-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Anyone a fan of the Wealth stat? Like giving martials increased Wealth so they can literally buy all the potions, scolls, wands, and mcguffins that cause magic? It would put them on a competitive level with casters and give them options to expand their armory of equipment that so critically defines their class (as opposed to casters who can run around naked for all they care).
Before you say that's not a skill, not powerful enough, or won't let them compete with casters...
Batman literally uses this technique and is the most powerful member of the Justice League.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
N810
Don't forget Indomitable Might at level 20 Barbarian automatically get at least a 20 on all strength related rolls. :thog:
So that's chucking 1,200 lbs. boulders all day long without even needing to roll.
Awesome!!! (Even at 24 feet!!)
Roll for either more weight or more distance.
Humm.... Now I wonder how much damage a just over half-ton boulder does when it hits you.... Being 5e D&D, it's nerfed (3.x and older could have been 120d6!!) - Soo
20d10 (100 average) plus Str mod?
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skylivedk
But casters ALSO have skills.
...
I agree that the title is too harshly phrased. I disagree on there not being a significant disparity.
PS. I'm not saying Martials can't do cool stuff either. I'm just of the persuasion that it is significantly easier for casters and that the chasm between the two grows ever larger with level progression since most Martials do not acquire significant Out of Combat utility as they level, while casters do.
Yes, casters have skills, and have also a background. Disregarding that most martials also have other stuff (extra feat(s) for fighter / rogue, expertise / reliable talent for rogue, some divinations, or extra skills, or mile long vision for certain Barbarians, etc): yes, casters (can) have some additional buttons they can bush out of combat, if they take them: cantrips, rituals, and (with an opportunity cost) spells. That's very nice. But the vast majority of out of combat stuff consists of 'roleplay (talking to npc's); also other stuff, like solving riddles or playing mini games involves none of these rescources (skills nor spells nor backgrounds), and there are pleny of situations where mundane items work just fine. So it really doesn't matter that much. For the parts where it does matter, that's cool, and part of the game balance, cause casters have mostly limited rescources, their unlimited rescources (damage from cantrips) is much weaker than that of martials, and casters are more squishy. All in general of course, there are exceptions.
So it's fine, really.
Quote:
And I probably wouldn't construct my story line like that either ;) But I do have things happen in the world around the players where they just go "Nope, not it", because their current composition doesn't lead to them being a good choice to solve that issue at hand. Ie. my players avoided going to the Kobold infested areas, when they party rogue died; they waited to address the undead plague until they had recruited a Paladin and a Cleric.
These examples are just smart playing, imo. Quite contrary to and different from 'apocalypse cause no teleport spell' ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
QuickLyRaiNbow
A DM who sets up a game-ending challenge that the party can't overcome - I might agree with you. If the party can overcome it and doesn't, the consequences have to be real. I do think you're reading this entirely out of the spirit of the original scenario, which was that 1) the party has the necessary class, 2) the player has the necessary spell and 3) the player doesn't cast the spell.
Sometimes the party has to lose, and sometimes that means losing when the stakes are high.
In that case, I tend to agree, in any case that consequences of failure have to be real, and that the party must have a chance to lose. Whether an entire campaign should go down the drain due to 1 player being stubborn or making a bad choice, don't know - its a team game. As a player I wouldn't enjoy it if the world ends just because the obnoxious player plays the wizard, or a player plays an obnoxious wizard.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kyutaru
Anyone a fan of the Wealth stat? Like giving martials increased Wealth so they can literally buy all the potions, scolls, wands, and mcguffins that cause magic? It would put them on a competitive level with casters and give them options to expand their armory of equipment that so critically defines their class (as opposed to casters who can run around naked for all they care).
Before you say that's not a skill, not powerful enough, or won't let them compete with casters...
Batman literally uses this technique and is the most powerful member of the Justice League.
In older editions of dnd fighters were given a castle and lands after reaching a high enough level(probably level 9 because they gave capstone much earlier) and that was awesome.
I wonder why they did not keep that.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kyutaru
Anyone a fan of the Wealth stat? Like giving martials increased Wealth so they can literally buy all the potions, scolls, wands, and mcguffins that cause magic? It would put them on a competitive level with casters and give them options to expand their armory of equipment that so critically defines their class (as opposed to casters who can run around naked for all they care).
Before you say that's not a skill, not powerful enough, or won't let them compete with casters...
Batman literally uses this technique and is the most powerful member of the Justice League.
Giving more Treasure for Fighters/Barbarians (Rogues?) etc, might work - just remember to make sure everyone knows with a Session Zero.
Part of the problem here is:
Treasure!
When the Party gets done Killing Everything "Defeating the Dungeon", they have to make an equal split of anything not immediately usable by a Party Member.
Now, I actually like sitting around doing nothing but random rolls to figure out what a particular Dungeon's Monsters/minions have as Individual Treasure and what the BBEG has in it's "Horde". (But, then I'll have the BBEG or minions use things from the Treasure against the PCs, with no extra Exp!) But, I'm Weird, and a lot of other DMs don't have the time/patience to do that.
So, unless the DM simply chooses magical items for each Member of the Party by Class after the Dungeon is Defeated (and players either don't notice, or don't care - it will seem a bit like a "Following Plot to get Wanted Item(s)" Railroad) - odds are that PCs aren't going to be getting what they want.
Which brings us to one of the few In Game Ways to Make Money:
Downtime Activities.
There are only a few of these:
Selling Items IME most games have it where everything in the Treasure not claimed by Party Members is sold off, and the gold split evenly.
Even a PC with Merchant/trader can only really buy things (Complications?) in Location A to try and Sell (more Complications?) in Location Z for potential profit. The travel time between these Locations can be an Adventure, though.
Do a Job. Waste Time getting Basic Needs taken care of, assuming no Bad Complications.
(What is the "job" of a {non-mercant} Noble? What's the daily Wage Rate for that, exactly? And can they get more than Comfortable Daily Expense level for it in gold?
Waterdhavian Nobles outside the Sword Coast are kinda SOL, and even if near Waterdeep, it doesn't actually give cash.)
Another point: how hard is it for the PCs to Invest Money? Most Adventurers need to immediately use the Treasure for getting upgrades, so putting their gold into a long term investment isn't really a useful option.
Gamble. Not many players like the Risk vs Reward, here.
Commit a Crime: Again, High Risk with Moderate Rewards, plus more chance of getting into Big Trouble.
******
Note: Batman is by no means a good example. There is a Large difference between say: A hero that makes (mostly) enough to pay monthly bills (Spiderman), and someone that makes enough to live comfortably (Daredevil); a Big difference for someone able to get and maintain Powerful Equipment (Iron Man = multi-millionaire) and a Huge difference with a multi-billionaire!!
(I heard somewhere that in order to spend $1B IRL - a person would have to spend $40,000 A Day for about 80 years!!!)
But then they never really show just what all Bruce really has, and does with that money, very often. I mean Wayne Enterprises is more than a match for Lexcorp in most areas.
Also, Batman's biggest "power" are his brains. Litterally being able to figure out the Target's weaknesses, and then go invent/build a device to exploit that.
D&D Adventuring really isn't set up to take that kind of Wealth into account. Since more than half the point of Adventuring in Dangerous Areas is to Get More Money, Upgrade to fight next Threat, repeat.
**********
And DMs should be just as hard on Casters for their various Expenses. Most of the time Casters are not going to have enough time to be able to Craft their own Magical Items, so that means hunting down and buying what they really need - including expensive Material Components: Even 50 gp gems, much less diamonds don't just drop from the sky!
Plus in a High Magic World/Game, the trading of Magical Items can be a sub-economy in itself!
*********
My suggestion:
As a DM - Want there to where casting is closer to Vanishian casting, and still stay 5e?
Have more Components being consumed when the spell is cast.
This makes the Player keep track not just of what spells they choose, but also how many times they can cast that spell before needing to resupply their Components. Getting the replacements can be either a Downtime Activity - or a mini-quest.
(Of course this should be noted in Session Zero)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noob
In older editions of dnd fighters were given a castle and lands after reaching a high enough level(probably level 9 because they gave capstone much earlier) and that was awesome.
I wonder why they did not keep that.
Mostly due to a lack of "Player Interest" in upKEEPing!
(Though GoT might change this, a little...)
WOtC did give it a shot, in Dragon Heist, though: Up to half a million gold and a Building that the PCs can try and turn into a Business.
I liked the Birthright campaign, but finding Players for it has yet to happen.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
I dont know what to do!!!!!!!
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
@geetika: First, take a Deep Breath.
Next, ponder what you want to accomplish.
Post Questions as you think of them.
And the rest of us will reply with suggestions.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noob
In older editions of dnd fighters were given a castle and lands after reaching a high enough level(probably level 9 because they gave capstone much earlier) and that was awesome.
I wonder why they did not keep that.
Well, part of the problem is that it just doesn't fit every game. Sometimes there's no keeps to give, sometimes there's no rationale to give one, etc.
Maybe some sort of "mercenary captain" power that lets you easily recruit followers and replace them in any major population center - although that seems more like a subclass.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aquillion
Well, part of the problem is that it just doesn't fit every game. Sometimes there's no keeps to give, sometimes there's no rationale to give one, etc.
Maybe some sort of "mercenary captain" power that lets you easily recruit followers and replace them in any major population center - although that seems more like a subclass.
The other thing is, why would a Fighter be able to better recruit people than a Paladin? The Fighter has exactly 1 support subclass that everyone hates, and the only other support abilities are in the Battlemaster (which has 2 maneuvers on the topic).
Compare this to a Paladin, who has auras, healing, and buffs all built into the main chassis, not including the fact that Charisma is a secondary stat for them and any subclass features. A Paladin would be a leader, but a Fighter would be a hero.
Give a Paladin an army, and he'd be able to use them at their full potential. Give a Fighter an army and he's probably say "well, now what?"
That solution worked before, when the difference between Paladins and Fighters wasn't a horizontal change. But in 5e, it is; they are effectively equals with different jobs, and it doesn't make much sense to give the "people person" job to the one guy with no people-skills.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Man_Over_Game
The other thing is, why would a Fighter be able to better recruit people than a Paladin? The Fighter has exactly 1 support subclass that everyone hates, and the only other support abilities are in the Battlemaster (which has 2 maneuvers on the topic).
Compare this to a Paladin, who has auras, healing, and buffs all built into the main chassis, not including the fact that Charisma is a secondary stat for them and any subclass features. A Paladin would be a leader, but a Fighter would be a hero.
Give a Paladin an army, and he'd be able to use them at their full potential. Give a Fighter an army and he's probably say "well, now what?"
That solution worked before, when the difference between Paladins and Fighters wasn't a horizontal change. But in 5e, it is; they are effectively equals with different jobs, and it doesn't make much sense to give the "people person" job to the one guy with no people-skills.
It is because everyone wants a team of one fighter, one paladin, one bard and one gunslinger.
The problem is the lack of gunslinger.
We need guns in 5e?
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sigreid
My solution has always been to let skills, good plans and RP work.
This is the actual solution here in my mind, there doesn't have to be a complex work around to add utility things to martial classes. I've mained martials for some time, and also played several utility characters. Let me tell you, at the tabel, the fighter and barbarian can investigate, disarm traps, and be diplomatic just as well as the ranger, bard and rogue. You just have to play the characters like a person who would do those things, and take certain proficiencies or featsm in my mind feats are here for that purpose anyways, adding more flavor and versatility to a party.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
@moonfly7: That combo usually works with an experienced Group of GM + Players, regardless of Game System.
Thing is, you get (at least) two different groups:
New players (and Returning Old Players learning new system/edition) who like/need guidelines.
And
GMs/Players (New and Old) that like defining and tinkering with Rules.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Great Dragon
@moonfly7: That combo usually works with an experienced Group of GM + Players, regardless of Game System.
Thing is, you get (at least) two different groups:
New players (and Returning Old Players learning new system/edition) who like/need guidelines.
And
GMs/Players (New and Old or returning from a very old edition) that like defining and tinkering with Rules.
Fixed for you
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aquillion
Well, part of the problem is that it just doesn't fit every game. Sometimes there's no keeps to give, sometimes there's no rationale to give one, etc.
Maybe some sort of "mercenary captain" power that lets you easily recruit followers and replace them in any major population center - although that seems more like a subclass.
There's also something about the fact being incapable of using magic in any way, shape or form does not make you a leader, nor does having spells and possibly relying on them over physical prowess bar you from commanding troops.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
noob "Fixed for you"
Thanks! 😎
(Word minimum)
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MeimuHakurei
There's also something about the fact being incapable of using magic in any way, shape or form does not make you a leader, nor does having spells and possibly relying on them over physical prowess bar you from commanding troops.
I mean, they're things you can earn in play - just like anyone can ride a Pegasus, not just a Paladin.
But I'd say that a feature like that would represent the fact that the Fighter gets to assume they're spending time developing and maintaining those things as part of their ongoing offscreen "class training", whereas the casters are spending that time learning and maintaining their casting ability.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aquillion
I mean, they're things you can earn in play - just like anyone can ride a Pegasus, not just a Paladin.
But I'd say that a feature like that would represent the fact that the Fighter gets to assume they're spending time developing and maintaining those things as part of their ongoing offscreen "class training", whereas the casters are spending that time learning and maintaining their casting ability.
My issue is that there's a whole huge range of "Fighter-compatible" archetypes that are inconsistent with being a leader-of-men. Basically the only backgrounds that are compatible with it are the Soldier and the Noble, with Folk Hero being a maybe (but not really).
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MeimuHakurei
There's also something about the fact being incapable of using magic in any way, shape or form does not make you a leader, nor does having spells and possibly relying on them over physical prowess bar you from commanding troops.
There's nothing inherently magical about a Paladin's auras. For all we know, those are mechanics to quantify the narrative benefit of being near a hero of light.
Similarly, there's nothing inherently mundane about a Fighter being able to fire a crossbow 5 times in 6 seconds with the same lethality of a shortsword, or in the Fighter's ability to help an ally take more damage (Rally, Battle Master feature).
The game is full of supernatural abilities. Why is one more magical than other, besides predetermined bias? We assume Paladins rely on magic for all of their features, and Fighters don't, but that doesn't make it true.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Man_Over_Game
There's nothing inherently magical about a Paladin's auras. For all we know, those are mechanics to quantify the narrative benefit of being near a hero of light.
Similarly, there's nothing inherently mundane about a Fighter being able to fire a crossbow 5 times in 6 seconds with the same lethality of a shortsword, or in the Fighter's ability to help an ally take more damage (Rally, Battle Master feature).
The game is full of supernatural abilities. Why is one more magical than other, besides predetermined bias? We assume Paladins rely on magic for all of their features, and Fighters don't, but that doesn't make it true.
We can fluff it however we want, but RAW, Extra Attack 3 is not magical, and its pretty important, since AMF would otherwise gimp the fighter.
We have a rule to know whether something is magical or not:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
I just realized that the ablity check DC chart doesn't follow the bounded accuracy design principal of 5e.
30 is flat put impossible and 25 is a 10% chance assuming a perfectly made lv 1 PC to achieve said check.
Based on ablity checks in published materials I think they assume you should have a chance too add Prof bonus to most if not all checks. Bad move IMO but working with that 25 should be the ceiling for Ablity DC.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stoutstien
I just realized that the ablity check DC chart doesn't follow the bounded accuracy design principal of 5e.
30 is flat put impossible and 25 is a 10% chance assuming a perfectly made lv 1 PC to achieve said check.
Based on ablity checks in published materials I think they assume you should have a chance too add Prof bonus to most if not all checks. Bad move IMO but working with that 25 should be the ceiling for Ablity DC.
"perfectly made" lvl1 PC can have a skill at +9, +5 stat, +4 expertise, that is 25% to make a DC 25 save.
The same character could be a Vhuman and take MI to get guidance, such character is rolling: 1d20+8+1d4 (stat is +4 instead of +5)
It has a 7.5% chance of matching or exceeding a DC of 30.
So, yeah, even at lvl 1 a character made specifically for something can do stuff most people would consider "impossible" almost 1 out of 10 times.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rukelnikov
"perfectly made" lvl1 PC can have a skill at +9, +5 stat, +4 expertise, that is 25% to make a DC 25 save.
The same character could be a Vhuman and take MI to get guidance, such character is rolling: 1d20+8+1d4 (stat is +4 instead of +5)
It has a 7.5% chance of matching or exceeding a DC of 30.
So, yeah, even at lvl 1 a character made specifically for something can do stuff most people would consider "impossible" almost 1 out of 10 times.
Expertise and guidance should never be a factor in setting the DC the same reason why you don't factor in bardic inspiration, advantage or any other circumstantial bonuses. It sets a bad habit of just shifting the normalized DC curve to where only one or two classes can achieve the higher ones. in other words, it's against the design principle of bounded accuracy.
the fighter is going to feel pretty jaded if DCs are based on a feature that they doesn't have access to the same way is if attack rolls of 20 weren't auto hits and only classes with abilities to surpass the normal attack roll maximum could even possiblity hit.
Expertise should let you make the moderately difficult checks more consistently not allow you to have access to the highest checks.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stoutstien
Expertise and guidance should never be a factor in setting the DC the same reason why you don't factor in bardic inspiration, advantage or any other circumstantial bonuses. It sets a bad habit of just shifting the normalized DC curve to where only one or two classes can achieve the higher ones. in other words, it's against the design principle of bounded accuracy.
Its not, because the DC is actually called "Impossible", meaning, it should not be possible to do. Someone with expertise can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stoutstien
the fighter is going to feel pretty jaded if DCs are based on a feature that they doesn't have access to the same way is if attack rolls of 20 weren't auto hits and only classes with abilities to surpass the normal attack roll maximum could even possiblity hit.
Expertise should let you make the moderately difficult checks more consistently not allow you to have access to the highest checks.
Well, If the fighter feels jaded because he can't fly, he should accept his phisiological limitations, or train to achieve what he wants. If he's jaded because he can't do the somersaults necessary to make an IMPOSSIBLE display of acrobatics, he should train to break his limits, or accept his limitations.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Great Dragon
Awesome!!! (Even at 24 feet!!)
Roll for either more weight or more distance.
Humm.... Now I wonder how much damage a just over half-ton boulder does when it hits you.... Being 5e D&D, it's nerfed (3.x and older could have been 120d6!!) - Soo
20d10 (100 average) plus Str mod?
First thing, a half-ton rock is not actually that big, volume-wise. (Turns out rocks are pretty @#$%ing heavy).
Now, we don't have explicit rules for how much damage a PC throwing a big rock does, but we have some similar things in the rules we can compare it to, like a Huge/21 Strength Hill Giant throwing a rock for 3d10+Strength damage. Note that being Huge allows you to lift much more than a Medium creature with the same Strength.
We also have the DMG section for improvising damage (pg249), which is specifically supposed to answer these sorts of questions. 18d10 would be "hit by a crashing flying fortress." Saying that a mere half-ton rock would be 20d10+Str seems... optimistic.
Other examples in the DMG on pg249: "hit by a falling bookcase" would be 1d10. "Being struck by lightning" would be 2d10. "A tunnel collapsing on you" would be 4d10. So yeah.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LudicSavant
First thing, a half-ton rock is not actually that big, volume-wise. (Turns out rocks are pretty @#$%ing heavy).
Now, we don't have explicit rules for how much damage a PC throwing a big rock does, but we have some similar things in the rules we can compare it to, like a Huge/21 Strength Hill Giant throwing a rock for 3d10+Strength damage.
Following up on this, the same hill giant that deals 3d10+Str with a thrown rock, deals 3d8+Str with a greatclub, which normally deals 1d8+Str, so, if we assume the same ratio applies for the rock it would be 1d10+Str ""only"".
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rukelnikov
Its not, because the DC is actually called "Impossible", meaning, it should not be possible to do. Someone with expertise can.
The table says nearly impossible. Big big difference. if an ability check is impossible for the player to make before adding all the then the roll should never take place to begin with.
Quote:
Well, If the fighter feels jaded because he can't fly, he should accept his phisiological limitations, or train to achieve what he wants. If he's jaded because he can't do the somersaults necessary to make an IMPOSSIBLE display of acrobatics, he should train to break his limits, or accept his limitations.
Same point. Setting a DC to impossible is pointless and the difference between a fighter wanted to fly and being unable to and a fighter taking Prof in a skill and increasing the relevant stat and not being able to reach the top of the ablity DC chart aren't relevant.
I'm not saying everyone should reduce DC by 5 or whatever but it's a clear divergent of every other time you roll a d20 where you have at least a 5% chance to succeed
even at lv 1.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stoutstien
The table says nearly impossible. Big big difference. if an ability check is impossible for the player to make before adding all the then the roll should never take place to begin with.
Same point. Setting a DC to impossible is pointless and the difference between a fighter wanted to fly and being unable to and a fighter taking Prof in a skill and increasing the relevant stat and not being able to reach the top of the ablity DC chart aren't relevant.
I'm not saying everyone should reduce DC by 5 or whatever but it's a clear divergent of every other time you roll a d20 where you have at least a 5% chance to succeed
even at lv 1.
IMO you have a concept error, there can always be higher DCs, and someone without Expertise will always be locked away from doing something that someone with expertise can achieve.
Imagine one of the best mandolin players in the world composing a piece so hard to play he can only perform properly half the time, even with his many hours of practice, and being the composer.
1d20+5(stat)+12 Expertise = 1d20+17
Advantage for this specific piece in lieu of his many hours on practice and being the composer, ~50% of the time you get a result of 32 or above (15 avg roll).
This piece would be DC 32
Someone with mere proficiency and +5 stat rolls at +11, thus this piece is out of the realm of possiblity for everyone but a true master of the instrument (i.e. someone with a roll of +12 or higher).
He could go even further, and compose an ever harder piece, one so sick he can only play it right about a 10% of the time, such a piece would have a DC of 37, a true test to anyone who wants to prove they are amongst the greatest mandolin players of all time.
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rukelnikov
IMO you have a concept error, there can always be higher DCs, and someone without Expertise will always be locked away from doing something that someone with expertise can achieve.
Imagine one of the best mandolin players in the world composing a piece so hard to play he can only perform properly half the time, even with his many hours of practice, and being the composer.
1d20+5(stat)+12 Expertise = 1d20+17
Advantage for this specific piece in lieu of his many hours on practice and being the composer, ~50% of the time you get a result of 32 or above (15 avg roll).
This piece would be DC 32
Someone with mere proficiency and +5 stat rolls at +11, thus this piece is out of the realm of possiblity for everyone but a true master of the instrument (i.e. someone with a roll of +12 or higher).
He could go even further, and compose an ever harder piece, one so sick he can only play it right about a 10% of the time, such a piece would have a DC of 37, a true test to anyone who wants to prove they are amongst the greatest mandolin players of all time.
Level 17 Lore Bard with Lucky, with a Diviner and Cleric friend, who just had his Bar Mitzvah: "Hold my beer".
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Man_Over_Game
Level 17 Lore Bard with Lucky, with a Diviner and Cleric friend: "Hold my beer".
I'm assuming a 20 in the roll so Lucky and portent won't help much there if he doesn't have a bonus of +12 or higher...
Guidance would work though! Proving he's at that point where he can play the song with a bit of luck and divine help... but even that is not enough to allow him to play the other piece! (Though some bardic inspiration could)
-
Re: Martials suck out of combat. How to fix this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rukelnikov
I'm assuming a 20 in the roll so Lucky and portent won't help much there if he doesn't have a bonus of +12 or higher...
A bonus of higher than +12 is very easy to get for the team MoG mentioned.
20 from the roll (per your Portent assumption), +5 Stat, +6 Proficiency, +6 Skill Empowerment, +1d4 Guidance, +1d4 Bar Mitzvah, +1d12 Bardic Inspiration. That makes for a result of 40-57 for any skill check they have proficiency in.