Some stuff I would do to fix 5e [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

TheHalfAasimar

2024-03-07, 08:58 PM

Joshthemanwich

2024-03-07, 09:15 PM

I would add a more in depth section explaining how 5e expects a dungeon to be designed and ran at the table, How long does it take to search a room? How long does it take to check for traps and disarm them? How long does it take to check for secret doors? How loud is your average character?
Things along those lines.
I don't think you can fix much that isn't broken. But 5e's Dungeon focus lacks what I see as a basic foundation

KorvinStarmast

2024-03-07, 09:27 PM

Skrum

2024-03-07, 09:51 PM

I like most of these, at least the intent that seems to be behind them.

1) Sure, why not!
2) Sure, why not!
3) Hmmmm. I don't love this. For one, I don't really see the Str connection. Sorcerers, in my estimation, are instinctual; shaping magic with raw force of will. Not saying they should be Wisdom casters (enough of those!), but that makes more sense to me than Str. If this change was made, I'd want to see sorcerers move more in a gish direction, let them get some actual mileage out of Str (instead of just being a totally yoked guy wearing robes and avoiding melee combat)
4) Meh. Players already have so much control over what happens when it's not their turn via shield, silvery barbs, cloud rune, etc., that I would be really hesitant to do this. Even with only one reaction it's often only after that reaction is spent can monsters actually get a window of opportunity. I would be extremely hesitant to do this
5) Sure, why not!
6) 1000%
7) 1000%
8) No strong feelings
9) My thought here is the casting classes should have more tailored spell lists - make more class-only spells. Stop making levels in full casting classes the doorway to infinite adaptability in the form of access to EVERYTHING
10) This is a huge topic. I don't disagree per se, but I think the far more pertinent question is balance between classes that get spells and classes that don't. Like, what does it mean to be "mundane." Does choosing a mundane class mean having a rather narrow scope of Things To Do

Psyren

2024-03-07, 10:34 PM

Mastikator

2024-03-08, 03:37 AM

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.
2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come one, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit!
3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.
4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.
5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.
6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.
7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.
8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!
9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.
10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.

So yeah, those are some things I don't like about 5e, and stuff that I would do to change it. I think I should go play 3.5e, though...
I think you need to go into more detail what the actual problems are that you are trying to solve. Why don't you like the limited reaction economy? Why don't you like sorcerers as charisma casters? Why is 2 intelligence casters not enough? (3 if you count eldritch knight)

Is it just that you miss 3.5?

-

1) I think this is a neat idea, but I don't know what problem this fixes?
2) Again, what problem does this fix? I did like the UA warlock where warlocks got to choose.
3) If they did this I would homebrew it back to charisma. If a DM used sorcerers as strength casters I would not play at their table. Just no. This creates problems rather than solve them.
4) Dex does not need a boost, and creatures/PCs do not need more reactions. Again I don't know what problem this is supposed to fix, but it creates problems rather than fix them.
5) Pretty much agreed. I like the UA where barbarians can keep it going with a bonus action, I like that it lasts 10 minutes by default
6) Haven't played PF2, I do like that in the UA they are getting more stuff, weapon mastery and features that improve weapon mastery. They also get indomitable, in 5e it is basically trash, in the UA it is really good
7) disagree here, I prefer the way the UA handles it, everyone gets a level 1 feat at level 1. I like that feats and ASIs are interchangeable. I think that setting level 4 as double feat would make multiclassing too strong, however you could set character level 4 = one feat (so that barb4/fighter4 gets 3 feats, not 4)
8) only for level 20 characters. All classes should have a capstone that increases their primary beyond 20

9/10 are too broad fr

Kurald Galain

2024-03-08, 05:15 AM

Well ok, I assume you're asking for feedback on that.

1. Yes, that's a much better fit.
2. Yes, the game needs more int casters; however, warlocks (who make a pact with a powerful entity) are a poor fit for this.
3. Strength-based casting makes absolutely no sense.
4. Sounds unbalanced, and provoking AOOs is pretty rare anyway.
5. Fine.
6. PF2e fighters are much less customizable than the (quite a lot) of subclasses and feats that 5E fighters get, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to solve here.
7. I love getting more feats.
8. Sure, getting a 22 isn't going to break anything.
9. Fine.
10. I'm fine with that, but what new (or old) class in particular do you have in mind?

Arkhios

2024-03-08, 06:29 AM

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.
You're not wrong on that. Sorcerers should get a signature spell ability, the ability to cast a chosen spell or two at-will, within reasonable limits.

2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come on, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit!
Agreed. And it's something the devs did prefer themselves until they caved in under feedback demanding Charisma over Intelligence (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/810215324784193536).

3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.
Strength? Why the hell? Constitution I could stand behind of, but Strength? No way. There's absolutely no logic behind this, other than some ulterior motive to multiclass with warrior classes and make yet another gish, which seems to be on everyone's lips recently.

4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.
Half-agree. Opportunity Attacks based on your DEX modifier (minimum 1) would be reasonable. But there are so many other things, more powerful things, to do with Reactions so I wouldn't recommend changing it for all Reactions.

5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.
Can't say I disagree on this. But I'm a bit indifferent in this regard.

6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.
I think you might want to ask yourself if it's really D&D 5e or Pathfinder 2e you want to play. Pathfinder 2e has nothing good to offer for 5e. Period.

7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.
Agreed. Though half-feats would have to go, or at least be changed so that they no longer increase ability scores.

8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!
I strongly disagree. Bounded accuracy would lose its whole purpose if went down this rabbit hole.

9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.
Agreed.

10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.
Agreed. Druids, for one, should definitely be more focused on wild shaping, and much less on spellcasting.

So yeah, those are some things I don't like about 5e, and stuff that I would do to change it. I think I should go play 3.5e, though...
I mean, sure. 3.5/Pathfinder might offer more tools to fiddle around with if that is what you want from a game. But you do have several good points, though not all of them.

TheHalfAasimar

2024-03-08, 08:26 AM

You're not wrong on that. Sorcerers should get a signature spell ability, the ability to cast a chosen spell or two at-will, within reasonable limits.

Agreed. And it's something the devs did prefer themselves until they caved in under feedback demanding Charisma over Intelligence (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/810215324784193536).

Strength? Why the hell? Constitution I could stand behind of, but Strength? No way. There's absolutely no logic behind this, other than some ulterior motive to multiclass with warrior classes and make yet another gish, which seems to be on everyone's lips recently.

Half-agree. Opportunity Attacks based on your DEX modifier (minimum 1) would be reasonable. But there are so many other things, more powerful things, to do with Reactions so I wouldn't recommend changing it for all Reactions.

Can't say I disagree on this. But I'm a bit indifferent in this regard.

I think you might want to ask yourself if it's really D&D 5e or Pathfinder 2e you want to play. Pathfinder 2e has nothing good to offer for 5e. Period.

Agreed. Though half-feats would have to go, or at least be changed so that they no longer increase ability scores.

I strongly disagree. Bounded accuracy would lose its whole purpose if went down this rabbit hole.

Agreed.

Agreed. Druids, for one, should definitely be more focused on wild shaping, and much less on spellcasting.

I mean, sure. 3.5/Pathfinder might offer more tools to fiddle around with if that is what you want from a game. But you do have several good points, though not all of them.

I see your points, and you bring up some good points. I think I would enjoy 3.5e, because I like working with numbers, and it just sounds generally better.

Skrum

2024-03-08, 09:08 AM

I see your points, and you bring up some good points. I think I would enjoy 3.5e, because I like working with numbers, and it just sounds generally better.

3.5's action economy is a COMPLETE MESS. Like absolutely awful, especially for martials. For that reason alone I don't want to go back to 3.5.

Kurald Galain

2024-03-08, 09:15 AM

3.5's action economy is a COMPLETE MESS. Like absolutely awful, especially for martials. For that reason alone I don't want to go back to 3.5.

You mean, instead of an action, a move, a bonus action, and a reaction; it has a standard action, a move action, a swift action, and an immediate action?

Yeah, that's very messy and completely unrecognizable :smallamused:

Psyren

2024-03-08, 10:22 AM

You mean, instead of an action, a move, a bonus action, and a reaction; it has a standard action, a move action, a swift action, and an immediate action?

Yeah, that's very messy and completely unrecognizable :smallamused:

I think it's more the fact that moving screws up your ability to attack multiple times unless you jump through a bunch of hoops to get pounce or an equivalent, as well as that iterative penalties make those multiple attacks almost impossible to land against CR-appropriate foes past the first few. Why PF2 kept iterative penalties of all things is beyond me.

Another issue with 3.5 was the mandatory item christmas tree, which was so prevalent that WotC themselves officially acknowledged its existence. (https://web.archive.org/web/20160516172635/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070302a)

JackPhoenix

2024-03-08, 10:23 AM

You mean, instead of an action, a move, a bonus action, and a reaction; it has a standard action, a move action, a swift action, and an immediate action?

Yeah, that's very messy and completely unrecognizable :smallamused:

No, like the inability to move and still be able to take effective actions (unless you're a caster, of course) without having to jump through so many hoops. Or to move-act-move. Just that, on its own, is almost all the reason I need to not want to go back to 3.x again.

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.
2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come one, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit!
3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.
4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.
5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.
6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.
7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.
8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!
9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.
10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.

1: Whatever. Sure, why not? I'd rather have it expand on the cheaper sorcery point/spell slot conversion Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul have.
2: Sure, whatever. I'd rather look at spellcasting ability scores in general, though.
3: No. That doesn't make a shred of sense.
4: Yes and no. Extra reactions for everyone, based on Dex? Definitely not. More ways to use reactions, especially for martials, so combat isn't so static when it's not your turn? Definitely.
5: As long as the Rage lasts entire encounter, it's long enough. More uses of Rage? Sure.
6: More stuff? Sure. PF2? Nope.
7: Nah. That's just power creep. Extra ASI for very MAD classes like monk or barbarian? Sure. I'm not sure why it's limited to a fighter and a rogue, who are in general pretty SAD (still less so than casters, of course)
8: Sure. As long as its race-based and specific. Orcs should be able to be stronger than most other races.
9: Eh, sort of. Not necessary just more options (especially in regards to casters) but more DIVERSE options. Classic spellcasting/pact magic/spell points. More focus on abilities that aren't just "you can cast a spell" (so the opposite of what's WotC doing with D&Done).
10: More classes? Not really. More stuff for non-casters? Sure.

Psyren

2024-03-08, 10:27 AM

No, like the inability to move and still be able to take effective actions (unless you're a caster, of course) without having to jump through so many hoops. Or to move-act-move. Just that, on its own, is almost all the reason I need to not want to go back to 3.x again.

Yeah, breaking up your move is another pain in the posterior in 3.5. And don't get me started on drawing or swapping weapons, which 5.5e is going to make more frictionless than any edition ever has before.

Theodoxus

2024-03-08, 01:39 PM

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-08, 02:06 PM

JackPhoenix

2024-03-08, 02:12 PM

You mean you guys don't impart the lessons from 5E (and 4E) back into your 3.pf games? During the D&D Next play tests, we tossed out the movement restrictions from our 3.5 games, seeing the marked improvement. Took a bit longer, but we added finesse weapons keying off Dex as well.

I haven't played 3.5 in over a decade, but it wouldn't take much to keep the primary mechanics; BAB, skill points, AoOs, etc and clean them up with some 5E elbow grease and make a marked improvement over the original...

No, because I haven't ran a PF game since we switched to 5e either.

I'm way less comfortable messing with 3.x mechanics than I'm with 5e, partially because there's a lot more moving parts and unintended consequences. I don't think improving movement (specifically) would break anything in general, but it would possibly invalidate some existing options. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if, say, a prestige class' big thing is giving Pounce, there should probably be some compensation for making it a part of basic mechanics available to everyone. It would also still be more beneficial to casters, as those are less likely to have to deal with AoOs than anyone going into melee.

Psyren

2024-03-08, 02:49 PM

You mean you guys don't impart the lessons from 5E (and 4E) back into your 3.pf games?

I'm with JackPhoenix on this one. 3.5's math isn't as tight as 4e, but giving literally every martial pounce and erasing iterative penalties sounds like a great way to turn encounters in that edition into even more rocket tag than they already are.

Kurald Galain

2024-03-08, 03:16 PM

You mean you guys don't impart the lessons from 5E (and 4E) back into your 3.pf games?

Yeah, that. This is a thread about fixing things in D&D, so obviously the same fixing mentality can be applied to 3E.

Inquisitor

2024-03-08, 06:26 PM

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.
2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come one, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit!
3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.
4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.
5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.
6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.
7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.
8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!
9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.
10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.

So yeah, those are some things I don't like about 5e, and stuff that I would do to change it. I think I should go play 3.5e, though...

Some I agree with and some I don't; regardless, most of this doesn't hit the top of my list.

For me, the biggest single thing that I'd fix would be to balance short and long rest abilities for all classes. It's a pain as the DM constantly having to consider (and sometimes modify in a way that doesn't make sense in game) the number of encounters vs. rests, as failing to do this advantages some characters over others.

Getting monster stat-blocks that aren't just sacks of hp would also be on my list, though I will say some of the newer stuff has made strides in this regard.

Some spells need a complete do-over in the form of a nerf. Casters would be way more on par if the top 2-3 spells at each level were brought down to the median, and you'd see way more variation in play. Casters might even be incentivized to use spells that align with their subclass.

Without replying specifically to any of the above 10 points I'd say I'm against any power creep for any full casters and Paladins. Some of the new subclasses already do not belong at the same table with the poorer martials. Martials definitely need more tools by mid game.

The one specific fix I'll reply to is #10. I'm not sure we need more non-caster classes; we need more non-casting classes and subclasses that are good for all 4 tiers of play: see Rune Knight for an example.

Psyren

2024-03-08, 08:53 PM

Yeah, that. This is a thread about fixing things in D&D, so obviously the same fixing mentality can be applied to 3E.

The point of fixing though is to start from the edition that's closest to what you want so you have minimal additional work to do.

Amechra

2024-03-08, 10:29 PM

You mean, instead of an action, a move, a bonus action, and a reaction; it has a standard action, a move action, a swift action, and an immediate action?

Yeah, that's very messy and completely unrecognizable :smallamused:

While they're superficially pretty simple, the 3.X system is hilariously overcomplicated in comparison to 5e's system.

(Also, you got 3.5's collection of nonsense wrong — roughly speaking, you got a Full action (which was split into a Standard and a Move action, with Standard actions being able to be traded down for another Move action), a Swift action, a 5ft step (only if you didn't take a Move action to move!), and an Attack of Opportunity. Immediate actions consumed next turn's Swift action).

...

The one big thing I'd do, personally, is up the number of resources shared by multiple classes, rather than it effectively being spellcasting or nothing. It wouldn't actually be that difficult to merge a lot of the bespoke class resources into four-ish unified resources that you could tie feats and magic items to (roughly: Ki/Sorcery Points, Bardic Inspiration/Maneuvers, Channel Divinity/Wildshape/Pact Magic, and spell slots), and you could even reasonably add unique quirks to each one (for example, maybe the number of "Channel Divinity" uses you get varies a little by how aligned your interests are with whatever grants you power) or expand them to other classes.

No. They have meta magic. Give them one more at level 7.

What Sorcerers need to really get the right "my magic is more flexible than your magic!" vibe is spells with special interactions with specific metamagic. Like, it'd be really cool if Shadow Blade let you Twin it to dual-wield shadow swords, or if some of the weaker Concentration spells lost the Concentration requirement if you Extended them.

Ignimortis

2024-03-09, 05:40 AM

Psyren

2024-03-09, 11:08 AM

Frankly, the only thing I'd do about 3.5's action economy is uncouple immediate actions from swifts. Otherwise, it's about the best it gets in any D&D-like I've seen. Making movement free makes it not mean anything unless you add in some mechanic that actively spends movement to do something better (and then it's back to full attack at some level), and making the Attack action contain all the attacks you can make in a round (other than BA attacks) by default means that as long as you have that action available, you're still doing full damage.

5e absolutely lacks any point to movement beyond "how fast can I get to melee this guy" or "can I kite this guy indefinitely then?", because charge does not exist (without the Charger feat) and AoOs are highly limited, but also going 30 feet away from a monster no longer prevents them from just walking up to you and dumping its three-attack Multiattack anyway.

So either you want to have ways to spend movement on something more than movement, or accept that it's gonna be basically meaningless outside of "how quickly can I reach my desired position?".

5e isn't a kitefest; most monsters are faster (and as you go up in levels, have bigger reach) than most PCs, so the party needs to use things like their frontline, battlefield control, and escape tools like bonus action teleports just to even the odds, and do so with far less ability to pile on buffs due to the concentration mechanic. Remember too that reach doesn't create weird deadzones in 5e either, a monster with 15' reach can still hit enemies next to it with any of its weapons. Moreover, everyone can grapple without eating a fat AoO for trying, and plenty of monsters still have the equivalent of 3.5's Grab.

kingcheesepants

2024-03-10, 02:27 AM

Everyone is focused on quibbles like wanting more for martials to do or improving the game balance in some way or another. But really the best thing that would improve the game in my estimation is consistent language use in all published material, that's absolutely the #1 thing that would improve the game. So many problems stem from one ability or spell describing things one way and another having a similar but different way of describing things and then leaving it up to the DM to figure out what's going on. Making it so that every spell, ability, item, etc use the same terms in the same ways would fix so much ambiguity and make things better. No more nonsense of melee weapon attack vs melee attack with a weapon, or blindsight not actually helping you if you have the blinded condition, or any other such foolishness that comes from weird or inconsistent language use.

Ignimortis

2024-03-10, 07:04 AM

5e isn't a kitefest; most monsters are faster (and as you go up in levels, have bigger reach) than most PCs, so the party needs to use things like their frontline, battlefield control, and escape tools like bonus action teleports just to even the odds, and do so with far less ability to pile on buffs due to the concentration mechanic. Remember too that reach doesn't create weird deadzones in 5e either, a monster with 15' reach can still hit enemies next to it with any of its weapons. Moreover, everyone can grapple without eating a fat AoO for trying, and plenty of monsters still have the equivalent of 3.5's Grab.

If you're in a dungeon or limited by a battlemap, then yes, it might not be. On a more open map? Maybe 20% of monsters are faster than 30-35 ft, and many classes have ways of increasing their movement speed to 40 or 60 feet that function for an entire combat (possibly plural). As for reach, it had basically never created deadzones for monsters in 3.5 either, that was specifically a weapon property issue (that WotC AND Paizo were both for some reason very reluctant to let players overcome normally).

However, this doesn't really change what I said. Movement in 5e is useless for anything but movement, and there is no real frontline control, because an enemy of CR3+ usually isn't afraid of eating an AoO to dash for the backline if it can. In effect, anyone can be anywhere if they so desire, and there are no considerations beyond "can I do damage and possibly avoid some damage at the same time while in this spot" for movement usage. Hell, there's even no flanking unless you work it in yourself, so no tactical considerations there either.

Asmotherion

2024-03-10, 07:57 AM

1. Sorcerers get that wizard ability that lets them cast a low level spell at will. After all, they're the ones who are overflowing with magic! Wizards... they get a lot of spells known, and Sorcerers do not. OneDND is fixing the sorcerer spell problems (mostly lack of) though.
2. Warlocks as Intelligence casters. Come one, we need more Int casters, and Warlock is the perfect fit! There are some fixes I need to see for the Warlock, but that's not one of them.
3. Sorcerers are Strength casters. They are the ones who use their strength to affect their magic.
4. A number of reactions equal to your DEX modifier, because only one attack of oppurtunity a round? Bleh.
5. Barbarian Rage should be longer. OneDND is fixing that too, though.
6. Fighters should get more stuff, and have the amount of customizability that PF2e fighters do. I mean, really, all classes should get that.
7. Feats + ASI at each 4th level. It would make things more interesting.
8. Abilities (for PCs) should have the option to go above 20 without magic items or class features. I mean, yeah, stuff would get broken when you have a 26 CHA Tiefling Bard, but that's fun!
9. More options for classes. I don't want all the casting classes to feel the same. I wish there was more customization.
10. More non-caster classes. If the only non-caster classes we're getting are Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter, I think there needs to be some more stuff to play around with.

So yeah, those are some things I don't like about 5e, and stuff that I would do to change it. I think I should go play 3.5e, though...

1) No. There are better Sorcerer Fixes. Like, give them an Eldritch Blast-like thematic Cantrip that gets Cha Bonus on every hit, without the need for diping Warlock. It's all they need to be a good class.
2) No. Warlocks literaly gain their powers by Bargain. Cha is the most thematic stat for them.
3) No. Sorcerers literally tell the laws of nature to bend to their will. Cha is the most thematic stat for them.
4) No. As much as I like 3.5e where that exists as a feat, in 5e Dex is already too good. I'd hear an arguement for Prof Bonus per turn.
5) Yes. Sure. Like proficiency bonus number of times per rest would be good.
6) Yes. I prefear Fighters that are pseudo-casters like the 3.5 ToB classes.
7) No AND Yes. Feats IMO should be every 3rd level. ASI could be every 4th level. But I agree they should be a different resource, and you shouldn't have to opt for only one of them (I assume that's what you mean).
8) Yes. At least in some cases. If the PCs are some form of epic heroes, then yes. If the PCs are an unlikely band of nobodies who bond together, then no need.
9) GOD YES. No comment.
10) Yes. I mean, one of the reasons magic is cool is because not everyone can do it. If everyone can do magic, magic is, well, let's just say less magical. Also, contrary to what WotC seems to think, not everyone wants to play a mage (shocking, I know, 'cause I'm one of the people who do like to play mages exclusively). Some people want their fantasy character to punsh the magic thing, and that's just fine. They deserve more options.

One more "FIX" I want to add: More spell slots. Those things should feel like an almost limitless resource at high levels. 6-9 spell slots of each level should do the trick.

Amnestic

2024-03-10, 08:36 AM

2) No. Warlocks literaly gain their powers by Bargain. Cha is the most thematic stat for them.

They can gain their powers from a bargain, and Charisma can be a good stat because of that. But making a good bargain could also be intelligence based in navigating clauses and understanding terminology, rather than simply sweet-talking the other side.

But some warlocks - especially GOOlocks - don't get their powers from bargains at all, but rather from plumbing the depths of the universe and being bonded to these magical creatures, sometimes without either side actively choosing to do so. That's in the class description in the PHB.

Moving Warlocks to Int has a nice 'meta' symmetry too, in putting two full casters on each mental stat. Wiz/War, Cle/Dru, and Bar/Sor. With the Artificer, there's a halfcaster for each mental stat too.

LibraryOgre

2024-03-10, 10:07 AM

Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights would have spellbooks and could learn spells.

Theodoxus

2024-03-10, 01:01 PM

1) No. There are better Sorcerer Fixes. Like, give them an Eldritch Blast-like thematic Cantrip that gets Cha Bonus on every hit, without the need for diping Warlock. It's all they need to be a good class.

I like the idea of a Sorcerer only cantrip that's kind of like Chaotic Orb or Chaos Bolt, but tailored to each damage type.

Upon casting, roll a d8, this determines the type of damage.
1) Force, deals 1d4+Cha mod. Special: no hit required.
2) Acid, on a hit, deals 1d6+Cha mod. Special: repeats damage the next round.
3) Thunder, on a hit, deals 1d8+Cha mod. Special: Con save or be deafened until the start of the caster's next round.
4) Psychic, on a hit, deals 1d10+Cha mod. Special: If the damage would reduce the target to 0 hit points, it leaves them unconscious and stable instead.
5) Fire, on a hit, deals 1d10+Cha mod. Special: Dex save or damage repeats the next round.
6) Cold, on a hit, deals 1d8+Cha mod. Special: Slows the target by 10', non-stacking.
7) Poison, on a hit, deals 1d8+Cha mod. Special: deals 1d12+Cha mod if the target is already below maximum hit points.
8) Lighting, on a hit, deals 1d6+Cha mod. Special: target can't take reactions until the start of the caster's next round.

All damage increases by 1 die at 5th, 11th, and 17th levels.

Since the Force bolt quickly exceeds Magic Missile, I don't think it would be fair to let the caster determine the damage type, hence the random roll.

One more "FIX" I want to add: More spell slots. Those things should feel like an almost limitless resource at high levels. 6-9 spell slots of each level should do the trick.

ETA: I think the easiest way to replicate this 'Fix' is to just let all casters have their slots refresh on a short rest. Then, triple the number Warlocks get to compensate.

Psyren

2024-03-10, 02:52 PM

If you're in a dungeon or limited by a battlemap, then yes, it might not be. On a more open map? Maybe 20% of monsters are faster than 30-35 ft, and many classes have ways of increasing their movement speed to 40 or 60 feet that function for an entire combat (possibly plural). As for reach, it had basically never created deadzones for monsters in 3.5 either, that was specifically a weapon property issue (that WotC AND Paizo were both for some reason very reluctant to let players overcome normally).

However, this doesn't really change what I said. Movement in 5e is useless for anything but movement, and there is no real frontline control, because an enemy of CR3+ usually isn't afraid of eating an AoO to dash for the backline if it can. In effect, anyone can be anywhere if they so desire, and there are no considerations beyond "can I do damage and possibly avoid some damage at the same time while in this spot" for movement usage. Hell, there's even no flanking unless you work it in yourself, so no tactical considerations there either.

Eh - I would argue that wide-open featureless assume-a-spherical-cow-on-a-frictionless-plane whiterooms are far less common in practice than dungeon rooms. corridors, clearings and other arenas with obstacles, chokepoints and clutter.

And yes, OAs don't hit as hard since most creatures don't have a way to get more than one - but ultimately damage is still damage, so the point is that neither side can kite forever even if we were dealing with battlefields where hopping around from frontline to backline with impunity were trivial.

One more "FIX" I want to add: More spell slots. Those things should feel like an almost limitless resource at high levels. 6-9 spell slots of each level should do the trick.

Nah - casters are powerful enough as it is. The change I would have proposed is something 5.5e is already doing, making it so every spellcaster is a ritual caster as well as getting some form of resource recovery on a short rest.

LibraryOgre

2024-03-10, 05:39 PM

Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights would have spellbooks and could learn spells.

Ok, I got a solution for this.

So, an AC or EK starts knowing 3 spells, two of which must be from their specified schools (Enchantment/Illusion or Abjuration/Evocation). However, instead of preparing level + attribute bonus, they prepare proficiency bonus + attribute bonus.

Skrum

2024-03-11, 07:25 AM

If you're in a dungeon or limited by a battlemap, then yes, it might not be. On a more open map? Maybe 20% of monsters are faster than 30-35 ft, and many classes have ways of increasing their movement speed to 40 or 60 feet that function for an entire combat (possibly plural). As for reach, it had basically never created deadzones for monsters in 3.5 either, that was specifically a weapon property issue (that WotC AND Paizo were both for some reason very reluctant to let players overcome normally).

However, this doesn't really change what I said. Movement in 5e is useless for anything but movement, and there is no real frontline control, because an enemy of CR3+ usually isn't afraid of eating an AoO to dash for the backline if it can. In effect, anyone can be anywhere if they so desire, and there are no considerations beyond "can I do damage and possibly avoid some damage at the same time while in this spot" for movement usage. Hell, there's even no flanking unless you work it in yourself, so no tactical considerations there either.

Yeah....I played 3.5. I remember the movement, and it was annoying. Goofy 5 ft steps, full attacks, standard action spells. *No thank you.* Decluttering and normalizing the action econ (i.e., making it work relatively similarly for each class) is literally one of the best things 5e did.

Now, I do think 5e needs a native flanking rule. The table I play at uses flanking, and it's a big part of combat. I DON'T think flanking giving advantage is a good idea, but something like +3 to +5 to attacks would raise the tactical considerations while still preserving the value of advantage-granting abilities.

After playing BG3 for 150 hours, I'm fully convinced that if you think combat movement isn't tactical enough, your battlemaps are too empty. Nothing to do with the rules of turn actions. You need to add debris, cover, elevation, hazards, cliffs, etc etc etc.

Psyren

2024-03-11, 08:42 AM

For a normal table I would recommend flanking provide no more than a +2 bonus, and I'd probably even go as low as +1. Enough to reward positioning and make a tactical difference, not so much that the difference between flanking and not flanking becomes night-and-day or equivalent to a feat / rare+ magic item. I definitely think the default suggestion of advantage isn't well-thought-out - it's simultaneously too much (like having an extra concentration buff running on both sides of the battle) and too little (since advantage is much easier to get now than at the game's inception, often you end up with flanking doing nothing if it provides advantage rather than a flat bonus, which flies in the face of its design intent to reward positioning and tactical play.)

After playing BG3 for 150 hours, I'm fully convinced that if you think combat movement isn't tactical enough, your battlemaps are too empty. Nothing to do with the rules of turn actions. You need to add debris, cover, elevation, hazards, cliffs, etc etc etc.

Exactly this. Clutter is fun!

Ok, I got a solution for this.

So, an AC or EK starts knowing 3 spells, two of which must be from their specified schools (Enchantment/Illusion or Abjuration/Evocation). However, instead of preparing level + attribute bonus, they prepare proficiency bonus + attribute bonus.

I don't know about this one; scaling spells known/prepared with PB means they get full progression even if they multiclass. An EK 3 / Wiz 17 with this rule would get an extra 8 spells known; even if those follow the EK school limitations of abjuration/evocation only, that frees up their wizard side to focus on the other 6 schools.

Kurald Galain

2024-03-11, 09:51 AM

Now, I do think 5e needs a native flanking rule. The table I play at uses flanking, and it's a big part of combat. I DON'T think flanking giving advantage is a good idea, but something like +3 to +5 to attacks would raise the tactical considerations while still preserving the value of advantage-granting abilities.
I note that other bonuses (e.g. the Bless spell) default to giving a +1d4 bonus, so I'd say a +2 or +3 for flanking. Because let's face it, a +1 is saying "this doesn't actually matter but let's give it lip service".

I would definitely like 5E to be more tactical. Having a flanking rule helps, as does more interesting battlemaps. I wonder how the battlemaps are in the introductory adventure, and in low-level Organized Play adventures? Because that's where DMs would get their inspiration from.

Ignimortis

2024-03-11, 10:36 AM

Yeah....I played 3.5. I remember the movement, and it was annoying. Goofy 5 ft steps, full attacks, standard action spells. *No thank you.* Decluttering and normalizing the action econ (i.e., making it work relatively similarly for each class) is literally one of the best things 5e did.
I'm playing PF1 right now, and I'm not annoyed. It works just right. And 5e doesn't have it work relatively similarly for each class - there are still classes that don't get to use most of the economy, and classes who have options for every kind of action.

While I don't think full attacks are an entirely great concept, I do think that making movement too free isn't great either. 5e movement is exactly that - too free, both in the sense that it's too uninhibited and that it doesn't cost anything to move your full movement distance. There has to be something you would want (or even forced to, if you want to use a particular option) to spend movement on other than moving around. Those probably can't be full attack types of actions, but spellcasters being forced to stand still for a round to get some of the better spells off doesn't sound too bad to me.

Now, I do think 5e needs a native flanking rule. The table I play at uses flanking, and it's a big part of combat. I DON'T think flanking giving advantage is a good idea, but something like +3 to +5 to attacks would raise the tactical considerations while still preserving the value of advantage-granting abilities.
+3 to +5 is an incredibly large bonus for 5e. +2 would be good.

After playing BG3 for 150 hours, I'm fully convinced that if you think combat movement isn't tactical enough, your battlemaps are too empty. Nothing to do with the rules of turn actions. You need to add debris, cover, elevation, hazards, cliffs, etc etc etc.
I was not impressed with BG3's battlemaps either. They're good for a videogame, but there are quite a few cliffs of instant death (a reasonable GM would not put nearly as many in their game, I think), and maybe elevation for high ground ranged bonuses (not every environment has that, but it's already a thing that was sometimes happening in TT). Outside of height manipulation, it's actually pretty light on traps, non-fatal pits, etc. Anyway, I've seen those used in 5e games. They don't add nearly as much - either they're small enough to not be a bother, or large enough to not be considered part of the battleground and basically become another wall.

Now, I have myself experimented with more unusual mechanics like "zones you have to get out of/move your enemies out of ASAP", and the reverse, with spots you can't stand on for more than one round, plain old "terrain hurts you for every square moved" and so on - but I've also done that in 3.PF. There's nothing in 5e that makes those kinds of maps inherently better, and some 5e basics would probably make it worse (i.e. having to move 20 ft each turn is no longer a problem for anyone).

For a normal table I would recommend flanking provide no more than a +2 bonus, and I'd probably even go as low as +1. Enough to reward positioning and make a tactical difference, not so much that the difference between flanking and not flanking becomes night-and-day or equivalent to a feat / rare+ magic item. I definitely think the default suggestion of advantage isn't well-thought-out - it's simultaneously too much (like having an extra concentration buff running on both sides of the battle) and too little (since advantage is much easier to get now than at the game's inception, often you end up with flanking doing nothing if it provides advantage rather than a flat bonus, which flies in the face of its design intent to reward positioning and tactical play.)
We've played with DMG flanking in the early days. In a few sessions, everyone was mostly glad to be rid of it, because it really encouraged "conga lines of death" on the battlefield, a sort of armored caterpillar scenario where 1 is flanking 3 with 2 but is also flanked by 3 with 4, and 4 is in turn flanked by 1 and 5... It just looked silly, and due to how easy movement was, was still a no-brainer, so basically every melee, friend or enemy, rolled with advantage unless they were alone.

Psyren

2024-03-11, 10:36 AM

I would definitely like 5E to be more tactical. Having a flanking rule helps, as does more interesting battlemaps. I wonder how the battlemaps are in the introductory adventure, and in low-level Organized Play adventures? Because that's where DMs would get their inspiration from.

I both have, and have run, the most recently created Starter Set (Dragons of Stormwreck Isle, July 2022.) Without spoilers, all of the combat maps - e.g. the Wreck of the Compass Rose, the Myconid Caves, and the Clifftop Observatory, contain chokepoints, pillars, and other terrain features like waist-deep water that can be used to affect movement and positioning or as cover, so I'd say new players are being introduced to such concepts quite well.

I note that other bonuses (e.g. the Bless spell) default to giving a +1d4 bonus, so I'd say a +2 or +3 for flanking. Because let's face it, a +1 is saying "this doesn't actually matter but let's give it lip service".

This is exactly why I'd keep the flanking bonus low though. Whatever bonus you apply from flanking (a) doesn't need concentration to maintain and (b) would therefore stack with other bonuses like Bless and Advantage. You'd risk breaking through Bounded Accuracy quickly, especially at low levels. Keep in mind too that several low level fights involve multiple enemies (the aforementioned starter set contains a good number of thsoe), who can thus benefit from flanking even more easily than the players can. 8 Stirges becomes a much scarier fight if they can get +8 to hit your party's tank instead of +5.

We've played with DMG flanking in the early days. In a few sessions, everyone was mostly glad to be rid of it, because it really encouraged "conga lines of death" on the battlefield, a sort of armored caterpillar scenario where 1 is flanking 3 with 2 but is also flanked by 3 with 4, and 4 is in turn flanked by 1 and 5... It just looked silly, and due to how easy movement was, was still a no-brainer, so basically every melee, friend or enemy, rolled with advantage unless they were alone.

Yeah we dumped DMG flanking quickly too.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-11, 10:48 AM

However, this doesn't really change what I said. Movement in 5e is useless for anything but movement, and there is no real frontline control, because an enemy of CR3+ usually isn't afraid of eating an AoO to dash for the backline if it can. In effect, anyone can be anywhere if they so desire, and there are no considerations beyond "can I do damage and possibly avoid some damage at the same time while in this spot" for movement usage.
Haven't experienced this. There are some monsters that are intended to zip around the battlefield and have features to that effect.

But for everything else, there's Grapple. Doesn't require a feat, a weapon, a variant rule, etc. Stock core option. Grab an enemy and they can't move anywhere. And now your movement can move them somewhere else.

Needless to say, I have not seen this be a problem in my games, even on open maps. Which is not to say that it doesn't ever happen, but it's not a consistent meta reality that monsters are just whirling dervishes all over the map moving willy nilly. There's a front line. If an enemy getting hit by my barbarian thinks to himself "this isn't worth it" the DM is usually making morale checks and/or retreating, not eating an OA to go target someone else.

For monsters that are too big to grapple, that's okay. Some monsters have that as a feature that they can't easily be physically restrained. But Grapple is a stock option on any character, and you can supplement that control with control spells or hazard/terrain spells and features from other party members. And that's before we get into a battlemap with features that limit or stop movement.

Hell, there's even no flanking unless you work it in yourself, so no tactical considerations there either.
I agree that one issue with 5E is what it decided should be stuck in the DMG as variant rules. Climb on Another Creature, Disarm, Overrun, etc. are all interesting combat options that should have just been put in the normal rules.

Yeah....I played 3.5. I remember the movement, and it was annoying. Goofy 5 ft steps, full attacks, standard action spells. *No thank you.* Decluttering and normalizing the action econ (i.e., making it work relatively similarly for each class) is literally one of the best things 5e did.
Agreed. Though 3rd edition gave you ways to make a standard action attack stronger, but yes the movement was clunky.

Now, I do think 5e needs a native flanking rule. The table I play at uses flanking, and it's a big part of combat. I DON'T think flanking giving advantage is a good idea, but something like +3 to +5 to attacks would raise the tactical considerations while still preserving the value of advantage-granting abilities.
These days, everyone I play with is trying to stay away from melee, so I don't even know who I would be flanking with :smallfrown:

After playing BG3 for 150 hours, I'm fully convinced that if you think combat movement isn't tactical enough, your battlemaps are too empty. Nothing to do with the rules of turn actions. You need to add debris, cover, elevation, hazards, cliffs, etc etc etc.
100% agreed. I've never played BG3 but I've just noticed for myself in our games that when the terrain is interesting, my strength characters usually perform well because they have high jump distance, the athletics needed for climbing (or jumping depending on circumstances) and mobility options. And by knocking an enemy prone and cutting their speed in half, you limit how the enemy can interact with a more dynamic battlemap. Or pushing and dragging them to hazards.

I think the failing of 5E is not highlighting this enough. May be that they wanted the game to seem as simple and straightforward as possible and everyone's been playing in giant featureless maps all this time.

Witty Username

2024-03-11, 10:52 AM

Kurald Galain

2024-03-11, 10:54 AM

I'm playing PF1 right now, and I'm not annoyed. It works just right. And 5e doesn't have it work relatively similarly for each class - there are still classes that don't get to use most of the economy, and classes who have options for every kind of action.
Very true. Like, casters in 5E (if they aren't focused on melee) often have little or no use for their move or their bonus action.

traps, non-fatal pits, etc. Anyway, I've seen those used in 5e games. They don't add nearly as much - either they're small enough to not be a bother, or large enough to not be considered part of the battleground and basically become another wall.
It is likewise my experience that 5E DMs tend to use terrain that can largely be ignored. 5E's rules on diagonal movement and on OAs tend to make it rather easy to ignore terrain as well.

I think the failing of 5E is not highlighting this enough.
Definitely.
Although to be fair, most players probably don't want tactical combat, so that's why it was designed so that positioning and tactics don't have much impact (except when using optional rules).

Whatever bonus you apply from flanking (a) doesn't need concentration to maintain and (b) would therefore stack with other bonuses like Bless and Advantage.
Well, if you don't want it to stack with Bless (which is a fair point) then just rule that it doesn't stack with Bless. :smallamused:

8 Stirges becomes a much scarier fight if they can get +8 to hit your party's tank instead of +5.
Given how easy 5E combats tend to be, I don't see that as a problem.

Inquisitor

2024-03-11, 11:08 AM

Haven't experienced this. There are some monsters that are intended to zip around the battlefield and have features to that effect.

But for everything else, there's Grapple. Doesn't require a feat, a weapon, a variant rule, etc. Stock core option. Grab an enemy and they can't move anywhere. And now your movement can move them somewhere else.

Needless to say, I have not seen this be a problem in my games, even on open maps. Which is not to say that it doesn't ever happen, but it's not a consistent meta reality that monsters are just whirling dervishes all over the map moving willy nilly. There's a front line. If an enemy getting hit by my barbarian thinks to himself "this isn't worth it" the DM is usually making morale checks and/or retreating, not eating an OA to go target someone else.

For monsters that are too big to grapple, that's okay. Some monsters have that as a feature that they can't easily be physically restrained. But Grapple is a stock option on any character, and you can supplement that control with control spells or hazard/terrain spells and features from other party members. And that's before we get into a battlemap with features that limit or stop movement.

I agree that one issue with 5E is what it decided should be stuck in the DMG as variant rules. Climb on Another Creature, Disarm, Overrun, etc. are all interesting combat options that should have just been put in the normal rules.

Agreed. Though 3rd edition gave you ways to make a standard action attack stronger, but yes the movement was clunky.

These days, everyone I play with is trying to stay away from melee, so I don't even know who I would be flanking with :smallfrown:

100% agreed. I've never played BG3 but I've just noticed for myself in our games that when the terrain is interesting, my strength characters usually perform well because they have high jump distance, the athletics needed for climbing (or jumping depending on circumstances) and mobility options. And by knocking an enemy prone and cutting their speed in half, you limit how the enemy can interact with a more dynamic battlemap. Or pushing and dragging them to hazards.

I think the failing of 5E is not highlighting this enough. May be that they wanted the game to seem as simple and straightforward as possible and everyone's been playing in giant featureless maps all this time.

We don't use flanking rules, but given how strong the summons spells are I'm not sure flanking does much to help out the martials. As for who you'd be flanking with, I suppose the good news/ bad news side of this is that the answer can be whatever the casters decided to throw out there.

Witty Username

2024-03-11, 11:16 AM

On flanking,
It is in use in both the game I DM and the game I am currently playing in.
It has come up 0 times.
The other DM has a modification to not allow creatures of larger size categories than the party to be flanked, I do not have such.

It turns out, it is easy to make a party and artillery squad.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-11, 11:36 AM

Good point about summons; our Druid does summon an elemental spirit.

One issue, for me, with Flanking is it forces your positioning. I prefer to keep enemies between me and other enemies, for cover and especially if there is a bottleneck. I’m a bit more conservative and probably wouldn’t go for Flanking if it meant enemies that wouldn’t otherwise have a clear shot at me now do.

Sorinth

2024-03-11, 11:41 AM

As a note 5e is designed with Theatre of the Mind at the forefront which is always going to limit the nitty gritty tactical stuff.

For BG3 it wasn't just varied terrain they also added a bunch of rules like high/low elevation giving +/- 2 to hit and increased fall damage that made interacting with the terrain more beneficial and on top of that made some pretty big movement changes such as Longstrider as a ritual, BA jump, being able to make super elevated high jumps, etc...

With all the flanking talk I wonder if they shouldn't just implement a standardized mechanic that gives a +1d4 to a roll. You could give it out for flanking, ranged attacks from height, and even things like Bless or Guidance would then just reference that mechanic to prevent stacking too much.

Psyren

2024-03-11, 12:06 PM

Well, if you don't want it to stack with Bless (which is a fair point) then just rule that it doesn't stack with Bless. :smallamused:

I don't want such a large bonus to stack with Magic/Elemental Weapon or Bardic Inspiration or Precision Attack or Focused Aim or Emboldening Bond etc etc either :smalltongue:

Rather than building in a dozen exceptions for every potential low-level attack bonus in the game and wishing on a star that it stays future-proofed, I'd rather just keep the bonus in line with bounded accuracy philosophy to start with.

Given how easy 5E combats tend to be, I don't see that as a problem.

I'm aware, but in my opinion, a 60% or more hit buff for enemies designed to face new players strikes me as a bit more of a difficulty spike than the game needs.

Theodoxus

2024-03-11, 12:06 PM

Tried the DMG Flanking. Made the game quite easy - the Rogue loved it, the Barbarian thought it basically replaced the need for Reckless Attack and hated it (the cleric liked not having to heal the Barbi as much).

I think if I were to use it again, I'd change it from Advantage (which really just makes flanking silly) to a d4 bonus to hit, akin to Bless, and stacking with it. I get the distaste of using d4s (they're annoying and inconveniently shaped, and hurt like a MFer when stepped on) but I've not heard any issues with Bless - people like their bonuses more than their request to use easier dice (though I could get behind a campaign to change d4s into d3+a (any boost to MM is a good thing in my book ;)

Anyway, Bless isn't the 'must have' that it was in the early days of 5E at my tables, so I don't see 2d4 much in my future if I adopt the rule. But even so, the average is +5... which comes out to the same general bonus as advantage (without the ensuing issues that true advantage provides). And the occasional +8 to hit just makes the player feel good too. Plus, its still dependent on the almighty d20; a 1 is still a 1, a 20 is still a 20...

I get the reason Advantage is used as a replacement for all the fiddley little numbers, but game bloat has changed the nature of Advantage and what it provides. I'm not saying going back to 3.PF style minutia, but some things currently granting advantage (like DMG flanking) work better with a small bonus (d3, d4) etc.

If you're really dead-set against the idea of a d4, I've also seen d3-1 for Flanking. It definitely more closely aligns with the Bounded Accuracy concept of tiny bonuses - and it makes the combat feel a bit more realistic. Sure, you might have an easier time hitting someone who's distracted (rolling that +2) or they might surprise you on how adroitly they're keeping their eye on you (rolling that 0). Whether such a rule would encourage flanking or not I'm not sure.

ETA (posting at work means it takes a LONG time to finish a thought - lol)

With all the flanking talk I wonder if they shouldn't just implement a standardized mechanic that gives a +1d4 to a roll. You could give it out for flanking, ranged attacks from height, and even things like Bless or Guidance would then just reference that mechanic to prevent stacking too much.

This is the kind of thing that I think a blanket d3-1 would really work with. You'd probably even want to actively stack them to boost the chances of overcoming the 1/3 chance of getting no bonus. Even then, how often would something like 4+ options be available in the same round?

Skrum

2024-03-11, 01:11 PM

I mean, we're all just offering opinions about a variant/house rule, so there's no real weight to any of this. So do whatever yah want. But a principle I've come to appreciate is simplicity. There's enough to keep track of already, especially for the DM. If the bonus is going to come up all the time (like flanking does), just make it a flat bonus that's the average of what the dice you're considering. I'd vastly prefer +2 or +3 over 1d4, just because it's easier to remember, less adding, less searching for dice...

The reason I would favor a MINIMUM of +3 for flanking is because of AC values. Monsters getting a flank is often the only way tanky characters actually get hit. Ergo, getting flanked is SCARY. And it should be. Not wanting to get flanked ---> movement is that much more important.

Flanking in a featureless plane? Yeah, can end up with a caterpillar. But in practice, enemies dropping, new ones moving in, PC's shifting around, and combatants using walls to prevent flanks all add up to no caterpillars. Yes flanking is the defining aspect of combat, round to round. But it should be? Like, teaming up on an enemy? Yeah, that's a *feature,* not a bug.

As for smaller changes I wouldn't mind seeing/would be open to trying
- spells that took a "full round" to cast; can't move on the turn they're cast
- OA's triggering by leaving a threatened square, not just leaving reach

Amechra

2024-03-11, 04:09 PM

I mean, if I had to implement flanking, I'd probably go for a damage boost or crit range increase instead of advantage or a bonus to attack rolls.

Kurald Galain

2024-03-11, 04:55 PM

I don't want such a large bonus to stack with Magic/Elemental Weapon or Bardic Inspiration or Precision Attack or Focused Aim or Emboldening Bond etc etc either
So, you're fine with all six of those stacking, but flanking is the one that needs to be so small that it doesn't actually matter?

Nah. This calls for either a generic rule of "only one added die to a d20 roll", or more likely, just call Rule Of Cool. If the players want to spend resources to make a big teamwork combo, let them.

Skrum

2024-03-11, 05:10 PM

I mean, if I had to implement flanking, I'd probably go for a damage boost or crit range increase instead of advantage or a bonus to attack rolls.

Not being critical of any idea here, just musing -

Crit range increase is an odd one, due to the weird way crits work in 5e. A GWM character cares a whole lot less about crits than a paladin does, for example. Also some monsters have large damage dice, and others have more bonus damage. For that reason, I would be hesitant to go this route.

Increased damage is interesting. It'll make combat more swingy, as a flanking monster is no more likely to hit but if they get a good roll they might land a really crushing blow (obviously it matters how big this damage boost is. +5? +10? Double the damage from the attribute used for the attack?).

TheHalfAasimar

2024-03-11, 05:18 PM

I figured that was rote memorization, the wizard grinded 2 spells into their head that can now never leave, which fits the wizard pretty well.

Now, I am going to utter some herasy, sorcerers should get arcane recovery and wizards should get metamagic.
Tinkering with the spell formula to get unexpected results is the work of experimental knowledge. Arcane recovery is the work of overflowing power.

At least if we are not going the 3.5 way and it makes sense for any spellcaster to be able to do,
Some hacking to use metamagic how the casters would
Cleric, channel divinity (druid can use a wild shape)
Sorcerer, font of magic
Wizard, prepare a modified version as a higher level spell

Still thinking on bard.

Quite frankly, I agree with the sorcerers get arcane recovery and wizards get Metamagic... I think I know my new homebrew rules.

Amnestic

2024-03-11, 05:29 PM

Not being critical of any idea here, just musing -

Crit range increase is an odd one, due to the weird way crits work in 5e. A GWM character cares a whole lot less about crits than a paladin does, for example. Also some monsters have large damage dice, and others have more bonus damage. For that reason, I would be hesitant to go this route.

Would go great with my "crits=double damage instead of how they normally work" houserule though. Equality for all.

Inquisitor

2024-03-11, 05:44 PM

Psyren

2024-03-11, 06:20 PM

So, you're fine with all six of those stacking

Some require concentration and therefore don't. Others require a limited daily resource, or both. Flanking requires neither.

Nah. This calls for either a generic rule of "only one added die to a d20 roll", or more likely, just call Rule Of Cool.

Nah. Small bonuses fit better with bounded accuracy. Also, +3 isn't a "die."

2D8HP

2024-03-12, 12:31 AM

I’d have the DMG’s “gritty realism” variant be the default, chuck most, maybe all, feats, and chuck most classes, plus races.

The remaining player character races would be: elves or gnomes, half-elves if you keep elves, humans, orcs, and half-orcs.

Have just three classes: Clerics/Paladins (one combined class) that would have to have a Lawful or Neutral alignment, Fighter/Rogues (one combined class), Warlocks/Wizards (one combined class, all Wizards would have to have a Warlock pact to unlock many magic abilities, at a risk to their lives/sanity/souls, though they could get some spells just through study, but there magic would be much more limited. All magic-users with a Warlock pact would have to have a Chaotic Alignment).

Kurald Galain

2024-03-12, 03:30 AM

Some require concentration and therefore don't. Others require a limited daily resource, or both. Flanking requires neither.

No, flanking requires tactics. The idea here is to make tactics more important, compared to crossing off a standard daily resource in the same way you do every other way.

Mastikator

2024-03-12, 03:52 AM

No, flanking requires tactics. The idea here is to make tactics more important, compared to crossing off a standard daily resource in the same way you do every other way.

If you want to make tactics important then flanking is your enemy (or perhaps training wheels). I've been in campaigns with and without flanking and in my experience flanking adds one tactical option but eclipses all other tactical options. The only time I've seen flanking add tactics to the game is where there previously was ZERO tactics involved, which is often caused by a combination of an uncreative/boring DM plus uncreative/cowardly players. The DM needs to create dynamic and interesting battle areas and use tactics against the players, and then encourage stunts, tactics and teamwork. (and the players need to step up their game and not be so lazy, boring and uncreative)
That is more work than enabling flanking to get tactics off from zero, but it allows the tactics to proceed off the bare minimum.

Since we're on the topic of "how to fix 5e" I'd add a chapter to the DMG that helps the DM with creating dynamic combat arenas, some tips on how to use NPCs tactically against players, and how to encourage and enable the players to do stunts.

Ignimortis

2024-03-12, 05:56 AM

Since we're on the topic of "how to fix 5e" I'd add a chapter to the DMG that helps the DM with creating dynamic combat arenas, some tips on how to use NPCs tactically against players, and how to encourage and enable the players to do stunts.

Since we're on the topic of "how to fix 5e", I'd actually add some mechanical backing that lets players do stunts that are reasonably supported by their character sheets. I've done cool and crazy stuff as a Monk, because as a Monk, I can run on walls, water, and possibly on ceilings depending on how the DM interprets the text, jump very far and move very fast. As a non-monk, I can't do that. Maybe a Barbarian can replicate some of that, I suppose, but it'd be iffy. Regular Fighter? Think again.

Mastikator

2024-03-12, 07:13 AM

Since we're on the topic of "how to fix 5e", I'd actually add some mechanical backing that lets players do stunts that are reasonably supported by their character sheets. I've done cool and crazy stuff as a Monk, because as a Monk, I can run on walls, water, and possibly on ceilings depending on how the DM interprets the text, jump very far and move very fast. As a non-monk, I can't do that. Maybe a Barbarian can replicate some of that, I suppose, but it'd be iffy. Regular Fighter? Think again.

A regular fighter can swing across the ballroom on a chandelier and attack the bad guy at the other side. A paladin can jump off a bridge onto knight on horseback, knock him off his saddle and take over his mount. A rogue can jump off a roof with rope in hand, swing down through a window and deliver a sneak attack on the guy in the room. A ranger can run across the river by jumping from crocodile to crocodile to reach the lizardfolk shaman at the back.
Any one of these may require an ability check, not to succeed, but to gain a benefit for doing something cool.

I suspect trying to codify these would be very difficult and not give enough, what we need is to teach DMs to create cool and fun scenarios, teach them to encourage and reward players for being creative, and teach players to be creative and fun.

Psyren

2024-03-12, 09:26 AM

No, flanking requires tactics. The idea here is to make tactics more important, compared to crossing off a standard daily resource in the same way you do every other way.

The idea here is to make powerful bonuses require tradeoffs, like concentration. "Tactics" is not a tradeoff, it's a thing you'd be doing anyway, so it definitely shouldn't grant a bonus as large as +3.

A compromise I could accept, if you think +1 is too small - let flanking grant a bonus = ½ proficiency. That keeps flanking from providing a huge +3 bonus at low levels, but eventually it does scale up to +3 at very high levels.

If you want to make tactics important then flanking is your enemy (or perhaps training wheels). I've been in campaigns with and without flanking and in my experience flanking adds one tactical option but eclipses all other tactical options. The only time I've seen flanking add tactics to the game is where there previously was ZERO tactics involved, which is often caused by a combination of an uncreative/boring DM plus uncreative/cowardly players. The DM needs to create dynamic and interesting battle areas and use tactics against the players, and then encourage stunts, tactics and teamwork. (and the players need to step up their game and not be so lazy, boring and uncreative)
That is more work than enabling flanking to get tactics off from zero, but it allows the tactics to proceed off the bare minimum.

This too; if flanking is too powerful, it actually removes options from the game. A +3 bonus or advantage (when you have no other sources of such) would be foolish for either side to forego, so you end up with the melee conga-line-braid mentioned upthread.

Kurald Galain

2024-03-12, 09:30 AM

"Tactics" is not a tradeoff, it's a thing you'd be doing anyway
If it doesn't give a noticeable bonus, then no, it is not a thing you'd be doing anyway.

I agree that the "conga line" is silly, but removing flanking from the game is far from the only way of dealing with that. I note there's several games on the market that do have flanking and do not have the conga line problem.

Ignimortis

2024-03-12, 09:33 AM

A regular fighter can swing across the ballroom on a chandelier and attack the bad guy at the other side. A paladin can jump off a bridge onto knight on horseback, knock him off his saddle and take over his mount. A rogue can jump off a roof with rope in hand, swing down through a window and deliver a sneak attack on the guy in the room. A ranger can run across the river by jumping from crocodile to crocodile to reach the lizardfolk shaman at the back.
Any one of these may require an ability check, not to succeed, but to gain a benefit for doing something cool.

I suspect trying to codify these would be very difficult and not give enough, what we need is to teach DMs to create cool and fun scenarios, teach them to encourage and reward players for being creative, and teach players to be creative and fun.

And nothing about their character sheets makes me think they can do that, because their numbers, aside from HP, do not indicate that they're particularly, notably, ahead of regular people in the setting. After all, their checks are only a few points ahead of those same regular people, most of the time, and 80% of their checks will land in the same 1-20 range that an untrained peasant could reach with some luck. Especially if we're not talking level 15-20, where perhaps the sheer level might serve as an indication, but something like level 6, where those cinematic actions might actually be highly appropriate to the scene but the PC's numbers are scarcely higher than any NPC they face?

Is is because they're trained in Athletics or Acrobatics? Can a STR 8, DEX 10 wizard do those things, if he's trained in Athletics or Acrobatics? Is it because they have a STR or DEX score of 18? Can a STR or DEX 18 NPC do that, also? Or is is something you simply cannot track, something that is only a property of a PC that makes all of their ability checks not follow the rules for normal people - and if so, 1) where are the rules? 2) how do you sell your game to people who still insist on their Fighters and Rogues being the normalest of normals, the regularest of Joes?

To avoid shifting into yet another "5e skills suck! - No they don't!", I'll concur - this is hard to codify...unless you break with 5e's intention of trying to be both rules-reliant and rules-light, to let the GM decide what the numbers on people's sheets mean, to try and fit everyone's tastes at once by being amorphous.

I really hate to bring up PF2, because I do not like PF2, but they have this part down pat, and all it costs is having a proper level progression and a less bounded accuracy (which, frankly, does not need to carry in full from PF2 for these things to work). I can easily believe that a Master in Athletics or Acrobatics can do these things, especially if that's untied from the horrendous level scaling that makes a level 15 NPC automatically better at everything than the level 7 hero. It doesn't even need to be a "button", you can just list those things as examples of what an Expert in a skill can do with some difficulty (but can still do) and a Master can do easily and also look cool while doing it. Them having this skill rank already sets a precedent that not everyone can do it, but they can.

Psyren

2024-03-12, 09:36 AM

If it doesn't give a noticeable bonus, then no, it is not a thing you'd be doing anyway.

Melee up front is indeed a thing you'd be doing anyway. Moving one of those melee to be opposite the enemy from another melee costs next to nothing (it certainly doesn't provoke.)

I agree that the "conga line" is silly, but removing flanking from the game is far from the only way of dealing with that. I note there's several games on the market that do have flanking and do not have the conga line problem.

Probably because those games aren't granting a +3 bonus or advantage in a bounded accuracy system for their flanking.

No thoughts on the compromise I suggested?

Mastikator

2024-03-12, 09:42 AM

And nothing about their character sheets makes me think they can do that, because their numbers, aside from HP, do not indicate that they're particularly, notably, ahead of regular people in the setting. After all, their checks are only a few points ahead of those same regular people, most of the time, and 80% of their checks will land in the same 1-20 range that an untrained peasant could reach with some luck. Especially if we're not talking level 15-20, where perhaps the sheer level might serve as an indication, but something like level 6, where those cinematic actions might actually be highly appropriate to the scene but the PC's numbers are scarcely higher than any NPC they face?

Is is because they're trained in Athletics or Acrobatics? Can a STR 8, DEX 10 wizard do those things, if he's trained in Athletics or Acrobatics? Is it because they have a STR or DEX score of 18? Can a STR or DEX 18 NPC do that, also? Or is is something you simply cannot track, something that is only a property of a PC that makes all of their ability checks not follow the rules for normal people - and if so, 1) where are the rules? 2) how do you sell your game to people who still insist on their Fighters and Rogues being the normalest of normals, the regularest of Joes?

To avoid shifting into yet another "5e skills suck! - No they don't!", I'll concur - this is hard to codify...unless you break with 5e's intention of trying to be both rules-reliant and rules-light, to let the GM decide what the numbers on people's sheets mean, to try and fit everyone's tastes at once by being amorphous.

I really hate to bring up PF2, because I do not like PF2, but they have this part down pat, and all it costs is having a proper level progression and a less bounded accuracy (which, frankly, does not need to carry in full from PF2 for these things to work). I can easily believe that a Master in Athletics or Acrobatics can do these things, especially if that's untied from the horrendous level scaling that makes a level 15 NPC automatically better at everything than the level 7 hero. It doesn't even need to be a "button", you can just list those things as examples of what an Expert in a skill can do with some difficulty (but can still do) and a Master can do easily and also look cool while doing it. Them having this skill rank already sets a precedent that not everyone can do it, but they can.
You don't need to codify it, give examples of stunts in the player handbook and examples of what is an appropriate skill and bonus for succeeding. I don't want a long list of stunts, I want to encourage players to invent it during play, and DMs to award the players for it.

Edit-
The player character is in a jungle, there is a spitting spider in the tree, they climb the tree to reach the spider. Then an ankheg bursts through the ground and tries to grab the wizard. The player character doesn't need a feature to cut a vine and make a swing-by attack, they need to think "how can I get back to the ground fast enough to attack/grab the monster all the way from up here? Wait.. this is a jungle, I'll Tarzan it!"

Ignimortis

2024-03-12, 10:04 AM

You don't need to codify it, give examples of stunts in the player handbook and examples of what is an appropriate skill and bonus for succeeding. I don't want a long list of stunts, I want to encourage players to invent it during play, and DMs to award the players for it.

Edit-
The player character is in a jungle, there is a spitting spider in the tree, they climb the tree to reach the spider. Then an ankheg bursts through the ground and tries to grab the wizard. The player character doesn't need a feature to cut a vine and make a swing-by attack, they need to think "how can I get back to the ground fast enough to attack/grab the monster all the way from up here? Wait.. this is a jungle, I'll Tarzan it!"

And then the GM sets a DC of 18 to do it, because they reckon that it's not something a regular person can easily do, but could still perhaps succeed at with some luck. And our intrepid hero, with their +7 or so Athletics, fails that check half the time. And that's perfectly reasonable by how 5e does such things.

Like I said, the numbers don't work out. It's not even about codifying those stunts into buttons, I don't want that either. But the sheer structure isn't there. There's no verisimilitude to it, because nothing in the game implies you're playing the kind of character who can do those things automatically or whose rolls are worth more than normal and therefore they should get like a DC10 and not fail and fall face-first if it still fails. Those stunts, if bolted onto 5e as it is right now, would be pulled out the arse, pardon my language.

Mastikator

2024-03-12, 10:10 AM

And then the GM sets a DC of 18 to do it, because they reckon that it's not something a regular person can easily do, but could still perhaps succeed at with some luck. And our intrepid hero, with their +7 or so Athletics, fails that check half the time.

Like I said, the numbers don't work out. It's not even about codifying those stunts into buttons, I don't want that either. But the sheer structure isn't there. There's no verisimilitude to it, because nothing in the game implies you're playing the kind of character who can do those things automatically or whose rolls are worth more.

The DMG needs to tell them to not do that. Set the DC between 10-15, if they fail they merely perform the action as told with no mechanical benefit "you swing across the room on the chandelier and attack the orc, make an attack roll". If they succeed they get some added benefit. (like extra damage, advantage on attack roll, rider if hit, etc) "you swing across the room on the chandelier and attack the orc, make and attack roll with advantage, if you hit the orc is pushed off the table and lands prone on the ground"

If the player wants to do something truly extravagant then maybe set the DC higher, but the benefit should then also scale.

Again, the DMs need to reward, not punish- players for being creative, and players need to be creative. Attack the problem from multiple angles, surround it, leave no place for it to escape.

Skrum

2024-03-12, 10:12 AM

You don't need to codify it, give examples of stunts in the player handbook and examples of what is an appropriate skill and bonus for succeeding. I don't want a long list of stunts, I want to encourage players to invent it during play, and DMs to award the players for it.

Edit-
The player character is in a jungle, there is a spitting spider in the tree, they climb the tree to reach the spider. Then an ankheg bursts through the ground and tries to grab the wizard. The player character doesn't need a feature to cut a vine and make a swing-by attack, they need to think "how can I get back to the ground fast enough to attack/grab the monster all the way from up here? Wait.. this is a jungle, I'll Tarzan it!"

It seems like you two are basically saying the same thing - the game ought to give examples of what characters can actually do with skills, along with some DC's for those various actions. This is all related to 5e skills being very underdeveloped.

Personally, I am wary/mildly negative on these kind of invented actions. Too often, I see it getting used as a way to circumvent mechanics. Like, something bad happens to a character, and the player is like "well can I use this cantrip/skill check to undo it/counter it/get myself out of this situation." No man! Characters are practically invincible already, and you want to just negate the tiny, momentary success an enemy is having?!

Not saying every possible action needs to be codified, but guidance on what's generally possible at a given character level/skill would be really nice.

Psyren

2024-03-12, 10:12 AM

And then the GM sets a DC of 18 to do it, because they reckon that it's not something a regular person can easily do, but could still perhaps succeed at with some luck. And our intrepid hero, with their +7 or so Athletics, fails that check half the time.

(Yay, we're back on my favorite subtopic!)

Failing a check does not have to mean "no progress" or "slapstick." It can mean "progress combined with a setback" as explicitly stated on PHB 174. So your intrepid hero, even if they fail that check, can still Tarzan down to save the wizard, but you can apply a setback to them like damage, a condition, dropping an item, the ankheg grabs them instead etc.

Like I said, the numbers don't work out. It's not even about codifying those stunts into buttons, I don't want that either. But the sheer structure isn't there. There's no verisimilitude to it, because nothing in the game implies you're playing the kind of character who can do those things automatically or whose rolls are worth more. Those stunts, if bolted onto 5e as it is right now, would be pulled out the arse, pardon my language.

5e is not a game where the numbers are codified to the degree that the DM can disengage their gray matter and rely on printed tables to describe every result of every roll. A DM who wants that should switch to PF2.

Ignimortis

2024-03-12, 10:19 AM

It seems like you two are basically saying the same thing - the game ought to give examples of what characters can actually do with skills, along with some DC's for those various actions. This is all related to 5e skills being very underdeveloped.

Personally, I am wary/mildly negative on these kind of invented actions. Too often, I see it getting used as a way to circumvent mechanics. Like, something bad happens to a character, and the player is like "well can I use this cantrip/skill check to undo it/counter it/get myself out of this situation." No man! Characters are practically invincible already, and you want to just negate the tiny, momentary success an enemy is having?!

Not saying every possible action needs to be codified, but guidance on what's generally possible at a given character level/skill would be really nice.
Thank you for illustrating the response I'd usually get when trying to do such things. And, to wit, it is not a bad response. It is fully within the system's bounds and, honestly, fits a lot better with how the numbers work out.

Also seconding that last part. There is by far not enough guidance (and something even resembling RAW) on the topic.

Failing a check does not have to mean "no progress" or "slapstick." It can mean "progress combined with a setback" as explicitly stated on PHB 174. So your intrepid hero, even if they fail that check, can still Tarzan down to save the wizard, but you can apply a setback to them like damage, a condition, dropping an item, the ankheg grabs them instead etc.
I'd count falling face-first and taking damage or landing prone to be a good reason to not try something audacious unless I'm sure that it's not significant enough to make winning less likely. In fact, those results are likely to convince me to try and climb down normally, I'll even double move to get there faster but avoid unnecessary risk.

5e is not a game where the numbers are codified to the degree that the DM can disengage their gray matter and rely on printed tables to describe every result of every roll. A DM who wants that should switch to PF2.
This is not a binary switch to be flipped. Also, printed tables are not even being suggested.

Psyren

2024-03-12, 10:29 AM

I'd count falling face-first and taking damage or landing prone to be a good reason to not try something audacious unless I'm sure that it's not significant enough to make winning less likely.

"Falling face-first" is exactly the kind of slapstick result I'm recommending that you avoid.

This is not a binary switch to be flipped. Also, printed tables are not even being suggested.

I know. What I'm recommending is that DMs adjudicate results, rather than wanting a book to do their job for them.

Blatant Beast

2024-03-12, 11:06 AM

Thank you for illustrating the response I'd usually get when trying to do such things. And, to wit, it is not a bad response. It is fully within the system's bounds and, honestly, fits a lot better with how the numbers work out.

Also seconding that last part. There is by far not enough guidance (and something even resembling RAW) on the topic.
With all sincere politeness and respect, but it seems that Skrum and yourself might possibly play in games that may not exactly grok the 5e rules ecosystem.

In regards to the part of your quotation that I placed in bold text, it is a statement that truly frustrates me.

We have had a 20+ page thread on the Playground regarding Ability Check DCs. Mike Mearls, the 5e Project Lead during the development of 5e, whom after being exiled to the Magic the Gathering side of WotC, and now freed from Hasbro’s yoke entirely, has stated that DC 10 is too high for an easy task.

This is not new knowledge. Official Modules, and plenty of DMs had already figured that out, and shared this observation.

The guidance is out there.

What seems to happen, is the advice is ignored, denied, or just flat rejected, ad nauseum.

The obsession with RAW, is a problem, (societally, not just in D&D).

Psyren

2024-03-12, 11:19 AM

We have had a 20+ page thread on the Playground regarding Ability Check DCs. Mike Mearls, the 5e Project Lead during the development of 5e, whom after being exiled to the Magic the Gathering side of WotC, and now freed from Hasbro’s yoke entirely, has stated that DC 10 is too high for an easy task.

This is not new knowledge. Official Modules, and plenty of DMs had already figured that out, and shared this observation.

The guidance is out there.

What seems to happen, is the advice is ignored, denied, or just flat rejected, ad nauseum.

The obsession with RAW, is a problem, (societally, not just in D&D).

Indeed, and Larian figured it out too, to overwhelming success.

They couldn't code in the nuance that "progress + setback" requires, so they lowered DCs instead, as well as granting ad-hoc advantage (something else 5e tells you to do - DMG 239), allowed the party to pool their inspiration, and even granted automatic success for certain characters. These are all straightforward tools in the DM toolbelt.

Blatant Beast

2024-03-12, 11:35 AM

Not surprising, give that Mike Mearls was also the WotC liaison to Larian.

Mastikator

2024-03-12, 11:39 AM

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-12, 11:54 AM

[/B]With all sincere politeness and respect, but it seems that Skrum and yourself might possibly play in games that may not exactly grok the 5e rules ecosystem.

In regards to the part of your quotation that I placed in bold text, it is a statement that truly frustrates me.

We have had a 20+ page thread on the Playground regarding Ability Check DCs. Mike Mearls, the 5e Project Lead during the development of 5e, whom after being exiled to the Magic the Gathering side of WotC, and now freed from Hasbro’s yoke entirely, has stated that DC 10 is too high for an easy task.

This is not new knowledge. Official Modules, and plenty of DMs had already figured that out, and shared this observation.

The guidance is out there.

What seems to happen, is the advice is ignored, denied, or just flat rejected, ad nauseum.

The obsession with RAW, is a problem, (societally, not just in D&D).
I think on the one hand your point is a good reminder that there's other guidance out there that can be of use to people.

But I don't think your point is a good rebuttal to complaints that the DMG should have better guidance. Especially when, despite all the other guidance out there saying the DCs are too high, it appears 1D&D was or is moving to a standard DC 15 for skill checks. So... it seems WotC disagrees with all of us and is moving in a different direction. (And Mearls' tweet is relatively recent in the history of 5E, and I don't know that GitP is a good metric for what the greater D&D community knows.)

Theodoxus

2024-03-12, 12:11 PM

Given that a number of systems, AGE probably being the best known, have actual Stunt systems built in - if D&D doesn't expressly have them, then the assumption by the majority of players is that they don't exist, and then you run into the 'Mother May I' problem that Pex loves to expound on.

It's the opposite of the problem where if something is codified, than only those that have that ability coded to them, can use it. See: Monk's Movement. Since Monk's can run on water and up walls at 9th level, no one else can, regardless of acrobatic ability or level, without magic.

You let Rogue's swing on chandeliers, then you need to decide if that's a Rogue ability or a Dex ability or whatever. If a Rogue player is the first to ask, and is granted by the DM, odds are, that table will forever consider it just a Rogue ability. That's how things enter the zeitgeist in gaming. (Look at ALL those named Wizard spells if you don't believe me.)

Best bet would be to have a third party come up with stunts, I don't see WotC going down that rabbit hole.

Sorinth

2024-03-12, 12:13 PM

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-12, 12:43 PM

There's no doubt the guidance could be better but given how many times we see that the existing guidance is ignored even after it's pointed out to people it's pretty clear better guidance wouldn't fix anything for many because for many people they don't want guidance on how to handle a situation they want to be told exactly how to handle the situation.
Part of this though could simply be the difficulty in admitting that you've missed something, and that your point hinges on the fact that you overlooked something.

I don't think everyone, or even most, of the people complaining about the guidance want to be handheld through the game.

LibraryOgre

2024-03-12, 01:04 PM

I don't know about this one; scaling spells known/prepared with PB means they get full progression even if they multiclass. An EK 3 / Wiz 17 with this rule would get an extra 8 spells known; even if those follow the EK school limitations of abjuration/evocation only, that frees up their wizard side to focus on the other 6 schools.

Good point; I'd also get rid of pick-a-class multiclassing, because that is 90% of CharOp shenanigans. :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain

2024-03-12, 01:15 PM

LOL, it's been a decade and 5E discussions still end up at "the skill system sucks!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-uh!" :smallamused:

Theodoxus

2024-03-12, 01:28 PM

Good point; I'd also get rid of pick-a-class multiclassing, because that is 90% of CharOp shenanigans. :smallbiggrin:

A-freaking-man, brother!

Oh how I wish multiclassing was truly optional, like in the DMG optional, with maybe three or four different options for doing it. We know the classes and spells were built up without the premise of multiclassing being part of their makeup. Either design the game to use without abuse, multiclassing; or don't offer it on a silver platter for players to beg their DMs to let their characters grab options that multiply their power.

Sindeloke

2024-03-12, 01:29 PM

I know. What I'm recommending is that DMs adjudicate results, rather than wanting a book to do their job for them.

And all we're recommending is that designers make a game, rather than wanting a DM to do their job for them.

And so it goes.

Good point; I'd also get rid of pick-a-class multiclassing, because that is 90% of CharOp shenanigans. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, I didn't like the way that "multiclassing" worked in 4E at the time. And I still don't really like it. But the longer I spend with 5e, the more I don't like its system even more. You kind of have to pick between free, arbitrary multiclassing and diverse class design, and 5e chose diverse class design. The best way in 5e to get a multiclass flavor is just to design an absolute ton of subclasses and let players poke around at all the similar ones until they find the variation that feels closest to what they want.

Psyren

2024-03-12, 02:29 PM

LOL, it's been a decade and 5E discussions still end up at "the skill system sucks!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-uh!" :smallamused:

Yep :smallbiggrin:

Good point; I'd also get rid of pick-a-class multiclassing, because that is 90% of CharOp shenanigans. :smallbiggrin:

I mean, you don't seem to have a for-profit motive so sure :smalltongue:

Given that a number of systems, AGE probably being the best known, have actual Stunt systems built in - if D&D doesn't expressly have them, then the assumption by the majority of players is that they don't exist, and then you run into the 'Mother May I' problem that Pex loves to expound on.

I highly doubt the majority of 5e's playerbase also play AGE and FATE and whatever else though. Those are niche systems even in a tabletop-focused forum like this, never mind to a general audience that thinks of TTRPGs and D&D as synonymous. Whatever decisions WotC ends up making regarding the skill system, they shouldn't be based of the fringe who bring over their expectations from AGE, particularly given the structural differences between the two like 3d6 vs d20 etc.

It's the opposite of the problem where if something is codified, than only those that have that ability coded to them, can use it. See: Monk's Movement. Since Monk's can run on water and up walls at 9th level, no one else can, regardless of acrobatic ability or level, without magic.

I'm honestly fine with this - running on water and up walls should require magic in a Heroic Fantasy game, which is what printed/default 5e is. If instead the DM wants very high skill checks to do such overtly magical things (e.g. they're running a Wuxia campaign), that's totally fine, but that modification should be established during session zero for that campaign rather than being baseline to the system as a whole.

You let Rogue's swing on chandeliers, then you need to decide if that's a Rogue ability or a Dex ability or whatever. If a Rogue player is the first to ask, and is granted by the DM, odds are, that table will forever consider it just a Rogue ability. That's how things enter the zeitgeist in gaming. (Look at ALL those named Wizard spells if you don't believe me.)

Best bet would be to have a third party come up with stunts, I don't see WotC going down that rabbit hole.

I'm fine with this too, but you said it best - whatever "stunt" features that third party codifies will likely be seen by that table as coupons to do things they can't do via the skill system. "Swing on chandelier" should not be such a stunt, unless the stunt's purpose is to grant some additional benefit to doing such a basic (by heroic fantasy standards) maneuver.

And all we're recommending is that designers make a game, rather than wanting a DM to do their job for them.

And so it goes.

Adjudicating rolls, especially ability checks, is the DM's job. The more DMs realize that the better.

KorvinStarmast

2024-03-12, 03:23 PM

And all we're recommending is that designers make a game, rather than wanting a DM to do their job for them. The board games are over there, in that part of the store. ======>

But the longer I spend with 5e, the more I don't like its system even more. You kind of have to pick between free, arbitrary multiclassing and diverse class design, and 5e chose diverse class design.
The best way in 5e to get a multiclass flavor is just to design an absolute ton of subclasses and let players poke around at all the similar ones until they find the variation that feels closest to what they want.
That's how they started out in the PHB, yes, with MC as a variant/optional rule.

Sorinth

2024-03-12, 05:49 PM

Part of this though could simply be the difficulty in admitting that you've missed something, and that your point hinges on the fact that you overlooked something.

I don't think everyone, or even most, of the people complaining about the guidance want to be handheld through the game.

I wouldn't really use the term handheld because it invokes/implies childish imagery which isn't fair to them or as even true. And yeah my comment wasn't directed for all or most people playing, but there's no doubt some self-selection bias at play when talking about the game on an internet forum. But there is for sure a subset of people who want the books to be direct for everything rather then a more laissez faire to do what works for your table approach that 5e has taken.

LibraryOgre

2024-03-12, 05:53 PM

Oh how I wish multiclassing was truly optional, like in the DMG optional, with maybe three or four different options for doing it. We know the classes and spells were built up without the premise of multiclassing being part of their makeup. Either design the game to use without abuse, multiclassing; or don't offer it on a silver platter for players to beg their DMs to let their characters grab options that multiply their power.

Yeah, I didn't like the way that "multiclassing" worked in 4E at the time. And I still don't really like it. But the longer I spend with 5e, the more I don't like its system even more. You kind of have to pick between free, arbitrary multiclassing and diverse class design, and 5e chose diverse class design. The best way in 5e to get a multiclass flavor is just to design an absolute ton of subclasses and let players poke around at all the similar ones until they find the variation that feels closest to what they want.

I've said it before, but 5e has 3 kinds of multiclassing, and I like two of them.

1) 4e style, take-a-feat-to-get-a-little. I think more abilities could be put into this, but you can pick up a bit of spellcasting or a bit of battlemastery with a feat, and I'm here for it.

2) Subclasses. Want to be a wizardy fighter? Take Eldritch Knight. A fightery Bard? Would you rather Valor or Swords?

3) Pick-a-class, which is where most of the bull**** comes in.

Psyren

2024-03-12, 06:50 PM

I think the hate for level-by-level multiclassing is really overblown. Level-by-level multiclassing really isn't a big deal when people are actually multiclassing with it, i.e. taking a minimum of 4 levels or more in each given class in the build. The bigger issue I think people are envisioning when they say they dislike level-by-level multiclassing is dipping, which comes about because 5e classes tend to be frontloaded (especially the ones that get their subclass before 3rd level) and so bypass a big part of their class' design limitations for not much cost. But a big part of that is going away when they push all subclasses back to 3rd level for everyone, which for most builds is actually going to be 4th because delaying or outright giving up that first ASI is going to be a hard sell for a lot of builds.

Can you do stuff with Class1 4/Class2 8 that you couldn't do with Class2 12? Sure - but they can do stuff you can't either. Those are the differences in kind that ultimately lead to depth.

LibraryOgre

2024-03-12, 07:27 PM

I think the hate for level-by-level multiclassing is really overblown. Level-by-level multiclassing really isn't a big deal when people are actually multiclassing with it, i.e. taking a minimum of 4 levels or more in each given class in the build. The bigger issue I think people are envisioning when they say they dislike level-by-level multiclassing is dipping, which comes about because 5e classes tend to be frontloaded (especially the ones that get their subclass before 3rd level) and so bypass a big part of their class' design limitations for not much cost.

I think this is a false distinction, really. "The problem isn't multiclassing the way *I* like, it's using the exact same mechanics to do something else!" Both are multiclassing exactly within the rules, and I don't even know of any caveat of how you're supposed to "actually multiclass"... the PH even suggests dipping as a strategy ("As you advance in levels, you might primarily remain a member of your original class with just a few levels in another class, or you might change course entirely, never looking back at the class you left behind.")

You could avoid most of it by just writing subclasses that mix concepts. A fighter who can wildshape. A Wizard who dabbles in pact magic. A Bard who has domain abilities like a cleric.

Psyren

2024-03-12, 09:18 PM

I think this is a false distinction, really. "The problem isn't multiclassing the way *I* like, it's using the exact same mechanics to do something else!" Both are multiclassing exactly within the rules, and I don't even know of any caveat of how you're supposed to "actually multiclass"... the PH even suggests dipping as a strategy ("As you advance in levels, you might primarily remain a member of your original class with just a few levels in another class, or you might change course entirely, never looking back at the class you left behind.")

To be clear, I'm not trying to create a distinction between "level-by-level multiclassing I dislike" (dipping) vs. "level-by-level multiclassing I like" (more amalgamated builds) . The truth is that I happen to love every kind of multiclassing, and that includes both of these as well as the non-level-based ones you listed like dabbler feats and hybrid subclasses like EK/AT. I think all of them belong in the game, all of them led to 5e having much-needed depth (especially pre-Xanathar's and pre-Tasha's when straight-classed build options were quite thin on the ground), and removing any of them would have made the game as a whole worse. Hell, I'd even be happy if they got around to printing an official gestalt variant (whether full-on class gestalts, or a gestalt of subclasses within a class) aimed at very high-powered campaigns one day.

But I do think that where ire exists towards level-by-level multiclassing among the fanbase - not saying this is yours specifically - it's primarily because it makes dipping possible, and for some even preferable to every other kind; in particular with 2014's more frontloaded class design where the most important things a class gets are early on, and the higher level features - capstones especially in most cases - are just not worth it. It's made dipping among the optimization subculture especially become somewhat eyerollingly commonplace.

So I get the aversion. But for me, the solution isn't to advocate for the removal of level-by-level multiclassing, it's to smooth out level progression so there's as much to look forward to at the back of a class as there is at the front.

You could avoid most of it by just writing subclasses that mix concepts. A fighter who can wildshape. A Wizard who dabbles in pact magic. A Bard who has domain abilities like a cleric.

I mean, they're doing that I'd say. Divine Soul took notes from Cleric, Beast Barbarian took notes from (Moon) Druid, Battlesmith Artificer borrowed from (Beastmaster) Ranger, Whispers Bard borrowed from Rogue... I agree there could be more, but subclass design takes time.

Amechra

2024-03-12, 11:01 PM

Blatant Beast

2024-03-13, 01:40 AM

The board games are over there, in that part of the store. ======>

Well Done!

But I don't think your point is a good rebuttal to complaints that the DMG should have better guidance.

It is not meant to be, the DMG could be better.
There are, however, other books than the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
If for example, one feels the 5e DMG has insufficient advice on how to structure a campaign and keep a consistent feel and theme, the Ravenloft Campaign book has more advice on this topic.

No Dungeon Masters Guide, for any Edition of D&D has been perfect, and most advice in a Dungeon Master’s Guides becomes less useful over time, as people’s playstyle evolve and change.

The 2E AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide, was a well written and useful book, in my opinion. Yet by the end of 2e, the DMG was not that relevant, because inevitably, the playstyle zeitgeist at the end of an Edition’s lifespan, is different from what the Dungeon Master Guide assumes when it was published.

One has to be willing to adapt, overcome and improvise, because all information has a limited shelf life.

Level-by-level multiclassing boils down to trying to do both of those things at the same time, and not really doing either very well. There's a reason why you only really see it in D&D and D&D heartbreakers — it's way simpler to either have classes with minimal customization or to have a point-buy game where there are pre-made "templates" that you can pick from to make character creation simpler.

I think your post is spot on.
I do think 1e’s AD&D Concurrent style also worked well.

Kurald Galain

2024-03-13, 01:47 AM

I do think 1e’s AD&D Concurrent style also worked well.

They were certainly fun, but also heavily imbalanced. Like, for the same XP as a 12th level fighter you could be fighter 11 / cleric 9. Yeah, that's fair :smallamused:

Blatant Beast

2024-03-13, 09:57 AM

They were certainly fun, but also heavily imbalanced. Like, for the same XP as a 12th level fighter you could be fighter 11 / cleric 9. Yeah, that's fair :smallamused:

On paper it seems imbalanced, but in actual play it often evened out. The ideal design goal is a multi-classed PC should have approximately 3/4 the levels of a Single Classed character.

If Raistlin is casting 9th level spells, it is ok if Gilthanas, (a gishy type), is casting 7th level spells.

Fun should be a design goal.

Psyren

2024-03-13, 09:58 AM

The hate for level-by-level multiclassing ultimately comes from how difficult it is to get right.

Class-based systems tend to work best when they're front-loaded — the whole point of having classes is to make it really easy to play a character who fits into the core archetypes for your game/setting, so you want each class to be able to do the thing ASAP. Having each level of your class be "worth" a different amount is unimportant, because it's about getting everything to feel right. The "Monk" class needs to get Martial Arts, Unarmed Defense, Deflect Missiles, Slow Fall, and Unarmed Movement at 1st level in order to feel like the "whole package"? Yeah, sure, that's fine!

Point-based systems, on the other hand, work best when everything has balanced pricing — if you have a situation where spending 5 points on A is categorically better than spending 5 points on B, you've probably screwed up! On the flip side, you have way more flexibility in terms of what you can play — you want to make a talk-y character who's a bare-knuckle boxer in fights? Yeah, sure, just spend your points on X, Y, and Z, and you'll theoretically be balanced with the guy who spent the same number of points on being a cool wizard knight or whatever (it very rarely actually works out that way, but hey — the idea's nice).

Level-by-level multiclassing boils down to trying to do both of those things at the same time, and not really doing either very well. There's a reason why you only really see it in D&D and D&D heartbreakers — it's way simpler to either have classes with minimal customization or to have a point-buy game where there are pre-made "templates" that you can pick from to make character creation simpler.

I totally agree with you that point-based build systems allow for more granular and equitable ability costing. But this point in favor of point-based systems doesn't make level-by-level class-based systems bad either, nor does it mean that D&D got it wrong. (Flawed in respects like every other endeavor of human hands, certainly, but not wrong.)

I further agree that landing on a bundle of abilities/features that lets a class feel authentic or representative of its fantasy as soon as possible is a valid goal, and likely the goal that usually leads to D&D's tendency to frontload its classes. But the devil is in the details; I would argue that it takes a much smaller bundle of such abilities to achieve that objective than you might think. Take your example above of the Monk - I'd argue that all you need to feel like a monk at first level is to be reasonably effective while unarmed and unarmored. The other 3 abilities you listed - fast movement, slow fall, and deflect - can all wait; moreover, the unarmed combat part of monks should (and does) scale with monk level, so getting that early isn't necessarily a frontload either because the damage die will stay static if you leave the class behind. You're thus rewarded for staying a monk, and need to weigh the loss of that reward vs whatever you'd get by multiclassing, creating experiential depth.

Those two things combined mean that the class isn't as frontloaded as it might appear; that's exactly how multiclassing should work.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-13, 10:15 AM

It is not meant to be, the DMG could be better.
There are, however, other books than the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
If for example, one feels the 5e DMG has insufficient advice on how to structure a campaign and keep a consistent feel and theme, the Ravenloft Campaign book has more advice on this topic.
But how would someone know this, and should the guidance be spread out like this. As an example, I don't own the Ravenloft Campaign book.

No Dungeon Masters Guide, for any Edition of D&D has been perfect, and most advice in a Dungeon Master’s Guides becomes less useful over time, as people’s playstyle evolve and change.

The 2E AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide, was a well written and useful book, in my opinion. Yet by the end of 2e, the DMG was not that relevant, because inevitably, the playstyle zeitgeist at the end of an Edition’s lifespan, is different from what the Dungeon Master Guide assumes when it was published.
This may be true as well, however less useful implies was useful at a time.

One has to be willing to adapt, overcome and improvise, because all information has a limited shelf life.
I agree people should be willing to adapt and improvise.

With regards to Rage and Sneak Attack...

I think the base barbarian feature should be decoupled from "Rage" (in name). Rage can be a subclass feature (like Berserker can be the raging barbarian). Change it to Adrenaline or something for the base class, like others have suggested.

For Sneak Attack, I tend to agree with Witty Username in that it seems more a method of fighting over the types of weapons. My opinion that will never be implemented anywhere is that it should probably be more difficult to use, but open to any weapons, and you're simply taking advantage of the situation. But that's way more involved than the game is built for. Also, it's weird to balance a feature that is supposed to be an opportunistic exploitative attack.

EDIT: Multiclassing

I agree that level by level multiclassing is obnoxious. Part of the reason though is that class features taper off dramatically by end of tier 2. Classes will always be frontloaded, I think, to get characters up and running in the game. But features should stay impactful and interesting all throughout, instead of feeling like the devs are throwing us a bone or reaching to the bottom of the barrel to fill a level in.

Psyren

2024-03-13, 11:47 AM

But how would someone know this, and should the guidance be spread out like this. As an example, I don't own the Ravenloft Campaign book.

The advice is in Ravenloft because it was the first nonstandard campaign style they introduced to 5e (Dark Fantasy/Horror). The DMG explicitly advises you to use Ravenloft game products for this type of campaign on pg. 40. And that's how all nonstandard campaign styles, i.e. anything that deviates from Heroic Fantasy (the default for 5e - DMG 38) work; the DMG briefly describes them, but you're expected to use other game products actually set in that campaign style to flesh them out, relying on third party or homebrew if nothing official exists yet.

For Sneak Attack, I tend to agree with Witty Username in that it seems more a method of fighting over the types of weapons.

Some methods of fighting entail or invoke a type of weapon in order to function. Just like Great Weapon Master assumes heavy two-handers that use Strength and Sharpshooter assumes projectile weapons and darts, Sneak Attack assumes finesse and ranged.

I agree that level by level multiclassing is obnoxious. Part of the reason though is that class features taper off dramatically by end of tier 2. Classes will always be frontloaded, I think, to get characters up and running in the game. But features should stay impactful and interesting all throughout, instead of feeling like the devs are throwing us a bone or reaching to the bottom of the barrel to fill a level in.

I'd say that rather than removing level-by-level multiclassing, the better solution is to make Tier 3 and 4 class features more desirable. Multiclassing will still be the ideal choice for many builds, but it wouldn't be as automatic as it is now, and become a true choice. All the martials are getting upgrades along these lines, that make straight-classing much more attractive for them.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-13, 12:13 PM

The advice is in Ravenloft because it was the first nonstandard campaign style they introduced to 5e (Dark Fantasy/Horror). The DMG explicitly advises you to use Ravenloft game products for this type of campaign on pg. 40. And that's how all nonstandard campaign styles, i.e. anything that deviates from Heroic Fantasy (the default for 5e - DMG 38) work; the DMG briefly describes them, but you're expected to use other game products actually set in that campaign style to flesh them out, relying on third party or homebrew if nothing official exists yet.
A couple of points here.

1. I don't agree with what you are saying. The DMG actually says you have plenty of material to work with if you want to run a dark fantasy/horror game. Here is what it says:

If you want to put a horror spin on your campaign, you have plenty of material to work with. The Monster Manual is full of creatures that perfectly suit a storyline of supernatural horror. The most important element of such a campaign, though, isn't covered by the rules. A dark-fantasy setting requires an atmosphere of building dread, created through careful pacing and evocative description. Your players contribute too; they have to be willing to embrace the mood you're trying to evoke.

Whether you want to run a full-fledged dark-fantasy campaign or a single creepy adventure, you should discuss your plans with the players ahead of time to make sure they're on board. Horror can be intense and personal, and not everyone is comfortable with such a game.

It then says: Novels and game products set in Ravenloft, the Demiplane of Dread, explore dark-fantasy elements in a D&D context.

Nowhere does it explicitly tell the reader that they are required or expected to use other game products, or third party/homebrew in order to run these types of games.

2. Stunts, the original point in the post that Blatant Beast was responding to, are far more common in every game, as opposed to only existing in certain types of games, and I would expect the guidance for them in the PHB or DMG.

Some methods of fighting entail or invoke a type of weapon in order to function. Just like Great Weapon Master assumes heavy two-handers that use Strength and Sharpshooter assumes projectile weapons and darts, Sneak Attack assumes finesse and ranged.
Assuming and invoking are two different things. If I swing at someone with a warhammer, they may dodge, block, parry, etc. Either way, they are interfering with my strike and either negating it or reducing its effectiveness.

However, if I attack from hiding, or attack while the enemy is distracted, or from behind, etc. I might just brain them or severely injure them because they don't have the opportunity to fully defend themselves.

The two feats you mention are named after the style of weaponry. Sneak Attack is not, and is just attacking someone when they are more vulnerable to your attacks. You can do that with any weapon.

I'd say that rather than removing level-by-level multiclassing, the better solution is to make Tier 3 and 4 class features more desirable. Multiclassing will still be the ideal choice for many builds, but it wouldn't be as automatic as it is now, and become a true choice. All the martials are getting upgrades along these lines, that make straight-classing much more attractive for them.
I agree that making tiers 3 and 4 more desirable is a good move in the right direction.

Psyren

2024-03-13, 12:29 PM

such a game.[/I]

It then says: Novels and game products set in Ravenloft, the Demiplane of Dread, explore dark-fantasy elements in a D&D context.

Nowhere does it explicitly tell the reader that they are required or expected to use other game products, or third party/homebrew in order to run these types of games.

You might view the bolded quote from the book as just an unrelated aside or idle conversation, but it read as DM advice to me.

2. Stunts, the original point in the post that Blatant Beast was responding to, are far more common in every game, as opposed to only existing in certain types of games, and I would expect the guidance for them in the PHB or DMG.

There is. PHB 176: "The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips."

Assuming and invoking are two different things. If I swing at someone with a warhammer, they may dodge, block, parry, etc. Either way, they are interfering with my strike and either negating it or reducing its effectiveness.

However, if I attack from hiding, or attack while the enemy is distracted, or from behind, etc. I might just brain them or severely injure them because they don't have the opportunity to fully defend themselves.

That's what the Advantage represents, which not only increases your chances of landing a telling blow, it increases your chances to crit as well.

The two feats you mention are named after the style of weaponry. Sneak Attack is not, and is just attacking someone when they are more vulnerable to your attacks. You can do that with any weapon.

Reckless Attack then. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with Str-based weapons.
Or Stunning Strike. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with monk weapons.
Or Divine Smite. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with melee weapons (and now unarmed strikes).

The title shouldn't be taken as an overly literal mandate that informs the restriction; the restriction can be justified in the fiction without that.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-13, 01:27 PM

You might view the bolded quote from the book as just an unrelated aside or idle conversation, but it read as DM advice to me.
It reads to me as "Here are some examples of works that are considered dark fantasy/horror, and in a D&D context".

As opposed to the "explicit" instructions that you have to use novels and Ravenloft game products from other editions to play a dark fantasy game, which is how you said it reads to you.

There is. PHB 176: "The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips."
I'm sure you're aware you're just rehashing the debate on guidance for ability checks in the DMG...

That's what the Advantage represents, which not only increases your chances of landing a telling blow, it increases your chances to crit as well.

It's what Sneak Attack represents, hitting a distracted foe.

Reckless Attack then. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with Str-based weapons.
Or Stunning Strike. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with monk weapons.
Or Divine Smite. No specific weapon type in the title, but only works with melee weapons (and now unarmed strikes).

The title shouldn't be taken as an overly literal mandate that informs the restriction; the restriction can be justified in the fiction without that.
This is my mistake; I mistook "invoke" to mean "evoke", so I thought you were saying some fighting styles call specific weapons to mind, hence my previous comment.

Be that as it may, you're just repeating the rules at me that I am already familiar with. So when I say that in my opinion SA should apply to all weapons and work a little differently, I say that knowing full well that right now it only applies to finesse and ranged weapons. That's the point of giving my differing opinion.

KorvinStarmast

2024-03-13, 09:11 PM

I agree that making tiers 3 and 4 more desirable is a good move in the right direction. Likewise.

It reads to me as "Here are some examples of works that are considered dark fantasy/horror, and in a D&D context". Yes.

Sneak attack is also about hitting a flanked foe, they just don't call it flanking.

Psyren

2024-03-13, 09:48 PM

It reads to me as "Here are some examples of works that are considered dark fantasy/horror, and in a D&D context".

As opposed to the "explicit" instructions that you have to use novels and Ravenloft game products from other editions to play a dark fantasy game, which is how you said it reads to you.

I think it would be pretty silly of them to reference a D&D product they didn't intend for the reader to use, but fine.

It's what Sneak Attack represents, hitting a distracted foe.

The Rogue has the skill to hit a distracted foe in a specifically damaging way, provided they're using certain kinds of weapons.

Be that as it may, you're just repeating the rules at me that I am already familiar with. So when I say that in my opinion SA should apply to all weapons and work a little differently, I say that knowing full well that right now it only applies to finesse and ranged weapons. That's the point of giving my differing opinion.

I know you're giving your opinion and that's fine, I was just defending the current rules in-fiction.

Sneak attack is also about hitting a flanked foe, they just don't call it flanking.

Because it isn't; even if your ally is the only creature adjacent to the enemy (i.e. they're not flanked by anything), and you attack from range, you still get the benefit.

Blatant Beast

2024-03-14, 02:41 AM

2. Stunts, the original point in the post that Blatant Beast was responding to, are far more common in every game, as opposed to only existing in certain types of games, and I would expect the guidance for them in the PHB or DMG.

Honestly, the best way is for you to do your own stunts..makes it more authentic ;) Whenever game designers sit down and create a ‘stunt’ system it often just results in an overly complicated mess.

You want to shoot a creature’s eye?
Treat it like half cover or 3/4 cover, let the target be Blinded until the end or start of a turn, and keep notes for future reference.

If you leave it up to WotC to design your stunt system, you are just going to get a random chart you won’t use.

Darth Credence

2024-03-14, 09:12 AM

Honestly, the best way is for you to do your own stunts..makes it more authentic ;) Whenever game designers sit down and create a ‘stunt’ system it often just results in an overly complicated mess.

You want to shoot a creature’s eye?
Treat it like half cover or 3/4 cover, let the target be Blinded until the end or start of a turn, and keep notes for future reference.

If you leave it up to WotC to design your stunt system, you are just going to get a random chart you won’t use.

I honestly thought your first sentence was recommending that people literally do their own stunts - like they should be playing in a large space with chandeliers so that when they want to swing from the chandelier, the player actually does it.

I was not sure why, but I know I wanted to be a part of that game to see how that works out.

KorvinStarmast

2024-03-14, 10:33 AM

Because it isn't; Yes it is. Your ally is adjacent to the enemy, your rogue gets the benefit on the attack (regardless of grid position since 5e is TotM based not grid based). What you don't get is advantage on the attack unless some other factor is in play.

Psyren

2024-03-14, 10:48 AM

Yes it is. Your ally is adjacent to the enemy, your rogue gets the benefit on the attack (regardless of grid position since 5e is TotM based not grid based). What you don't get is advantage on the attack unless some other factor is in play.

I know the rogue benefits, I'm disagreeing that it's flanking. A single ally can't flank anyone by definition.

LibraryOgre

2024-03-14, 10:59 AM

Point-based systems, on the other hand, work best when everything has balanced pricing — if you have a situation where spending 5 points on A is categorically better than spending 5 points on B, you've probably screwed up! On the flip side, you have way more flexibility in terms of what you can play — you want to make a talk-y character who's a bare-knuckle boxer in fights? Yeah, sure, just spend your points on X, Y, and Z, and you'll theoretically be balanced with the guy who spent the same number of points on being a cool wizard knight or whatever (it very rarely actually works out that way, but hey — the idea's nice).

While I didn't get to playteset it much, it actually worked out pretty well in Star Wars Saga Edition, to the point where I'm content with my classless system (https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2013/07/classless-saga-and-other-alterations.html#more)... feats, talents, and class abilities tended to be relatively equal.

Theodoxus

2024-03-14, 03:10 PM

I'd say that rather than removing level-by-level multiclassing, the better solution is to make Tier 3 and 4 class features more desirable. Multiclassing will still be the ideal choice for many builds, but it wouldn't be as automatic as it is now, and become a true choice. All the martials are getting upgrades along these lines, that make straight-classing much more attractive for them.

While that's probably true, given that the vast majority of games don't apparently reach Tier 3, much less 4, putting happy abilities there doesn't alleviate the base issue.

I agree that making tiers 3 and 4 more desirable is a good move in the right direction.

As above.

If I were rewriting classes and MCing from the ground up, I would provide each class with a 'mutliclass' sidebar, where the frontloading of abilities would be stretched out. You start with Wizard, go a couple levels and switch to Fighter, the fighter MC sidebar would be basically the first 10 levels of abilities stretched out over 20 levels. So, a Wizard that would normally dip 2 levels for Action Surge would instead need to sacrifice 4 levels into Fighter for the same. You're still going to get some goodies, but if you started Fighter 2 for Heavy Armor, Con Save Prof and AS like is pretty standard for more gish Wizards, and then go Wizard 18, you're effectively only getting Wiz 9 in the trade off.

Such a heavy ask is exactly the kind of foil I prefer to limit MCing.

As a compromise, I could see using something akin to 1st Ed dual classing, where if the second class has more levels than the first, the MC table flips. The Fighter 2/Wizard X becomes Wizard 3/Fighter 2; whether that means the Fighters abilities get limited back to the MC Fighter table, or remain grandfathered in, would need discussion. [Unlike 1st Ed Dual Classing, I wouldn't block using the first classes abilities. I didn't like it then, and think it's stupid, though I grok the reason behind it.]

TheHalfAasimar

2024-03-14, 05:47 PM

I'm just gonna pop back in here and say, what I'd do for multiclassing is not restrict it, but have it become part of the story, so you can still do stuff like that, but you kind of have to work for it. Like let's say you want to multiclass into sorcerer; tell me the level before you plan to do it, and I incorporate it into the story. Obviously, I'm banning stuff like barbarian/druid because I can't see that making sense.

Skrum

2024-03-14, 07:06 PM

Obviously, I'm banning stuff like barbarian/druid because I can't see that making sense.

No offense to you, certainly play however you and your table feel comfortable, but this is exactly why I don't like story-based multiclassing. I personally think barb and druid have quite a bit in common and can easily imagine a character that could be expressed through levels in these two classes, and I would get frustrated by a DM making that kind of ruling against me.

Psyren

2024-03-14, 07:08 PM

While that's probably true, given that the vast majority of games don't apparently reach Tier 3, much less 4, putting happy abilities there doesn't alleviate the base issue.

As above.

Hence my belief that the "base issue" is overblown.

If I were rewriting classes and MCing from the ground up, I would provide each class with a 'mutliclass' sidebar, where the frontloading of abilities would be stretched out. You start with Wizard, go a couple levels and switch to Fighter, the fighter MC sidebar would be basically the first 10 levels of abilities stretched out over 20 levels. So, a Wizard that would normally dip 2 levels for Action Surge would instead need to sacrifice 4 levels into Fighter for the same. You're still going to get some goodies, but if you started Fighter 2 for Heavy Armor, Con Save Prof and AS like is pretty standard for more gish Wizards, and then go Wizard 18, you're effectively only getting Wiz 9 in the trade off.

Nah - the way you fix Action Surge is by doing exactly what they did, i.e. making it no longer usable as 1/SR Double-Spell. An extra action that can't be used for spellcasting or magic item activation is fine for 2 levels in Fighter.

TheHalfAasimar

2024-03-14, 07:35 PM

No offense to you, certainly play however you and your table feel comfortable, but this is exactly why I don't like story-based multiclassing. I personally think barb and druid have quite a bit in common and can easily imagine a character that could be expressed through levels in these two classes, and I would get frustrated by a DM making that kind of ruling against me.

Okay, good point...

Witty Username

2024-03-14, 08:44 PM

KorvinStarmast

2024-03-15, 08:50 AM

Obviously, I'm banning stuff like barbarian/druid because I can't see that making sense. It makes complete sense, particularly if the barbarian follows the totem path. Both the druid and the barbarian, as tropes/genre conventions, are from the wilderness/non urban parts of the world. They are a very good fit for a multiclass. (Our Giants campaign (and we are now chasing the Fire Giant king down into the underdark where he is hiding with his Drow allies) has a Totem Barbarian X/ Druid 4 (Moon) whose thematics are solid).

More to the point: it makes more thematic sense than any hexblade dip I've seen to date. :smallyuk:

Ignimortis

2024-03-15, 09:45 AM

More to the point: it makes more thematic sense than any hexblade dip I've seen to date. :smallyuk:

Paladin/Hexblade makes amazing sense. A holy knight and a cursed sword trying to corrupt them/use them for its' own ends. It's basically plot-in-a-can.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-15, 09:48 AM

More to the point: it makes more thematic sense than any hexblade dip I've seen to date. :smallyuk:
But there's like... a weapon and, it's alive and stuff. And it let's you use your Charisma to fight people in combat obviously... and it teaches you how to use armor, and the Shield spell. And then it compels you to swear a paladin oath, right before unlocking your sorcerous heritage.

I don't understand what doesn't make sense to you...

Dalinar

2024-03-15, 11:34 AM

Chiming in on the multiclassing discussion: I literally named this account after a character from a very famous ongoing series of fantasy novels that is basically about hexadins. (That being Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive. It's not only about that, obviously, but it's remarkable how well it fits. Dalinar in particular is the Oath of Redemption in its purest form.)

Classes are prepackaged sets of game rules that describe player abilities so that they have guidance on how their character works with respect to everything else in the game. Like the other rules, they are the difference between playing D&D and playing the pretend games we came up with as children (y'know, where you got frustrated at your buddy for claiming he had invincible power armor or whatever). Diegetically, classes are shorthand for certain skillsets that can be found in D&D worlds, but those aren't the only skillsets that exist.

Given that, I don't see narrative clashing as a reason to ditch multiclassing--if anything, it's a huge well of creative potential. Druid and artificers, for instance, are seen as opposed in a lot of this fiction, because people like to think of nature and technology as dichotomous. But I would argue it's a very powerful character trope to have someone willing to bridge the gap between those concepts. (I'm reminded of a relative of mine who is heavily involved in agricultural science professionally.) Likewise a later-level sorcerer dip seems kind of weird, because if a character is genetically magical, you'd think that would have manifested at a young age. But plenty of people have had experiences where some genetic issue goes undiscovered until relatively late in their lives, or other facets of themselves that they did not recognize or know. That's not to mention other possible sources of sorcerous power, like the interference of a deity or exposure to some strange magic.

I could go on.

I also happen to enjoy the fiddly character building angle it brings, and I'd be sad to see that go. If dips into classes like Warlock and Fighter seem a bit too ubiquitous, that might be a symptom of the mid- and late-level features of many classes not being compelling enough to commit to. Getting casting-stat weapon attacks in particular is maybe too easy; I'm wondering if ditching those entirely might be called for outside of certain subclass features like Armorer Artificer. Those abilities mostly matter for gish-like playstyles, and I do think it's fair for a character to be a little more MAD if they're trying to bring that sort of versatility to the table. In other words, a lot of the complaints about multiclassing are really complaints about Hexblade and Action Surge IMO. Maybe throw in Aura of Protection, though that's online a little later.

The other common complaint I'm seeing is essentially that some players will bring highly optimized builds to new groups without having a sense for who that character is narratively, to which I'll cite Stormwind Fallacy and leave it at that.

---

One thing that does really bug me about 5e is how small the proficiency bonus is. It comes up constantly that, say, a druid with +5 or more to Survival gets outrolled by some random dude that has 10 WIS, and while that's fun on occasion, it does feel really weird how often it comes up.

To put it another way: a level 17 character with proficiency in a skill and 20 in the relevant stat has the same bonus as a level 8 Bard or Rogue with expertise in that skill and 20 in the stat, and the same level 17 character who has 20 in the stat and no proficiency has the same bonus as a level 1 character who has 16 in the stat and proficiency.

I get that 5e design wants to constrain some of the numbers a bit, but that feels like too much. Add on how quickly saving throw DCs scale from monsters, making saving throw proficiencies very important despite the relatively small bonus until later levels, and it's rough.

Oh, additional thing, and this is way older than 5e: why do we have both a score and a bonus for each stat? If you've been playing for a while it's easy to take for granted, but calculating (stat / 2 - 5) and then using that number for everything (aside from niche rules like "your running long jump is a number of feet equal to your strength score," which is a situation I think a lot of DMs would just assume you're supposed to roll for) just seems weird. There's gotta be a way to ditch scores entirely, right?

KorvinStarmast

2024-03-15, 11:56 AM

If dips into classes like Warlock and Fighter seem a bit too ubiquitous, that might be a symptom of the mid- and late-level features of many classes not being compelling enough to commit to. In some cases, yes, but in other cases it is a symptom of tless front loading of classes. (Twilight Cleric is one of the major offenders). Hexblade was an overcorrection for the underwhelimng blade pact gish.
(As was bladesinger, for that matter).
---
Oh, additional thing, and this is way older than 5e: why do we have both a score and a bonus for each stat? That is, in my view, one of the single most pointless things to complain about in this game.
A friend of mine DMs quite a bit. He's made this adjustment to ability scores as regards contests: if one character has a 14 STR, for example, and the other has 15, they may both have a plus 2 bonus but he uses the difference as a tie breaker. It doesn't come up all that often, but it has come up.

Witty Username

2024-03-15, 02:56 PM

Personally, I have been pondering a formula to adjust bonuses to higher numbers (and penalties lower). The goal being to better line up with AD&D numbers.
And I miss ability damage enough to bring it back for 5e, which gives scores more meaning.
--
I think bladesinger is a testiment to how weird martial design is, as bladesinger gets alot of the benefits of a martial class but is kinda middle of the road as wizard subclasses go.

Hexblade is a way to get armor at level one in a more stat compatable way than cleric, Sadness is icing.

Amechra

2024-03-15, 04:53 PM

But there's like... a weapon and, it's alive and stuff. And it let's you use your Charisma to fight people in combat obviously... and it teaches you how to use armor, and the Shield spell. And then it compels you to swear a paladin oath, right before unlocking your sorcerous heritage.

I don't understand what doesn't make sense to you...

Hey, that weapon has a theme song! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p1yaNC1mNg)

Ignimortis

2024-03-16, 12:50 AM

I think bladesinger is a testiment to how weird martial design is, as bladesinger gets alot of the benefits of a martial class but is kinda middle of the road as wizard subclasses go.
Because "martial features" are generally encapsulated (in regards to baseline DPR/defenses) in "give them Extra Attack and a damage booster that sort of brings them to 3 basic attacks per turn equivalent DPR, then give them medium/heavy armor proficiency and call it a day". Anything beyond that is highly optional and differs highly class-by-class. Therefore, Bladesinger Wizard with Bladesong up is entirely capable of fulfilling a martial's role, AND their "extra by class goodies" are 9th level spellcasting plus the rest of the Wizard class features.

Martial "basic features" are severely undervalued in 5e class building. Not that they're all that great and exciting, but getting access to Extra Attack and good armor proficiency (AC, really, regardless of how you get there) should not be nearly as easy.

Witty Username

2024-03-16, 01:20 AM

Because "martial features" are generally encapsulated (in regards to baseline DPR/defenses) in "give them Extra Attack and a damage booster that sort of brings them to 3 basic attacks per turn equivalent DPR, then give them medium/heavy armor proficiency and call it a day". Anything beyond that is highly optional and differs highly class-by-class. Therefore, Bladesinger Wizard with Bladesong up is entirely capable of fulfilling a martial's role, AND their "extra by class goodies" are 9th level spellcasting plus the rest of the Wizard class features.

Martial "basic features" are severely undervalued in 5e class building. Not that they're all that great and exciting, but getting access to Extra Attack and good armor proficiency (AC, really, regardless of how you get there) should not be nearly as easy.

Bladesinger doesn't gain a lot of the secondary support though, like say great weapon master or what have you. Hand crossbow + sharpshooter works in a kinda tortured way (I personally doubt it is intended but here we are), since that is two feats and some other stuff like actually working out the hand crossbow proficiency.

and the light armor limitation and split stats between dex and int do create some significant constraints, even with bladesong.

this puts bladesinger behind more or less every martial, sans the spells, and if one is castings spells instead of attacking, being a bit martial doesn't actually help much.

I am open to the idea that the Tasha's version didn't need to be, although the long rest mechanics on bladesong I think make it more reasonable as it is harder to spam so it isn't like it is straight better.

But I think that should be paired with an acknowledgement that there are significant gaps in martial design. From a general lack of features past the first chuck of levels, to straight up bad ideas like brutal critical.

Like given optimized builds for monk are not infrequently, throw out all the class features and pick up a gun, I feel is a poor reflection on the state of how these things are designed.

LibraryOgre

2024-03-23, 10:03 AM

1) Dex no longer adds to damage. With nothing.

Witty Username

2024-03-23, 10:09 AM

Hm, that would make Two-weapon fighting style for strength characters only, I actually like that as it would make rogue Two-weapon fighting more clearly working as intended.

Sindeloke

2024-03-24, 11:40 AM

Amechra

2024-03-24, 12:54 PM

Like given optimized builds for monk are not infrequently, throw out all the class features and pick up a gun, I feel is a poor reflection on the state of how these things are designed.

To be fair, those builds are still using Monk features... just not the three features that buff/require unarmed strikes. You still get full use out of the Monk's defensive toolkit, which is actually stronger if you don't have to close into melee.

The Monk (and to a lesser extent the Barbarian) run into a problem where D&D's designers consistently, across editions overestimate how useful it is to have "weapons" and "armor" that can be easily concealed and can't be taken away from you. That's cool and useful in some genres, sure (spy and detective stuff loves that kind of thing, for example), but in other contexts... that's basically flavortext?

Psyren

2024-03-24, 01:38 PM

To be fair, those builds are still using Monk features... just not the three features that buff/require unarmed strikes. You still get full use out of the Monk's defensive toolkit, which is actually stronger if you don't have to close into melee.

The Monk (and to a lesser extent the Barbarian) run into a problem where D&D's designers consistently, across editions overestimate how useful it is to have "weapons" and "armor" that can be easily concealed and can't be taken away from you. That's cool and useful in some genres, sure (spy and detective stuff loves that kind of thing, for example), but in other contexts... that's basically flavortext?

And even when not having a weapon is valuable, they also proceed to make other martial and gish classes that can function without a weapon too but also do more stuff. Soulknife Rogue, Beast Barbarian, Armorer Artificer, any Warlock with Blade Pact...

Witty Username

2024-03-24, 05:58 PM

It puts rogues behind by 5-10 damage at higher levels, though. That wouldn't be a big deal for a fighter or pally, but rogues are on the lower end of martial damage already, so nerfs are pretty rough on them. Something like an extra 1d6 sneak attack damage per tier might be called for.

Only sorta,
Rogue would be losing about 3-5 damage yes, but that is a pretty small part of its damage still
Meanwhile everyone else ranged loses that damage 2 to 3 times depending on the specifics
Like say and 11th level fighter is loosing the same damage 3 times over on its attack line.

So ranged generally becomes less damage overall, and more similar across builds.

Melee becomes more prononced, but melee has its own issues already.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-25, 09:42 AM

Like given optimized builds for monk are not infrequently, throw out all the class features and pick up a gun, I feel is a poor reflection on the state of how these things are designed.
I see what you're saying but honestly I think this is more a reflection of what "optimization" is, which is often a slave to math. They need to be able to demonstrate that this is "better" than that, so they focus on those things that are easily quantifiable.

It's not obvious to me that the most optimized monk is one that uses a gun. But if "optimized" means "deals the most damage", then sure, I could be wrong.

Skrum

2024-03-25, 03:45 PM

It's not obvious to me that the most optimized monk is one that uses a gun. But if "optimized" means "deals the most damage", then sure, I could be wrong.

Doesn't monk kinda struggle with melee though? Like their flavor is face puncher, literally, but the abilities they get are mechanically speaking a lot more suited to ranged combat. They

- move fast
- can disengage easily
- have multiple defensive features against ranged threats
- are dex-based

I get that they're sold as a melee class, but they're much better suited to range. The gunk is funny and it feels wonky because "a monk with a gun!!!" but from simply looking at monk features, they should be more thought of as a ranged class. Abilities like Stunning Strike should be more thought of as Ah, you finally caught up to me...big mistake!! than a reason to brawl on the front line.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-25, 04:27 PM

Doesn't monk kinda struggle with melee though?
In what way? I don't think they are very resilient, and they don't deal a ton of damage. But I don't think they are meant to stand and fight unless there is support.

Like their flavor is face puncher, literally, but the abilities they get are mechanically speaking a lot more suited to ranged combat. They

- move fast
- can disengage easily
- have multiple defensive features against ranged threats
- are dex-based
This doesn't mean to me that they are better suited to range though. With the exception maybe of being Dex based, but they are Dex based because of their armor class. They specifically can use Dex with their melee unarmed strikes.

I get that they're sold as a melee class, but they're much better suited to range. The gunk is funny and it feels wonky because "a monk with a gun!!!" but from simply looking at monk features, they should be more thought of as a ranged class. Abilities like Stunning Strike should be more thought of as Ah, you finally caught up to me...big mistake!! than a reason to brawl on the front line.
But if you put a gun in most of the monks' hands, they can't use their cool features. So I don't see how they're better suited for it. Like the monk at our table would never be pushing enemies or knocking them prone if he was a ranged attack.

Witty Username

2024-03-25, 08:39 PM

I see what you're saying but honestly I think this is more a reflection of what "optimization" is, which is often a slave to math. They need to be able to demonstrate that this is "better" than that, so they focus on those things that are easily quantifiable.

I know what you mean, at least in melee vs ranged builds it tends to not shake out that way though.

As Armecha pointed out, there is a bit of hyperbole on my part. You lose out on marial arts, flurry of blows, stunning strike and ki-empowered strike. And things like open hand and such will not have as much gains.

Defensively you still have the mobility, AC, deflect missles etc.

Generally speaking you are losing a bit of damage going gunk (at least in comparison to other classes), but what you gain is the full use of that mobility, and things like deflect missles work better as defense features at range. Which enables strategies not normally available to a melee monk.

And before anyone jumps on me, I am aware that the melee features aren't actually lost, just less emphasized. Since it is a Dex build with incentives to maintain wisdom still, the actual melee capacity isnt all that different from a monk more dedicated to melee, allowing for switching off.

A note to have here is I am still one of those people that is camp, monk is the weakest class. But that this build exists does pose some larger concerns for me. And that be Sharpshooter, which is most of how this build works on the damage end. And alot of ranged builds on the optimization end tend to be Sharpshooter and coast. Sharpshooter paladin is a thing even (athough with more downsides). That tells me either Sharpshooter is cracked or everything else is undertuned.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-25, 10:18 PM

I'd say two things:

1. Yes, Sharpshooter is borked. Every "optimized" everything is some crossbow user or longbow user or shortbow user or gun user. YAWN. Hey I want to play a really good fighter, what should I play? Oh you know, that common fantasy trope, that hero that everyone wants to be... the hand crossbow user lol. I can't roll my eyes hard enough.

2. I would characterize the monk you're describing as fine, but not particularly optimized for my standards, because he is only contributing damage from afar. For my party, as an example, we have a moon druid and my fighter, and the monk mixing it up in melee helps tremendously as he can control enemy positioning with his Empty Hand techniques, knock them Prone so we get Advantage, and also take the occasional hit or two, which is very nice. This is all before he even stuns, and his flurries can help clean up enemies that I've savaged with Great Weapon Master :smallamused:. And as I mentioned elsewhere, if anyone is trying to get away to sound an alarm or get back up, he can chase them down and stop them. I can knock enemies prone as well, and grab n drag or shove them to get them off allies, my power attacks synergize with his open hand techniques and Stuns, whereas if I knock an enemy prone first it benefits his flurry of blows. I use my Runes to help him dodge crits and/or make saving throws.

Our fourth and final party member is a sharpshooter ranger, and his damage is very much appreciated. But in combat... he does little else. He very rarely takes damage. We forgot he had Mutliattack Defense because it didn't trigger until a year into the campaign. This is a lone wolf solo character that is "optimized" because he's an untouchable damage dealer but... meh. I find these characters to be kind of selfish, and this is what lends to the meme of "everyone should play ranged characters" because obviously taking damage is bad, so you should just be stealthing/ambushing/attacking from ranged all the time. He can set up his own Advantage with Nature's Veil or Zephyr's Strike, gets bonus damage against anyone we've already hurt or with Hunter's Mark, but he's never setting up other party members for anything. He's just that neat little one-man show 5e is obsessed with, and I find it boring. And actually, so does the ranger lol. He's been complaining recently that the (1D&D) monk can do so many things on his turn, and all he gets to do is shoot arrows.

Anyways, that's my mini-rant. We should be able to optimize for any type of character, instead of calling any character that fights from distance and uses sharpshooter "optimized".

Witty Username

2024-03-26, 10:37 AM

Our fourth and final party member is a sharpshooter ranger, and his damage is very much appreciated. But in combat... he does little else. He very rarely takes damage. We forgot he had Mutliattack Defense because it didn't trigger until a year into the campaign. This is a lone wolf solo character that is "optimized" because he's an untouchable damage dealer but... meh. I find these characters to be kind of selfish, and this is what lends to the meme of "everyone should play ranged characters" because obviously taking damage is bad, so you should just be stealthing/ambushing/attacking from ranged all the time. He can set up his own Advantage with Nature's Veil or Zephyr's Strike, gets bonus damage against anyone we've already hurt or with Hunter's Mark, but he's never setting up other party members for anything. He's just that neat little one-man show 5e is obsessed with, and I find it boring. And actually, so does the ranger lol. He's been complaining recently that the (1D&D) monk can do so many things on his turn, and all he gets to do is shoot arrows.

They should look into spells like spike growth, summon beast, healing spirit*, plant growth, etc.

Ranger has a lot of cool spells that can go on a sharpshooter build and have a support role. I have build on my laptop by happenstance that was a similar idea (game died in session 0, much to my dismay).
But it was a ranger/life cleric, essentially focused on healing spells as well as ranged damage. A level in life cleric and goodberry/healing spirit can get you there, if you need a quick fix. Lore wise you could even have it as the character becoming disillusioned with wiping people out in favor of saving people.

*Assuming your healing spirit hasn't been obliterated from the timeline, yes, still mad

Psyren

2024-03-26, 07:44 PM

Doesn't monk kinda struggle with melee though? Like their flavor is face puncher, literally, but the abilities they get are mechanically speaking a lot more suited to ranged combat. They

- move fast
- can disengage easily
- have multiple defensive features against ranged threats
- are dex-based

I get that they're sold as a melee class, but they're much better suited to range.

This doesn't mean to me that they are better suited to range though. With the exception maybe of being Dex based, but they are Dex based because of their armor class. They specifically can use Dex with their melee unarmed strikes.

It's not so much that they're suited for range per se, so much as melee is dangerous for them due to their low AC, HP, and lack of Con saves until 14.

The 5.5 monk meanwhile, since they can Dodge-tank at low levels until their ability to deflect melee attacks comes online as well as being able to kite and reposition for free, is MUCH harder to take down.

Our fourth and final party member is a sharpshooter ranger, and his damage is very much appreciated. But in combat... he does little else. He very rarely takes damage. We forgot he had Mutliattack Defense because it didn't trigger until a year into the campaign. This is a lone wolf solo character that is "optimized" because he's an untouchable damage dealer but... meh. I find these characters to be kind of selfish, and this is what lends to the meme of "everyone should play ranged characters" because obviously taking damage is bad, so you should just be stealthing/ambushing/attacking from ranged all the time. He can set up his own Advantage with Nature's Veil or Zephyr's Strike, gets bonus damage against anyone we've already hurt or with Hunter's Mark, but he's never setting up other party members for anything. He's just that neat little one-man show 5e is obsessed with, and I find it boring. And actually, so does the ranger lol. He's been complaining recently that the (1D&D) monk can do so many things on his turn, and all he gets to do is shoot arrows.

Anyways, that's my mini-rant. We should be able to optimize for any type of character, instead of calling any character that fights from distance and uses sharpshooter "optimized".

I'm with Witty on this one - "all my Ranger does is shoot arrows" feels like a skill issue tbh. Rangers can melee/switch-hit, they can buff and debuff and control and summon and heal, and all that's just the combat pillar; they're way more capable than monks in the other two. It's also before the toys they'll be getting later this year like Weapon Mastery.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-26, 10:28 PM

Been trying to reply to this all day lol.

They should look into spells like spike growth, summon beast, healing spirit*, plant growth, etc.

Ranger has a lot of cool spells that can go on a sharpshooter build and have a support role.
Yeah, we've tried. The player played a wizard in our previous game, and I think there's some sort of hangup going to a half caster. He says things like "You guys keep thinking I'm a spellcaster but I'm really not".

In his defense, we've benefited from the occasional Spike Growth and Pass Without Trace. But he's very much a lone wolf character and build.

But it was a ranger/life cleric, essentially focused on healing spells as well as ranged damage. A level in life cleric and goodberry/healing spirit can get you there, if you need a quick fix. Lore wise you could even have it as the character becoming disillusioned with wiping people out in favor of saving people.

*Assuming your healing spirit hasn't been obliterated from the timeline, yes, still mad
I mean... we all know that Life Cleric doesn't actually work with Goodberry though so... another example of the online opinion on what's "optimized" not mattering too much. It's its own thing; optimization is whatever we all agree to, as I've said.

Anyways, our ranger is more of a table issue in that he definitely has resources he can be making more use of. The kensei "optimized" gun monk is a better example, as those features will be used on Sharpen the Blade or Focused Aim. And that's your optimization... Kensei's Shot --> Attack --> Hit --> Sharpen the Blade or Kensei's Shot --> Attack --> Miss --> Focused Aim. Rinse and repeat. Stay away from melee. Ta-da! "Optimization".

Truthfully though, this I think is more about my own expectations and preferences. The idea that being optimized means "keeping away from enemies and used ranged attacks" simply warps the game way too much for my tastes. It also puts tension between traditional characters (you know, fighters that aren't using hand crossbows, ancestral barbarians without longbows, monks without guns) and the "optimized" characters, and the slider is all the way on the Mechanics side of the Mechanics/Narrative spectrum. Our monk engaging in melee and impacting the battle there not only with damage but with enemy movement control, Stuns, and taking hits, is a much greater contribution to the team than the gunk three miles back firing a musket and doing little else. The spreadsheets like the musket guy, but I like the one that is adapting to the battle and covering more than HP damage. Like... we're all doing HP damage. I'm a power attacker with GWM and I can also Shove/Prone/Grapple and use my Rune features as well.

Skrum

2024-03-26, 11:33 PM

Truthfully though, this I think is more about my own expectations and preferences. The idea that being optimized means "keeping away from enemies and used ranged attacks" simply warps the game way too much for my tastes.

I def agree with this.

Obviously, the most optimized - highest chance of success, least chance of dying/failure - is to be cautious, avoid fights, and when the party has to fight, stack the odds as much as possible. Surprise attacks, use total lockdown tactics, etc. My own personal playstyle, I generally don't like it when someone does something "clever" like that. I want to fight the fight! I want to smash all the stats blocks together, with each creature and player bringing their best stuff. Bypassing a fight with a social roll is the worst lol.

To me, optimization is a relative term: what am I trying to optimize for. 99 times out of 100, I'm not building a character that optimizes for "greatest chance of success/least chance of death/failure."

But that's just me, making choices I know will lead to more fun, within the context of the table I play at. But in a forum where people are giving general advice, it makes lot of sense if optimization = best chance of success, least chance of death/failure. There's no context to consider those other factors, like what's going to be fun at the table in question.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-27, 12:03 AM

I def agree with this.

Obviously, the most optimized - highest chance of success, least chance of dying/failure - is to be cautious, avoid fights, and when the party has to fight, stack the odds as much as possible. Surprise attacks, use total lockdown tactics, etc. My own personal playstyle, I generally don't like it when someone does something "clever" like that. I want to fight the fight! I want to smash all the stats blocks together, with each creature and player bringing their best stuff. Bypassing a fight with a social roll is the worst lol.

To me, optimization is a relative term: what am I trying to optimize for. 99 times out of 100, I'm not building a character that optimizes for "greatest chance of success/least chance of death/failure."
Generally, I'm in alignment with all of this. And to be clear, we exercise caution and do stack things in our favor, but there isn't a prime directive of "avoid melee combat". Not even close. And I would hate to play in a game like that.

Like... if monsters are dash distance away, I'll suggest we fall back and make some ranged attacks while they close in, and get 1 or 2 turns of attacks in. Makes sense to me. But I'll NEVER be like "okay, how can we just avoid engaging with 90% of the combat rules in the game?"

But that's just me, making choices I know will lead to more fun, within the context of the table I play at. But in a forum where people are giving general advice, it makes lot of sense if optimization = best chance of success, least chance of death/failure. There's no context to consider those other factors, like what's going to be fun at the table in question.
Here though... I think I disagree. Because it's not obvious to me that Gunk=best chance of success/least chance of failure. Because the party and the DM are such a huge part of the game.

I can tell you what would happen if the guys I play with insisted on something like this... my character would die, all the time. Because one person in melee range while everyone else is a shadow ninja galaxy brain one-man sniper army doesn't work. It's too much pressure on the one guy not cowering tactically evading in the shadows. It becomes a foregone conclusion that melee is too dangerous and to be avoided at all costs because there's literally no one else up there supporting you. Combat gets reduced to "aim and click" because "Dead" is the best condition you can impose.

And that's fair enough. But for every approach to the game to be beholden to this type of thinking is tired at this point. Yeah, killing stuff as quickly as possible is good. Staying alive is good. I don't want to ignore all the other parts of the game to maximize those two things as much as possible though. I think your approach to "optimization" is much better.

Skrum

2024-03-27, 12:40 AM

is a shadow ninja galaxy brain one-man sniper army

This absolutely killed me lol

I think your approach to "optimization" is much better.

Word. Melee brawlers for life.

I recently made the very painful decision to reduce my barb/rogue's str by 2 so I could pick up resilient: wis. Also gonna pick up a Stone of Good Luck as soon as I possibly can. As much as I want to brawl, failing every wisdom save and getting locked for turns at a time sucks really bad. Can't brawl if I'm literally shaking in fear. I hate this game.

I don't often make optimization decisions like this - sacrificing something I want to be really good at in order to shore up a hole. Usually, I'll just play my one trick pony and RP the downside. But there's no way to roleplay falling for every charm and fear effect. It's just an embarrassing level of incompetence for a what should be a seasoned warrior.

Psyren

2024-03-27, 12:40 AM

Bypassing a fight with a social roll is the worst lol.

You're in luck, monk is the least likely class in the game to do that :smallbiggrin:

To me, optimization is a relative term: what am I trying to optimize for. 99 times out of 100, I'm not building a character that optimizes for "greatest chance of success/least chance of death/failure."

But that's just me, making choices I know will lead to more fun, within the context of the table I play at. But in a forum where people are giving general advice, it makes lot of sense if optimization = best chance of success, least chance of death/failure. There's no context to consider those other factors, like what's going to be fun at the table in question.

I'm fine with this.

Generally, I'm in alignment with all of this. And to be clear, we exercise caution and do stack things in our favor, but there isn't a prime directive of "avoid melee combat". Not even close. And I would hate to play in a game like that.

Like... if monsters are dash distance away, I'll suggest we fall back and make some ranged attacks while they close in, and get 1 or 2 turns of attacks in. Makes sense to me. But I'll NEVER be like "okay, how can we just avoid engaging with 90% of the combat rules in the game?"

I agree with this too - but this is exactly why I adore the new monk. Right at level 1 you can run into melee and do your best Landlord/Henpecked Hou Impression (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxHefMFmvc8#t=6m07s) and be even tankier than a paladin or fighter in Chain Mail and a shield (not that a level 1 paladin could even afford that.) Dodge-tanking at level 1 just feels awesome to me, it fits with the monk's fantasy so well. And later on, when you want to be attacking rather than dodging, you can either pick Mercy for the autopoison or Shadow for the, well, shadows and keep your tankiness intact without needing to focus on Dodging at all, showing off your mastery of your chosen rechniques all the more.

Witty Username

2024-03-27, 01:14 AM

I can tell you what would happen if the guys I play with insisted on something like this... my character would die, all the time. Because one person in melee range while everyone else is a shadow ninja galaxy brain one-man sniper army doesn't work. It's too much pressure on the one guy not cowering tactically evading in the shadows. It becomes a foregone conclusion that melee is too dangerous and to be avoided at all costs because there's literally no one else up there supporting you. Combat gets reduced to "aim and click" because "Dead" is the best condition you can impose.

I think I am actually with you on this one, most optimization makes some assumptions of what the rest of the party is doing. And presence is undervalued, presense as how much you can deny going at the party by being an active target.

TM I think brought up most of this with the gunk awhile back, dealing damage but that is all your doing.

I am more thinking the values are a bit screwy with melee vs ranged, safety should have more of a cost to it or melee should have gains for the greater risk.

Rogue I think is actually in a healthy spot with this to a degree, ranged is safe but it will cost a bit of consistency or damage while melee is riskier but has more points to be spicy with the damage because of how two-weapon fighting, blade cantrips, and opportunity attacks work.

But that is getting back to combat math, which probably isn't of much interest in this conversation.

Skrum

2024-03-27, 01:35 AM

melee should have gains for the greater risk.

I think a nice place to start would be to give characters that often find themselves in melee a few extra tools to, yah know, support being in melee. A defensive reaction would do *wonders,* for instance. Martial classes not being able to parry or use their weapon for defense has bugged me since 3e.

Rogue I think is actually in a healthy spot with this to a degree, ranged is safe but it will cost a bit of consistency or damage while melee is riskier but has more points to be spicy with the damage because of how two-weapon fighting, blade cantrips, and opportunity attacks work.

Good example of what I'm talking about - rogue is not given the support to melee, at least not into t2 and beyond. Uncanny Dodge only goes so far. Swashbucklers in particular should get some kind of Agile ability (like Kensai). Maybe a bonus action Dodge.

Blatant Beast

2024-03-27, 03:07 AM

A Bonus Action Dodge ability, that has no resource cost beyond the action type used to trigger it, would be too powerful, in my opinion.

A game that I played in had a homebrewed Greater Haste potion that added Dodge to the list of actions allowed via the spell.

My T3 Fighter drank one and boarded and took a Vampirate Spelljammer vessel by themselves. While Vampirates are not, particularly hard, there was a massive bunch of them.

The AC boost from Dodge, while still being able to use one’s Action, was overwhelming, especially when the quality of one’s foe is directly tied to their quantity….the yard trash couldn’t connect with their attacks.

Dodge is a Rogue Killer, generally….Disadvantage means no Sneak Attack.

Skrum

2024-03-27, 03:43 AM

Psyren

2024-03-27, 09:47 AM

I think a nice place to start would be to give characters that often find themselves in melee a few extra tools to, yah know, support being in melee. A defensive reaction would do *wonders,* for instance. Martial classes not being able to parry or use their weapon for defense has bugged me since 3e.

Martials do have such tools, they're just not all reactions (though NuMonk's will be.) I suspect listing them wouldn't align much with how your high-difficulty table perceives them though.

Good example of what I'm talking about - rogue is not given the support to melee, at least not into t2 and beyond. Uncanny Dodge only goes so far. Swashbucklers in particular should get some kind of Agile ability (like Kensai). Maybe a bonus action Dodge.

Rogue isn't really meant to stand around in melee though. 13th-level Swashbucklers might be able to, once they get Parrying Stance - but even that is just +3 AC on average, i.e. barely better than a shield. Arcane Tricksters fare better with Mirror Image/Blur and the like.

Dalinar

2024-03-27, 09:48 AM

Theodoxus

2024-03-27, 10:30 AM

My experience with Swashbuckler was the 3-5 campaign where (for comedy and RP reasons) I decided to optimize for high initiative at the expense of everything else. I sure did go first the majority of the time, but man, Swashbuckler does not have a lot of ways to leverage that aside from moderate Sneak Attack damage. I mean, yeah, I could've taken something more impactful than Alert at 4, but what does that even look like aside from Sharpshooter? And if you're going that route you might as well be a Gloom Stalker instead, getting a whole lot more attacks to leverage the -5/+10 so you can be even better at deleting stuff before it takes a turn. You could maybe try to get some spells, but then you run into the same issue relative to War Magic Wizard or Twilight Cleric, which both also come prepackaged with initiative bonuses and have better ways to take control of an encounter than maybe just killing one mook if your single attack hits.

The whole point of having a high initiative, I learned, is so that you can start off the encounter with some strong ability that immediately swings it into your favor. Swashbuckler just isn't all that well suited to doing that.

So I'm maybe not against giving it a really strong defensive feature, though certainly not at level 3 for multiclass balance reasons. And bonus action dodge is very strong.

Quoted for truth. One of the first characters I played in a campaign was a rogue that I was playing when SCAG came out and the DM allowed me to rebuild my 2nd level halfling to take advantage of the Cha boon. At 4th, I took Alert and was generally getting Initiatives in the upper teens, low 20s, and going first... and then finding I had to wait until Round 2 to take advantage of that fact more often than not, as very rarely were there single targets to run in and sneak... and even when there were, I was quickly swarmed and knocked out... Fortunately, the game crapped out before I made more mistakes with that character... Stacking initiative on a rogue... not wise, one might even call it a trap.

Skrum

2024-03-27, 10:54 AM

Martials do have such tools, they're just not all reactions (though NuMonk's will be.)

Yes and no. Some classes are better than others. Rune knight, very good. Barb, limited but it's there. Cavalier? Battle Master? Monk? Ranger? Less so.

Rogue isn't really meant to stand around in melee though. 13th-level Swashbucklers might be able to, once they get Parrying Stance - but even that is just +3 AC on average, i.e. barely better than a shield. Arcane Tricksters fare better with Mirror Image/Blur and the like.

Swashbuckler is supposed to be the melee rogue though. A duelist. And they're given some tools, just not enough. Yes they can go full hit and run (against things they're faster than), but that isn't really duelling, that's skirmishing. Some extra tools that give them bonuses in melee, especially in one v one fights, that would be nice.

Level 3: Focus Defense: at the beginning of your turn, you may pick an opponent to focus your attention on. You gain a bonus to your AC equal to your proficiency bonus against that opponent (but not more than the number of levels in rogue). This lasts as long as you can see them. You may switch the target of this ability at the beginning of your turn

Level 9: Cunning Defense: as a bonus action, all attacks from the target of your Focus Defense ability has disadvantage on all attacks against you, and you have advantage on any Dex saves you make against spells or abilities from that opponent. This last until the beginning of your next turn

KorvinStarmast

2024-03-27, 11:08 AM

I mean... we all know that Life Cleric doesn't actually work with Goodberry though so... Yes it does. Says so in the SA compendium. :smallbiggrin:

A Bonus Action Dodge ability, that has no resource cost beyond the action type used to trigger it, would be too powerful, in my opinion. Bonus action parry would be less OP.

Dalinar

2024-03-27, 08:39 PM

Quoted for truth. One of the first characters I played in a campaign was a rogue that I was playing when SCAG came out and the DM allowed me to rebuild my 2nd level halfling to take advantage of the Cha boon. At 4th, I took Alert and was generally getting Initiatives in the upper teens, low 20s, and going first... and then finding I had to wait until Round 2 to take advantage of that fact more often than not, as very rarely were there single targets to run in and sneak... and even when there were, I was quickly swarmed and knocked out... Fortunately, the game crapped out before I made more mistakes with that character... Stacking initiative on a rogue... not wise, one might even call it a trap.

Well, at least Steady Aim exists now and helps with that. But then you're playing a ranged Swashbuckler and that just feels weird.

Psyren

2024-03-27, 09:41 PM

Swashbuckler is supposed to be the melee rogue though. A duelist. And they're given some tools, just not enough. Yes they can go full hit and run (against things they're faster than), but that isn't really duelling, that's skirmishing. Some extra tools that give them bonuses in melee, especially in one v one fights, that would be nice.

*snip*

Honestly, all I think they need would be shield proficiency and either Dueling or Defense fighting style. Then again, a simple Fighter dip would get them both too.

Dr.Samurai

2024-03-27, 09:49 PM

This absolutely killed me lol
:smallamused:

Word. Melee brawlers for life.
https://i.imgflip.com/f5vwu.gif

I recently made the very painful decision to reduce my barb/rogue's str by 2 so I could pick up resilient: wis. Also gonna pick up a Stone of Good Luck as soon as I possibly can. As much as I want to brawl, failing every wisdom save and getting locked for turns at a time sucks really bad. Can't brawl if I'm literally shaking in fear. I hate this game.

I don't often make optimization decisions like this - sacrificing something I want to be really good at in order to shore up a hole. Usually, I'll just play my one trick pony and RP the downside. But there's no way to roleplay falling for every charm and fear effect. It's just an embarrassing level of incompetence for a what should be a seasoned warrior.
Dude... truer words have never been spoken. I'm playing a rune knight and grabbed Mobile and Charger, just to see what it would be like if I could dash around and still get a nice beefy power attack. Which is to say that I'm not trying to eke out maximum output in all my build choices. I still wind up grabbing Resilient Wisdom because this is exactly right. This game abuses martials so badly.

I think I am actually with you on this one, most optimization makes some assumptions of what the rest of the party is doing. And presence is undervalued, presense as how much you can deny going at the party by being an active target.
It really makes a big difference, and informs how the DM acts with his monsters.

TM I think brought up most of this with the gunk awhile back, dealing damage but that is all your doing.
If I have the right of it, there was a disagreement on the Gunk on his discord, and someone mentioned that TTB thought he was "only" mid-optimization, and so he threw out a video of the Gunk as a cautionary tale in taking any old optimization advice lol. My point is different to the point he was making I think. I feel like I'm sort of undervaluing big damage, but I think it's important to support the party with a bit more than that.

I am more thinking the values are a bit screwy with melee vs ranged, safety should have more of a cost to it or melee should have gains for the greater risk.
Completely agree. It's way too easy to be a ranged character in this game and have as much or greater impact than a frontliner, but from the safety of a coward's perch the backline.

Yes it does. Says so in the SA compendium. :smallbiggrin:
Ah yes, Schrodinger's Authority. We don't know if Sage Advice is an authority or not an authority until we understand if it agrees with us or not. Until then, it is simultaneously a valid and invalid source to call upon. :smalltongue:

Witty Username

2024-03-27, 10:40 PM

Ah yes, Schrodinger's Authority. We don't know if Sage Advice is an authority or not an authority until we understand if it agrees with us or not. Until then, it is simultaneously a valid and invalid source to call upon. :smalltongue:

I didn't want this to overtake the conversation, but I would rather try to put this to bed.

IMO, life cleric plus ranger is a fair combination even if goodberry doesn't mix with it, you still have other healing options (healing word, cure wounds, healing spirit). And it gives ranger a bunch of stuff to do that is both helpful and works with them being at range.

As for it working, my dividing line (and I don't expect anyone else to think this way) is if an effect only exists in the context of a spell, its a spell effect.
Fireball, is a spell, the fire it leaves afterward is not. So far so good.
Conjure spells bring a creature to the field, wolves aren't spells.

Now the tricky parts,
Aura of Vitality, is a spell, the aura it generates isn't something that is the result of a spell that could exist outside its context, and so it is the effect of the spell including its healing
Summons spells, the creature they create and is knock on effects like attacks are the spell, because unlike conjure spells they don't involve a creature that exists outside the spell effect in any way.

So to goodberry, its a spell, that creates goodberries. What are goodberries, the effect of the goodberry spell. They aren't something like healing potions that have a possible origin outside the effect, or a conequene like fireball setting a wooden rampart ablaze that could arise from other effects. They are the spell.

If say you could get goodberries as an uncommon magic item, I would see it differently but as they are, they are a spell that heals. To say otherwise would amount to saying fireball doesn't deal fire damage, it creates fire and the damage is a consequence of that.

If none of this makes sense, don't worry about it, just do what makes sense.

Theodoxus

2024-03-28, 06:44 AM

Skrum

2024-03-28, 11:49 AM

Not to conflate the this thread with the Rulings discussion on the Counterspell thread, but Sage Advice really is just Rulings by a recognized DM and has as much authority as one cares to give it.

I mean, if one of the Matt's (Mercer or Coville) posted a ruling about something, I'm sure some would take it as from on high and others would poopoo it into the ground. SA is no different.

I find discussions from devs regarding Rules as They had Intended more interesting, since then we see the thinking behind the rules - and can make better informed decisions on how they should interact when things aren't clear cut.

I agree with this - make of other people's ideas and ruling what you want, but ultimately the DM at the table is going to need to make a decision (even if that decision is just to copy someone else's decision).

I personally don't put a ton of stock into Sage Advice or Jeremy Crawford's rulings just cause I feel like time and again he's shown a...weird lack of knowledge about the game he helped make? At the very least he's thinking in terms that don't match the kind of games I play in.

Dalinar

2024-03-31, 12:05 PM

I personally don't put a ton of stock into Sage Advice or Jeremy Crawford's rulings just cause I feel like time and again he's shown a...weird lack of knowledge about the game he helped make? At the very least he's thinking in terms that don't match the kind of games I play in.

This is probably a result of having had to see and playtest a ton of internal ideas that never saw the light of day. I've seen developers of other games run into this situation in interviews, where they have to take a moment to separate the stuff they tried from the stuff that players will see, to the point of mixing up names and the like.

I think those documents are useful because they clarify developer intent, and so when there are questions about whether something is or isn't RAW they are useful for that. However, DMs having to rule on situations not predicted by the rules is kind of an expectation in this medium. In actual play, developer intent doesn't matter as much as what will be fun for the table (short and long term).

Psyren

2024-03-31, 03:43 PM

This is probably a result of having had to see and playtest a ton of internal ideas that never saw the light of day. I've seen developers of other games run into this situation in interviews, where they have to take a moment to separate the stuff they tried from the stuff that players will see, to the point of mixing up names and the like.

I think it's more likely that Crawford has to design for thousands of tables and he aims more toward the median experience than that of an outlier table.

I think those documents are useful because they clarify developer intent, and so when there are questions about whether something is or isn't RAW they are useful for that. However, DMs having to rule on situations not predicted by the rules is kind of an expectation in this medium. In actual play, developer intent doesn't matter as much as what will be fun for the table (short and long term).

Right, and the only reasonable way to achieve that is to leave it up to that table's DM.