into but is distinct from the core mechanics. See also: spellcasting.

Yes LOL, but spellcasting is a system for 'monster killing' (mostly).

ZRN

2023-10-10, 10:57 AM

Snowbluff

2023-10-10, 11:31 AM

I know there's some debate over whether the new Blade Ward makes casters (more) overpowered, but we can all agree that even if it doesn't, Blade Ward is itself overpowered for a cantrip, right? As in, I'm pretty sure that any "optimized" build with access to this Blade Ward would take it - you're just giving up a lot of "free" damage mitigation by not taking it. At least until you have a ton of slots to spend on Shield, this seems to be a must-have.

It's definitely an auto include. Being a cantrip means it's easily accessible by any class in the game, and its also ability score in independent so no one is worse off for using it. It doesn't compete with any other cantrip's action.

Theodoxus

2023-10-10, 11:35 AM

I know there's some debate over whether the new Blade Ward makes casters (more) overpowered, but we can all agree that even if it doesn't, Blade Ward is itself overpowered for a cantrip, right? As in, I'm pretty sure that any "optimized" build with access to this Blade Ward would take it - you're just giving up a lot of "free" damage mitigation by not taking it. At least until you have a ton of slots to spend on Shield, this seems to be a must-have.

IMO, very much so. I'd even drop Shield in favor, especially in a game where the DM isn't telegraphing what AC they hit. Better to go for disadvantage with a cantrip than risk a spell slot that's not going to provide enough of an AC boost to block the shot. The only time Shield would be better off in that instance is if the critter has multi-attack, or you're being targeted by multiple enemies. Since BW only hinders the one attack.

If it gets changed from disad to damage reduction, it would be a much harder decision.

One Tin Soldier

2023-10-10, 12:28 PM

I’m a bit surprised to see that so many people think Blade Ward is so powerful. I once played a Paladin with the Protection fighting style and mistakenly thought I could use it to protect myself. I still didn’t use it very often. That might have just been because I had other reactions available (like opportunity attacks and the Redemption channel divinity)? But those other options often felt more impactful than imposing disadvantage on a single attack. Especially when you have to choose to do it before dice are rolled.

I do think that everyone might be happier if the spell applied a die-based damage reduction after getting hit, that scales up by level. Like the Interception Fighting Style - which I replaced Protection with on the aforementioned Paladin when that book was released.

Trask

2023-10-10, 12:33 PM

Witty Username

2023-10-10, 01:30 PM

Interesting experience. It makes me wonder if Protection would really be all that busted if you were allowed to use it on yourself.

I think Ludic has a break down of interception vs protection, and if I recall correctly protection didn't do well even in later levels where more powerful single attacks are used. The read on that I took away is use interception at early levels, look at other things in high level play and maybe not worry about protection at all.

I don't think blade ward is as bad for the game as a defensive option as shield is, for example defensive duelist and deflect arrows do similar things as at will abilities. This is more in line with those.

For Shield fixes (since nothing is getting dropped in One, all are welcome), I would say either as a mage armor alternative (like say your AC is 15-16, like how heavy armor does) or give mage armor some value like say as a ritual or 1 minute casting time and shield being a action cast but only last a minute (the 3.5 implementation part way, in that edition shield and mage armor were differentiated by duration primarily with shield being minutes and mage armor being hours, but shield was a little better defensively, a similar idea for 5e would be more workable I think).

Slipjig

2023-10-10, 06:16 PM

Slipjig

2023-10-10, 06:46 PM

You know what, I have no time for your... Unique sort of conversation. No thanks.

There is no gray area, Barbarians are magical, pretend otherwise all you want but I'm not falling further into whatever you're trying to do.

So, to be clear, you think a Barbarian shouldn't be able to Rage inside an Anti-Magic field?

LudicSavant

2023-10-10, 07:04 PM

Of course not. He's a fighter/thief, per Gary Gygax himself:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hf4eg6KfDoM/TAdr5E0swqI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/UTxvvQRAp9A/s1600/ConanStats.gif

One maxxing out their Intelligence and Charisma to boot.

One of the issues with 5e martials is that they're often too narrow in scope and concept. Being good with a longsword and a bow? Being strong and smart or charismatic? These things are anathema to how 5e is designed, yet they are commonplace in iconic fantasy martials.

There are an awful lot of abilities that make this issue worsen as they progress, too. Where Wizard abilities tend to appropriately broaden rather than narrow as they progress, some Fighters might even do the opposite, limiting themselves to only performing in a level-appropriate way with a specific weapon, for instance.

This is one of the reasons I don't want to see feat chains coming back, incidentally. And why I'm not a big fan of the idea of getting only 2 weapon masteries -- it's yet another factor that limits a character to an overly narrow selection of weaponry.

Psyren

2023-10-10, 07:40 PM

One maxxing out their Intelligence and Charisma to boot.

One of the issues with 5e martials is that they're often too narrow in scope and concept. Being good with a longsword and a bow? Being strong and smart or charismatic? These things are anathema to how 5e is designed, yet they are commonplace in iconic fantasy martials.

I agree with this, but the solution is actually simple; "iconic fantasy martials" have higher arrays/rolls/PB than regular D&D characters with their teamplay expectation get.

And honestly, the same is likely true for a lot of "iconic fantasy casters" too. Gandalf and Rand al'Thor were pretty good with their swords for instance.

Theodoxus

2023-10-10, 08:02 PM

I agree with this, but the solution is actually simple; "iconic fantasy martials" have higher arrays/rolls/PB than regular D&D characters with their teamplay expectation get.

And honestly, the same is likely true for a lot of "iconic fantasy casters" too. Gandalf and Rand al'Thor were pretty good with their swords for instance.

That'll work well provided there is no multiclassing - or at least not in a form now used. I think it'd be pretty crappy to get a superior array as a first level fighter to only MC into Bard, which gets a comparatively poorer array at 1st level.

It does smack of disparate XP charts though. Which, full disclosure, I'm a fan of, but I know they're pretty anathema around these parts/edition.

Brookshw

2023-10-10, 08:07 PM

It does smack of disparate XP charts though. Which, full disclosure, I'm a fan of, but I know they're pretty anathema around these parts/edition.

Nothing wrong with them, I know WoTC has consistently moved away from pro/con character development, but I'm still a fan of the approach.

Psyren

2023-10-10, 08:17 PM

That'll work well provided there is no multiclassing - or at least not in a form now used. I think it'd be pretty crappy to get a superior array as a first level fighter to only MC into Bard, which gets a comparatively poorer array at 1st level.

It does smack of disparate XP charts though. Which, full disclosure, I'm a fan of, but I know they're pretty anathema around these parts/edition.

That's my point though, it's not related to class at all. Conan didn't get a superior array because he's a Barbarian - he got a superior array because he's Conan, and was thus destined for a level of greatness/fame that even a typical D&D hero could only dream of, never mind an average inhabitant of a D&D world.

Jakinbandw

2023-10-10, 08:38 PM

I like the idea of having some sort of system for owning property (I absolutely geeked out on the Realm Management system in Kingmaker), but there are several things I REALLY dislike in this design.

1) Why is the system gated behind being Level 5? Players (assuming they are interested) should get access to the system whenever it makes sense narratively. Maybe that's at the start of the Campaign, maybe it's never (if they're murderhobos).

2) Gating specific buildings off by character level is dumb. You cannot own a theater until Level 9? You can't raise a company of Soldiers until Level SEVENTEEN?!? Even in the Realms, there's no way the vast majority of feudal lords are going to be anywhere near that level. I'd much rather just see it gated off behind a gold cost (and possibly allow Bastion Points to be directly exchanged for gold and vice versa).

3) I hate hate hate the "respawn in your bastion" ability. That feels insanely video game-y. But worse than that, it removes any sense of risk from the party. If you 100% know that you CANNOT die in a given combat, there's no opportunity for bravery or heroism. It's already pretty hard to kill a PC in 5e, making it so that even a TPK just leads to them popping back up in their respective Bastions is a travesty.

1) Because they wanted to give a bastion special effects, one of which is being able to choose specific magic items. The bastion system isn't just for owning property, it's for owning property that actually does something for the PC rather than generate more useless gold.

2) See point 1. You can have a theater at level 1 if the GM lets you, but having one with a specific special effect is limited to level 9 because of its strength. Same thing for armies. A player can hire an army normally without this system, but being able to summon one from thin air over a long rest? That's a level of worldshaping that's only exceeded by certain uses of the Wish spell.

3) I understand where you are coming from, but I am writing my own system right now where PCs respawn automatically after a 2-3 faction turn delay. In some ways it makes heroic sacrifices a bigger deal. A normal TPK means the end of a campaign normally. Its done and over. With a respawn mechanic like the one suggested here, players actually lose something. A TPK often means failure, and then you have to deal with the outcome of that failure. Tiamat was summoned? What now? All the NPCs you adventured with and cared about are now dead, and there is an angry god loose. Oh, and coming back cost you a bunch of points you'd been saving towards a cool new item, which is now further away even as you need it most. The death now has lasting consequences other than completely ending the game.