Page 10 of 50 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718192035 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 1492
  1. - Top - End - #271
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    Could anyone explain to me how Rapid Shot, the Level 1 Feat from the Archer Specialty, and Two-Weapon Fighting, the Level 1 Feat from the Dual Wielder Specialty, are not complete wastes of a feat?

    Why would I ever want to make two attacks in one round, where allthe damage of each attack is halved (which I assume includes damage from ability bonuses)?
    Are you saying apply sneak attack to both attacks?
    Plus, two attacks kills two kobolds/goblins/minion (aka low health) races.
    It is useful when outnumbered then.

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    Could anyone explain to me how Rapid Shot, the Level 1 Feat from the Archer Specialty, and Two-Weapon Fighting, the Level 1 Feat from the Dual Wielder Specialty, are not complete wastes of a feat?

    Why would I ever want to make two attacks in one round, where allthe damage of each attack is halved (which I assume includes damage from ability bonuses)?

    That is just silly.

    *cut for length and math*

    I guess if you are fighting a bunch of kobolds or something that you know have only 4 hit points, then Rapid Shot / Two-Weapon Fighting could be quite useful, since it will greatly increase the rate at which you kill these one hit wonders. Otherwise, if you are fighting anything with any decent amount of hit points, these two feats just make it much, much likelier that you will continuously inflict mediocre amounts of damage against them each round, but won't really help you kill them all that quicker. (In the example above, incorporating critical hits on natural 20s and dealing straight 1d8 damage with no bonuses, a monster with 25 hit points and AC 18 would take an average of 10.3 rounds to kill without Rapid Shot / Two-Weapon Fighting and 9.4 rounds to kill using Rapid Shot / Two-Weapon Fighting. Not that impressive).
    I believe the common consensus is that they help crowd control, and any rider effects you may have on your attacks(which I'm sure will be released at some point). I agree with you though, and I've been tentatively running it as regular damage on the first hit and half damage on the second. Feats should be a solid benefit, not just a different way of doing the same thing.
    Last edited by Loki_42; 2012-08-22 at 04:20 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck_II View Post
    Are you saying apply sneak attack to both attacks?
    Plus, two attacks kills two kobolds/goblins/minion (aka low health) races.
    It is useful when outnumbered then.
    I'm not sure what you mean about sneak attacks? I didn't mean to reference sneak attacks.

    So, I guess these feats are only useful when taking out large numbers of minions. I suppose that could be helpful, but it seems pretty limited to me.

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck_II View Post
    Are you saying apply sneak attack to both attacks?
    Plus, two attacks kills two kobolds/goblins/minion (aka low health) races.
    It is useful when outnumbered then.
    It's useful when you're outnumbered, you have multiple enemies within reach, and all of the enemies have a low enough health that the small amount of damage dealt will be enough to drop them (otherwise, you're better off dropping a single target instead of reducing two targets to half HP, barring an optional "Wounded" module). Sneak Attack can only trigger once/round, and I'm guessing most bonus damage sources will have similar caps.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    Honestly, I rarely read fluff. I prefer to just make my own. But if the sorcerers spell lists change and become limited based on which bloodline he picks I'm all for it, and would suggest placing something very similar for a wizard and all other magic users. I believe Seerow said it best: The Generalist who has the perfect spell for every situation needs to die in a fire.
    It's not that the spell list changes, it's that the function of certain spells change. It'd be a simple addendum at the end of the spell that reads something like "For [x] sorcerer change [parameter] to [y]".


    Unlike the Thieves Cant thing, which is a bit harder to refluff, I really don't see how I can't do that with Bloodlines.
    I'm looking at this from a DM's perspective. If I want to do a non-"standard" D&D setting, the inclusion of Sorcerers is a more work than any other class, for no good reason. I'm better off axing the entire class from all my games and replacing it wholesale with something better in terms that doesn't require me to bend over backwards to shoehorn something in. As for a player, I could refluff it, if I considered the system as a legitimate way to expand a class.

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    It's useful when you're outnumbered, you have multiple enemies within reach, and all of the enemies have a low enough health that the small amount of damage dealt will be enough to drop them (otherwise, you're better off dropping a single target instead of reducing two targets to half HP, barring an optional "Wounded" module). Sneak Attack can only trigger once/round, and I'm guessing most bonus damage sources will have similar caps.
    It's also useful in that it gives you two chances to hit. If hitting is what's important, more than the damage done per turn (applying an effect, etc.), then the additional likelihood of hitting is useful.

    I'm personally okay with it being semi-situational. I like mechanics where things aren't just overall better, but often better situationally or better based on what the opponent does or is planning.

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    It's not that the spell list changes, it's that the function of certain spells change. It'd be a simple addendum at the end of the spell that reads something like "For [x] sorcerer change [parameter] to [y]".
    Ok that could be weird, and could complicate balance somewhat.

    I'm looking at this from a DM's perspective. If I want to do a non-"standard" D&D setting, the inclusion of Sorcerers is a more work than any other class, for no good reason. I'm better off axing the entire class from all my games and replacing it wholesale with something better in terms that doesn't require me to bend over backwards to shoehorn something in. As for a player, I could refluff it, if I considered the system as a legitimate way to expand a class.
    Even then, not really. So long as the setting has magic and you want to keep the spontaneousness of the class intact all that would need saying is: Your natural magic affects you in weird ways and no one knows why (if you want the mystery as lesser_minion seems to), or for any other reason that would make sense in your setting: being born the sixth son of a sixth son, being a descendant of the original cursed magi, having a spirit within you, or anything else that would take half a second to think up. Sure, it's an incredibly boring description but I have yet to see anything presented from the sorcerer class or any bloodline ability that could not be refluffed in such a way.

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    Could anyone explain to me how Rapid Shot, the Level 1 Feat from the Archer Specialty, and Two-Weapon Fighting, the Level 1 Feat from the Dual Wielder Specialty, are not complete wastes of a feat?
    This has been discussed before.

    While it is true Two-Weapon Fighting and Rapid Shot don't increase your damage output, that are stiff useful feats for three reasons

    1) You can attack multiple opponents potentially letting you finish off more than one foe in a round.

    2) If you have any non-damaging secondary effects of an attack, you will be able to apply said effect twice(can't think of any right now, but some will exist I am sure)

    3) It increases the chance you will cause damage to the foe at the cost of giving you a chance to only do half damage. When rolling two attacks, if one attack misses, the other attack might still hit, thus you are more likely to do some damage on your turn.

    The feats are not for everyone, but they do have usefulness.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    Ok that could be weird, and could complicate balance somewhat.
    Only if you tried to keep sorcerers and wizards on the same spell list. You build a different spell list.

    Even then, not really. So long as the setting has magic and you want to keep the spontaneousness of the class intact all that would need saying is: Your natural magic affects you in weird ways and no one knows why (if you want the mystery as lesser_minion seems to), or for any other reason that would make sense in your setting: being born the sixth son of a sixth son, being a descendant of the original cursed magi, having a spirit within you, or anything else that would take half a second to think up. Sure, it's an incredibly boring description but I have yet to see anything presented from the sorcerer class or any bloodline ability that could not be refluffed in such a way.
    Fine, I'll put it this way; unless WoTC is making game like Exalted or Shadowrun with an explicit setting packed into the game, players and DMs should not have to refluff anything. I shouldn't have to waste my time bothering with sorcerer bloodlines because the designers were too lazy to come up with something unique and general. Because every other edition, you could interpret the class literally almost any way you wanted and it would fit in the general fluff in the PhB. This sorcerer: I have to waste time rebuilding the fluff rather than building the character or the setting. Moreover, how the **** are your examples not shoehorning it in?

    Odds are, if 5e gets me back into the game as a DM, I'm just outright banning the sorcerer in total, and just moving on.
    Last edited by Zeful; 2012-08-22 at 05:29 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Flickerdart's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    WotC fluff has always been awful. No big deal.

    Also, the title of the thread spelled "Edition" wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by JaronK View Post
    Frankly, a Wizard can suck even more than a Fighter could ever dream of sucking. A Fighter can stab himself to death, but only a Wizard could Plane Shift to some horrible far realm to be tortured for an eternity of insanity.


  11. - Top - End - #281
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    I don't see what's so restrictive about bloodlines. Just because bloodlines exist in the world doesn't mean they have to be at all common. It's not like none of the other classes put restrictions on your setting either. The Cleric, and by proxy all the other divine casters, require that there be gods in the world that grant powers to mortals that follow them. The Warlock similarly requires that there be powerful beings that grant boons and powers in exchange for...actually, what do they get in exchange for granting a warlock their powers? I guess I never really understood that.

    They're also extremely easy to re-fluff. For example, instead of having "the blood of a dragon", you could say that they were corrupted by some artifact, which gave them magical powers. Or maybe becoming a sorcerer is something you learn, and the various powers you get are just more things that a sorcerer learns how to do as they progress. If you don't like dragons, you could swap out the fluff for, say, elementalist fluff. Instead of dragon scales, your skin hardens like rock. Instead of breathing fire, you shoot a jet of flame from your eyes. And so on.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    Only if you tried to keep sorcerers and wizards on the same spell list. You build a different spell list.
    That's fair. Don't care much either way on who has which spell list though.

    Fine, I'll put it this way; unless WoTC is making game like Exalted or Shadowrun with an explicit setting packed into the game, players and DMs should not have to refluff anything. I shouldn't have to waste my time bothering with sorcerer bloodlines because the designers were too lazy to come up with something unique and general. Because every other edition, you could interpret the class literally almost any way you wanted and it would fit in the general fluff in the PhB. This sorcerer: I have to waste time rebuilding the fluff rather than building the character or the setting. Moreover, how the **** are your examples not shoehorning it in?

    Odds are, if 5e gets me back into the game as a DM, I'm just outright banning the sorcerer in total, and just moving on.
    But they already have had to. Monks I don't think have had a real place in any one of my campaigns unless I completely refluff them. Druids, Paladins, and Barbarians have also had a bit of problem with some of my campaign ideas.

    But then, like I said. I more or less ignore fluff I don't like to begin with and have I higher tolerance for it. So to me, I doubt Bloodlines will ever actually bother me because I trust in my ability to refluff just about anything my players want to do so long as the mechanics work out.

    And as to my examples, they're off the top of my head without working in any real structure litterally spitballing ways to refluff random crap. Give me a setting and I'll make something make more sense.

    Or if you really don't feel like putting any effort in it at all. They learn it just because. That's seriously the only information we're given about them in 3.5 they just naturally learn it that way. For the record, that fluff still works for every single bloodline, admittedly mostly because it's **** reasoning to begin with, but that seems to be the fluff you're arguing for. So if it worked then, it should still work now.

    Now by all means don't let you're players use the sorcerer. I won't tell you how to run your games, but I will defend my belief that the bloodline fluff is an easy thing to replace or ignore for the class.

  13. - Top - End - #283
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Hurricane State
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    Could anyone explain to me how Rapid Shot, the Level 1 Feat from the Archer Specialty, and Two-Weapon Fighting, the Level 1 Feat from the Dual Wielder Specialty, are not complete wastes of a feat?
    This post is more of a collective thought process of a group I play with which is different then the majority of the players on the board.

    I normally DM, but when I play I am the most optimized player at the table, hands down. When I showed my friend my level 3 (4e) rogue, he looked like it was really optimized because I could be getting sneak attack every single round which with all the splat books is now (almost) a given.

    The group picks classes, feats, and whatever else to fit their character concept if they have any or whatever sounds good. They don't go online, don't look at numbers, they don't compare classes, they don't do any of that sort of stuff.

    I know they would be upset if the new version didn't have any sort of duel attacking.

    Now I do agree that I would like more sort of benefit to take the feats in question, but I honestly don't have any good idea yet of what to suggest. Doubling the bonus damage is way to much, only doing 75% damage can get to..."mathy" for their goal, etc.

    Also I have always used WotC fluff as a basis, but changed whatever I saw fit, I doubt I will change that now.

    I still hold out hope that the fluff is still a "filler" and they will have radically different fluff for release as they don't need to play test the fluff.

    Fluff on the sorc's dragonic bloodline? I don't like it being the only option, but I hold out hope that they will have enough options that will satisfy most people.
    Boo!

    Steam ID: Dublock

    Battle tag: Dublock 1-7-2-5

    Feel free to add me but say GitP :)

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    Fine, I'll put it this way; unless WoTC is making game like Exalted or Shadowrun with an explicit setting packed into the game, players and DMs should not have to refluff anything. I shouldn't have to waste my time bothering with sorcerer bloodlines because the designers were too lazy to come up with something unique and general. Because every other edition, you could interpret the class literally almost any way you wanted and it would fit in the general fluff in the PhB. This sorcerer: I have to waste time rebuilding the fluff rather than building the character or the setting. Moreover, how the **** are your examples not shoehorning it in?
    How is "sorcerors get their powers through their Draconic bloodline" any more or less fluff-integrated than "clerics get their powers from their deities"?

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    I don't see what's so restrictive about bloodlines. Just because bloodlines exist in the world doesn't mean they have to be at all common. It's not like none of the other classes put restrictions on your setting either. The Cleric, and by proxy all the other divine casters, require that there be gods in the world that grant powers to mortals that follow them. The Warlock similarly requires that there be powerful beings that grant boons and powers in exchange for...actually, what do they get in exchange for granting a warlock their powers? I guess I never really understood that.
    Not particularly. Clerics and Warlocks are part of the traditions that literally made D&D. Making a setting of any real depth will include those traditions anyway, as there will be religion and myth. It's not much more effort to include them. 5e sorcerers, most notably, aren't, and thus will either dictate setting elements to include them, or make you waste time rebuilding their fluff. This is bad design for a game that doesn't come with an explicit setting, 2e, 3.5 and 4e all had implicit settings, vauge guidelines that took quite a bit of effort to move outside of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    But they already have had to. Monks I don't think have had a real place in any one of my campaigns unless I completely refluff them. Druids, Paladins, and Barbarians have also had a bit of problem with some of my campaign ideas.
    And those classes also suffer from what I'm talking about.

    But then, like I said. I more or less ignore fluff I don't like to begin with and have I higher tolerance for it. So to me, I doubt Bloodlines will ever actually bother me because I trust in my ability to refluff just about anything my players want to do so long as the mechanics work out.
    and for me, the mechanics don't work out. I've been against this idea since Szantany wrote his Ultimate classes, roughly 10 years ago. Not just because of the inherent fluff, but because all of this stuff is focused on changing the character rather than the feel or playstyle of the class. Rather than giving me options that are essentially different playstyles (like Wizard Schools, only you know, better), I'm stuck with terribly designed and random buffs to crap I do not want. Pathfinder's Arcane bloodline, as lazy and terrible as it is is the least offensive implementation of the idea and it still fails to make the choice feel meaningful and different rather than some crap tacked on as an afterthough and given terrible as hell justification. Which, if you pan back a couple of pages, you'll note I've already said.
    Last edited by Zeful; 2012-08-22 at 06:27 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    It is when before it was possible to make a Sorcerer that did not possess any BS magical heritage and was a Sorcerer literally "just because". The set of assumptions that are inherent to these kind of classes (all of them because everyone's been doing this since as long as I've been in D&D) pretty much makes any other origin pretty much non-viable. Hell it makes generally divergent settings impossible with the class and one of those things that you have to spend time to address with the setting rather than just having plug and play classes like almost every other edition of D&D. Bloodline classes dictate quite a bit of setting fluff that while you can change is just another thing that you have to document that can push players away from the setting and the game it's in.

    And more importantly it is just aping Pathfinder and every homebrewer that has ever decided to "fix" the Sorcerer, they couldn't have figured something that was, while not unique, somewhat creative? They have to go down one of the most well-worn and cliche paths for the sorcerer that exists? Really?
    I disagree and find the bloodline concept a nice idea. Pathfinder was smart to offer many different kinds each with their own class features. Sorcerer started out as bland in 3.0 beginnings as just another way to do arcane magic. As the game developed Heritage feats were offered to offer crunch flavor. It wasn't much, only dragon and fey (which was catered for warlocks anyway), but it was something. 5E is a chance to start fresh, and giving Sorcerers crunch flavor from the beginning is fine design choice. Dragon is stereotypical but not bad wrong idea. It would be a bad idea if the final product is only dragon, so hopefully 5E will offer enough backgrounds for different magic ties. The basics will suffice for the 5E PHB - dragon, arcane, fey, celestial, devilish, demonic, and possibly genie. Obligatory splat books would offer more.

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    I agree that the sorcerer isn't iconic, but not because it wasn't in second edition.

    Rather, the sorcerer isn't iconic (1) because fiction in general does not distinguish between sorcerers and wizards, so there aren't any major fictional characters that can be archetypically thought of as "sorcerer but really not wizard"; and (2) because it hasn't had a consistent role so far along D&D editions.

    In 3.0, the sorcerer is the same as the wizard, only spontaneous. In 4.0, the sorcerer is a blaster wizard, except that regular wizards can also be blasters, and drawing its power from dragons, storms, chaos, or the cosmos (just like wizards, really). In 4.4, the sorcerer instead is an elementalist, except that wizards also have elemental spells, as well as a pyromancer specialty.

    The bottom line is that WOTC has failed, so far, to create a meaningful and consistent difference between sorcerers and wizards. And this is why they're not iconic.
    Well then, having Sorcerers get their magic through bloodlines and developing class features based on the bloodline could be that difference.

  18. - Top - End - #288
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    Not particularly. Clerics and Warlocks are part of the traditions that literally made D&D. Making a setting of any real depth will include those traditions anyway, as there will be religion and myth. It's not much more effort to include them. 5e sorcerers, most notably, aren't, and thus will either dictate setting elements to include them, or make you waste time rebuilding their fluff. This is bad design for a game that doesn't come with an explicit setting, 2e, 3.5 and 4e all had implicit settings, vauge guidelines that took quite a bit of effort to move outside of.
    Ehhh, I've made plenty of campaigns without gods or demons.

    and for me, the mechanics don't work out. I've been against this idea since Szantany wrote his Ultimate classes, roughly 10 years ago. Not just because of the inherent fluff, but because all of this stuff is focused on changing the character rather than the feel or playstyle of the class. Rather than giving me options that are essentially different playstyles (like Wizard Schools, only you know, better), I'm stuck with terribly designed and random buffs to crap I do not want. Pathfinder's Arcane bloodline, as lazy and terrible as it is is the least offensive implementation of the idea and it still fails to make the choice feel meaningful and different rather than some crap tacked on as an afterthough and given terrible as hell justification. Which, if you pan back a couple of pages, you'll note I've already said.
    But this argument is not about the concept of bloodlines but by poor mechanics which is not what we were arguing. Yes, I would like if bloodlines forced the class into varied different roles and left the generalist to go die rather than give useless benefits. I didn't think it needed saying that useless benefits are useless and I dislike the all powerful mage concept.

  19. - Top - End - #289
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    But this argument is not about the concept of bloodlines but by poor mechanics which is not what we were arguing. Yes, I would like if bloodlines forced the class into varied different roles and left the generalist to go die rather than give useless benefits. I didn't think it needed saying that useless benefits are useless and I dislike the all powerful mage concept.
    No one has managed it in ten years. Even legitimately good homebrewers have yet to make bloodlines not be anything other than changing the character rather than the class. Excuse me if I choose to interpret this as evidence that it's a bad idea from the outset rather than wait for the proverbial lightning to strike.

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    I disagree and find the bloodline concept a nice idea.
    My beef is with the universal crap implementation. Not the idea.
    Pathfinder was smart to offer many different kinds each with their own class features.
    They're also all useless and boring buffs to random crap rather than anything interesting or meaningful. They're interchangeable, and that's terrible.
    Sorcerer started out as bland in 3.0 beginnings as just another way to do arcane magic.
    All the classes were bland. That's what you do when you aren't packaging a setting with the game.
    As the game developed Heritage feats were offered to offer crunch flavor. It wasn't much, only dragon and fey (which was catered for warlocks anyway), but it was something.
    It was also optional.
    5E is a chance to start fresh
    Agreed, and they don't.
    giving Sorcerers crunch flavor from the beginning is fine design choice.
    Strawman.
    Dragon is stereotypical but not bad wrong idea. It would be a bad idea if the final product is only dragon, so hopefully 5E will offer enough backgrounds for different magic ties. The basics will suffice for the 5E PHB - dragon, arcane, fey, celestial, devilish, demonic, and possibly genie. Obligatory splat books would offer more.
    It would be a bad idea if it delivered a bunch of arbitrary and random bonuses rather than significant gameplay changes based on your choice. Oh, wait...

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    It's also useful in that it gives you two chances to hit. If hitting is what's important, more than the damage done per turn (applying an effect, etc.), then the additional likelihood of hitting is useful.

    I'm personally okay with it being semi-situational. I like mechanics where things aren't just overall better, but often better situationally or better based on what the opponent does or is planning.
    Which would be fine if two weapon fighting were an option anyone could use at any time, but feats are supposed to make your character stronger. If TWF and rapid shot require you to permanently invest limited resources before you can use them, they should be better than their free alternatives, not just different.
    Last edited by Lanaya; 2012-08-22 at 07:37 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    This has been discussed before.

    While it is true Two-Weapon Fighting and Rapid Shot don't increase your damage output, that are stiff useful feats for three reasons

    1) You can attack multiple opponents potentially letting you finish off more than one foe in a round.

    2) If you have any non-damaging secondary effects of an attack, you will be able to apply said effect twice(can't think of any right now, but some will exist I am sure)

    3) It increases the chance you will cause damage to the foe at the cost of giving you a chance to only do half damage. When rolling two attacks, if one attack misses, the other attack might still hit, thus you are more likely to do some damage on your turn.

    The feats are not for everyone, but they do have usefulness.
    I believe it has been discussed before, I didn't notice it discussed in this thread. Maybe I overlooked it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Lanaya View Post
    Which would be fine if two weapon fighting were an option anyone could use at any time, but feats are supposed to make your character stronger. If TWF and rapid shot require you to permanently invest limited resources before you can use them, they should be better than their free alternatives, not just different.
    That is exactly my feelings on the subject. As rare and costly Feats, they just don't seem worthwhile to me.
    Last edited by JoeMac307; 2012-08-22 at 08:04 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    EDIT: To get back on topic just a little bit ... anyone taken the new Survey that got emailed out this morning? What's it about?
    it's a very comprehensive "what do you like about the playtest" survey. If you've been looking to give more feedback than just "what area your favorite D&D icons, this is the survey, go fill it out.

  23. - Top - End - #293
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanaya View Post
    Which would be fine if two weapon fighting were an option anyone could use at any time, but feats are supposed to make your character stronger. If TWF and rapid shot require you to permanently invest limited resources before you can use them, they should be better than their free alternatives, not just different.
    And in some cases, they are.

    I like the idea of getting options that increase decision-making. I understand that might not be everyone's preference.

    (Now, if other options *are* simply better in all cases, then that might be worth looking at as a comparison point).

  24. - Top - End - #294
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    Fine, I'll put it this way; unless WoTC is making game like Exalted or Shadowrun with an explicit setting packed into the game, players and DMs should not have to refluff anything.
    You're complaining about something that is silly and impossible. For the record, D&D has a setting built in, and it always had. D&D assumes you are in a world if magic and heroes, with dwarves and elves, where people go into dungeons and fight dragons for money. Just because they paint their setting in broad strokes(and further define it in specific campaign settings) doesn't mean a setting isn't there.

    The sorcerer is a class that gains their power through inborn abilities. No one seemed to have a problem with that when the sorcerer originally came around. A draconic heritage was always a common possibility for said power. In 5e, they are just making it so a sorcerer plays a little differently depending on your heritage. I really don't see whats wrong with that. If you don't like draconic sorcerers, don't allow that bloodline. There will be more(I'd be suprised if there are not at least 4 in the main book when it comes out).

    You know, I hate gnomes as a race, they never exist in my campaign settings, but I don't think less of the game as a whole because the books present the rules for playing as one.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  25. - Top - End - #295
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    You're complaining about something that is silly and impossible. For the record, D&D has a setting built in, and it always had. D&D assumes you are in a world if magic and heroes, with dwarves and elves, where people go into dungeons and fight dragons for money. Just because they paint their setting in broad strokes(and further define it in specific campaign settings) doesn't mean a setting isn't there.

    The sorcerer is a class that gains their power through inborn abilities. No one seemed to have a problem with that when the sorcerer originally came around. A draconic heritage was always a common possibility for said power. In 5e, they are just making it so a sorcerer plays a little differently depending on your heritage. I really don't see whats wrong with that. If you don't like draconic sorcerers, don't allow that bloodline. There will be more(I'd be suprised if there are not at least 4 in the main book when it comes out).

    You know, I hate gnomes as a race, they never exist in my campaign settings, but I don't think less of the game as a whole because the books present the rules for playing as one.
    The complaint is just that THUS FAR they've only given us the Draconic sorcerer. We want more than just that later.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  26. - Top - End - #296
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Spending some time listening to the 3rd PA Podcast (http://media.wizards.com/podcasts/PAPVP_Next3.mp3)

    Three things that stood out. Seerow rejoice, they have heard your plea for multi die powers, and have such things envisioned as "riposte" which will allow for attacking enemies who miss you for a cost of 3 cs dice. Whether there's more to it than just a basic attack they didn't say, I guess we'll have to wait and see. It also appears that as predicted, you will be allowed to spend multiple cs powers per round so long as you have dice. They explicitly said the fighter could spend multiple dice to protect against multiple attacks. Clearly this means they need to clarify the reaction rules. If someone is filling out the newest survey, be sure to include that on your feedback. Lastly, they stated that a 10th level fighter will have 4d12 cs dice available to them, so we can probably extrapolate the progression now. Still not sure that it shouldn't be replaced with more smaller dice, but we'll see.

  27. - Top - End - #297
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    That is exactly my feelings on the subject. As rare and costly Feats, they just don't seem worthwhile to me.
    They're not. When you only get a handful of these over the course of 20 levels - while the casters are getting new, interchangeable spells every single level - Feats have to be way more useful than semi-situational. They have to be as powerful as several spells combined, or they scale up with you to become that powerful.
    *********
    Matters of Critical Insignificance - My Blog for all my favorite entertainment
    09/14: Special guest post on Quests and Travel, with a whole new quest-generation system!

  28. - Top - End - #298
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Can anyone tell me when the playtest packet was first released? As in, the date the playtest begain?

  29. - Top - End - #299
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    You're complaining about something that is silly and impossible. For the record, D&D has a setting built in, and it always had. D&D assumes you are in a world if magic and heroes, with dwarves and elves, where people go into dungeons and fight dragons for money. Just because they paint their setting in broad strokes(and further define it in specific campaign settings) doesn't mean a setting isn't there.

    The sorcerer is a class that gains their power through inborn abilities. No one seemed to have a problem with that when the sorcerer originally came around. A draconic heritage was always a common possibility for said power. In 5e, they are just making it so a sorcerer plays a little differently depending on your heritage. I really don't see whats wrong with that. If you don't like draconic sorcerers, don't allow that bloodline. There will be more(I'd be suprised if there are not at least 4 in the main book when it comes out).

    You know, I hate gnomes as a race, they never exist in my campaign settings, but I don't think less of the game as a whole because the books present the rules for playing as one.
    What I want you to do is scroll up like 6 posts. I've gone over this, but since you seem to have skipped it: I don't like the bloodline concept period, because this draconic sorcerer, like every draconic sorcerer, is simply a bunch of random bonuses tied together with a vauge theme that I find dumb and limiting as hell. I've looked over this concept for nearly ten years, and every time it's a bunch of random pluses tied together with one of the following words: draconic, angelic, demonic, elemental, undead, arcane.

    No one has ever done anything meaningful with the concept to change my mind about heritage's place in the game as a feat-tree.

  30. - Top - End - #300
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Stubbazubba View Post
    They're not. When you only get a handful of these over the course of 20 levels - while the casters are getting new, interchangeable spells every single level - Feats have to be way more useful than semi-situational. They have to be as powerful as several spells combined, or they scale up with you to become that powerful.
    True, I perfer -3 penalty to damage or 1/2 damage to each attack when dual wielding whichever is higher.

    So if you deal 1d6+3, you deal 1d6 with each.
    If you deal 1d6+1 then you deal 1/2 damage as -3 (is lower).

    It works better with Sneak attack as well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •