Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 236
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Thanks.

    Skulker
    Prerequisite: Dexterity 13 or higher
    You are expert at slinking through shadows. You gain the following benefits:
    * You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.
    * When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn’t reveal your position.
    * Attacking at long range doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.

    Where does that third point fit in? Wasn't there originally, and doesn't fit the description "You are expert at slinking through shadows".
    It used to be "Dim light doesn't impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight."

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Have a read over Sorcerer between visitors.

    I got completely lost on Origin Form in Shapeshifter. It sounds like either
    a) You do change into your stated origin form like a 5e druid, which would be so insanely overpowered at lvl 1, so assuming its not that.
    b) No matter if you're a polar bear, ancient wyrm or death slaad, you get the exact same benefits, which is a tough hide, unarmed strike(that increases rapidly), and 30ft of Darkvision.
    There is no mention of change to hit points, size(eg frost giant), things like a shadow being incorporeal, or a dragon flying etc. If none of these things change, and a human sorcerer is still a medium humanoid with 1HD and a movement speed of 30ft walking only, then why state "You take the form of a Frost Giant/Dragon.", when you actually can't? And if your origin form is Shadow or giant(as an example), and you gain none of its properties or size, what natural weapon are they using? A medium sized giant is....a human, so maybe their strength increases or something?

    I think I get what you're trying to set up here, but it doesn't feel right with every origin having identical benefits(Hide/Claws/half DV). They would start to branch off from each other with the Sorcerous Origins features, but the idea of a Dragon and a Shadow fighting the same way doesn't feel right.

    Infused Strike references bonded weapon throughout.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Just got back from vacation, apologies for the delay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Skulker
    Prerequisite: Dexterity 13 or higher
    You are expert at slinking through shadows. You gain the following benefits:
    * You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.
    * When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn’t reveal your position.
    * Attacking at long range doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.

    Where does that third point fit in? Wasn't there originally, and doesn't fit the description "You are expert at slinking through shadows".
    It used to be "Dim light doesn't impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight."
    The talent is geared more toward sharpshooting. The second bullet is only valuable for ranged weapons so it seems to make sense to focus on that. Now the feat allows you to hide a beat easiter and makes attacking with ranged weapons while hidden better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    a) You do change into your stated origin form like a 5e druid, which would be so insanely overpowered at lvl 1, so assuming its not that.
    The origin form does exactly what is listed. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    b) No matter if you're a polar bear, ancient wyrm or death slaad, you get the exact same benefits, which is a tough hide, unarmed strike(that increases rapidly), and 30ft of Darkvision.
    There is no mention of change to hit points, size(eg frost giant), things like a shadow being incorporeal, or a dragon flying etc. If none of these things change, and a human sorcerer is still a medium humanoid with 1HD and a movement speed of 30ft walking only, then why state "You take the form of a Frost Giant/Dragon.", when you actually can't?
    Correct, the things listed change while the things unlisted (hit points, size, etc) do not change. You'll also notice that the Circle of the Claw Naturalist does not change hit points, but adds a few temporary hit points on top of its normal hit points

    Taking a form of something does not mean you gain everything that thing has - that's not how several features in 5e work. Wild Shape for example is very explicity with what you take from the new form.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    unarmed strike(that increases rapidly).
    Unarmed strikes start out at the same level as Alter Self and increase somewhat quickly. The Shapeshifter has few attacks compare to the Monk's many attacks, hence the quicker progression.
    The Circle of the Claw Naturalist does 1d8 (equivalent to a longsword).
    All of these numbers have been put into my DPR spreadsheet

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    And if your origin form is Shadow or giant(as an example), and you gain none of its properties or size, what natural weapon are they using? A medium sized giant is....a human, so maybe their strength increases or something?
    The giant now has huge fists that deal quite substantial damage as you've noticed - a strength boost isn't necessary to mimic a giant. A Shadow would use using "claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon of your choice" just like any other form.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    I think I get what you're trying to set up here, but it doesn't feel right with every origin having identical benefits(Hide/Claws/half DV). They would start to branch off from each other with the Sorcerous Origins features, but the idea of a Dragon and a Shadow fighting the same way doesn't feel right.
    The archetype would require many statblocks to perfectly mimic creatures. That isn't the goal that I saught. The goal was to provide rules that closely proximate the feeling of the creature that you shapeshift into. The rest is just fluff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Infused Strike references bonded weapon throughout.
    This has been fixed, thanks.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Just got back from vacation, apologies for the delay.
    No problem, hope you enjoyed the vacation

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    The talent is geared more toward sharpshooting. The second bullet is only valuable for ranged weapons so it seems to make sense to focus on that. Now the feat allows you to hide a beat easiter and makes attacking with ranged weapons while hidden better.
    The talent description is about stealth, as is the first bullet. The second bullet is how ranged weapons interact with your stealth. The third bullet has nothing to do with stealth, its about skill. It belongs in a skill based talent, like Sharpshooter(General), or (Specific)Bow, Crossbow, Dagger etc. If those first two alone are a bit weak, then maybe something like "you know how to mask your scent, and can use your stealth against creatures with smell", or a limited advantage to stealth checks, like only in darkness(as opposed to darkness and dim light), or when certain weather conditions are met, or something like that. Something that interacts with the stealth theme.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Correct, the things listed change while the things unlisted (hit points, size, etc) do not change. You'll also notice that the Circle of the Claw Naturalist does not change hit points, but adds a few temporary hit points on top of its normal hit points. Taking a form of something does not mean you gain everything that thing has - that's not how several features in 5e work. Wild Shape for example is very explicity with what you take from the new form.
    It is, but one thing you to take, is the actual form. In general, the way I saw 5e Wild Shape, was you physically take the form of a creature, but mentally you stay the same. You don't take the claws of the bear, the senses of the bear, you are physically an actual bear. So the new physical form gives you things like AC(you have bear hide, not your normal armor), Traits(like smell), Str/Dex/Con, but not things based on skill(you still know all your skills), unless part of that skill is due to the innate form being better at it(yours or theirs, whichever is higher). But your size changes, because you a literally something else. You can't take the shape of a bird at level 2 because it has flight from wings. It doesn't let you change into a bird at level 2, but without flight. That is the difference, at least in my opinion, between a form, and an aspect. The way it reads in yours, is that they all get aspects, no actual forms, like an actual dragon or giant from my original question. I hadn't read Druid yet in Naturalist, but it reads the same, you gain aspects, not form. You use your unarmed strike, just with claw damage. I haven't tried making a Druid/Monk, but it looks like you could use martial arts and flurry with this, because your are not actually the new form, you just have aspects of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    The archetype would require many statblocks to perfectly mimic creatures. That isn't the goal that I saught. The goal was to provide rules that closely proximate the feeling of the creature that you shapeshift into. The rest is just fluff.
    Yeah it's a hard one to balance numbers and fluff. I think aspects fit, the way you've done it, for the bigger combat things. You don't actually turn into a bear(as an example), you take aspects of one. You could have utility forms like birds, with low HP, that could work the way 5e Wildshape works - gaining its HP, getting knocked out to human form when reaching 0. So two seperate features, an aspects for combat, and a form one for small utility animals.
    Or, you could do generic stat blocks - Medium Canine, Tiny Bird, Great Cat. Generalizing stat blocks would limit the amount of them you'd have to do up, but within them give a large variety for players to choose. Eg, you could "look" like a lynx or a tiger, but both use the Great Cat stat block. That way you can balance it a lot easier, instead of the normal 5e way of going to the Monsters Manual.


    It's the holiday season, so its busy for another couple weeks here. I do intend to go through all your changes page by page, but for now it'll be random. I'm sure you're used to it

    Magus: At level 2, they get Weapon Bond, Arcane Channeling, Fighting Stance and Arcane Strike. I know you'd have the dpr balanced, but that is a lot of options gained in one level. Versatility is hard to add to a dpr chart.
    Arcane Channeling seems to be balanced against Quicken Cantrip, and also adds the flavor of combining weapon and magic, so its mandatory imo, therefore so is Weapon Bond.
    I think level 2 is a good spot for Fighting Stance, it's setting up your style.
    Arcane Strike is an "improvement" on Arcane Channeling in a way, going from "add cantrip on hit", to "add spell effect on hit". I know that's not precisely summing them up, but hopefully you get my point.
    Is there a spot further up the levels for Arcane Strike?

    I know its balanced against Paladin, but they get Channel Div 1/short rest, not Arcane Channeling at-will. So Smite for them both makes sense for versatility balance, and is a core part of the Paladin. For Magus, mixing weapon and spells is the core, and its covered already by Arcane Channeling.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    The talent description is about stealth, as is the first bullet. The second bullet is how ranged weapons interact with your stealth. The third bullet has nothing to do with stealth, its about skill. It belongs in a skill based talent, like Sharpshooter(General), or (Specific)Bow, Crossbow, Dagger etc. If those first two alone are a bit weak, then maybe something like "you know how to mask your scent, and can use your stealth against creatures with smell", or a limited advantage to stealth checks, like only in darkness(as opposed to darkness and dim light), or when certain weather conditions are met, or something like that. Something that interacts with the stealth theme.
    Lets examine all the lines:
    • You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding. This line allows you to hide more easily - in and out of combat. Both would be used.
    • When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn’t reveal your position. This line is 100% ranged combat oriented. It has value in common with the first line as the first line allows you to hide more easily and this line allows you to sniper from ranged.
    • (Houserules) Attacking at long range doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls. The second line is purely ranged combat oriented. The first line enables the second line, both in and out of combat. This line expands on the combat aspect of ranged weapons - focusing on the flavor of sharpshooting.
    • (RAW, removed) Dim light doesn’t impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight. This line has absolutely no place with the other 2 RAW lines. It is about sight. Ignoring the penalties of dim light is what many use as a 5e homebrew for low light vision.

    The theme isn't pure stealth. It is stealth, primarily, for ranged attack purposes. Without a ranged weapon the talent is incredibly weak. The first line could belong in another talent that doesn't focus on ranged attacks, but the 2nd line cements the ranged stealth role of this talent. The replaced line adds on to that theme where the RAW version did not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    But your size changes, because you a literally something else. You can't take the shape of a bird at level 2 because it has flight from wings. It doesn't let you change into a bird at level 2, but without flight. That is the difference, at least in my opinion, between a form, and an aspect.
    If a character takes the form of a spider that form can vary in size from tiny spider to huge spider. The same is true for every form. One could become a medium sized dragon for example. Size is not necessary for a form. A medium sized giant is not beyond this line by any measure. There are several examples of races that are effectively giants (Firbolg, Goliath), but are still medium size. Changing size to large would be a huge disadvantage in most cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    The way it reads in yours, is that they all get aspects, no actual forms, like an actual dragon or giant from my original question.
    A shapechanger, in historical depiction and D&D depiction, is often a hybrid between your form and the form you take. For example Lycanthropes would historically be considered a shapechanger and their shape is often not a quadrupedal wolf, but a bipedal humanoid wolf. That is a shapechanger. Changing to the actual animal is the purview of the Naturalist, not the Shapechanger.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    I hadn't read Druid yet in Naturalist, but it reads the same, you gain aspects, not form. You use your unarmed strike, just with claw damage. I haven't tried making a Druid/Monk, but it looks like you could use martial arts and flurry with this, because your are not actually the new form, you just have aspects of it.
    The Naturalist is not an aspect either. The Naturalist takes the form of the creature, though the mechanical approach is different than RAW. The 5e approach is quite flawed in that only a few forms are good while the rest are quite bad due to each creature having wildly different damage. I have long wanted to remove that approach as it stifles player choice of forms. Pathfinder took the same approach in standardizing the damage from Wild Shape. It is the more balanced approach and the approach that allows the players the freedom to think in flavor instead of the best mechanics for damage.

    I could potentially reduce the damage for wild shape forms smaller than medium, but that's icing on the cake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Magus: At level 2, they get Weapon Bond, Arcane Channeling, Fighting Stance and Arcane Strike. I know you'd have the dpr balanced, but that is a lot of options gained in one level. Versatility is hard to add to a dpr chart.
    Arcane Channeling seems to be balanced against Quicken Cantrip, and also adds the flavor of combining weapon and magic, so its mandatory imo, therefore so is Weapon Bond.
    I think level 2 is a good spot for Fighting Stance, it's setting up your style.
    Arcane Strike is an "improvement" on Arcane Channeling in a way, going from "add cantrip on hit", to "add spell effect on hit". I know that's not precisely summing them up, but hopefully you get my point.
    Is there a spot further up the levels for Arcane Strike?

    I know its balanced against Paladin, but they get Channel Div 1/short rest, not Arcane Channeling at-will. So Smite for them both makes sense for versatility balance, and is a core part of the Paladin. For Magus, mixing weapon and spells is the core, and its covered already by Arcane Channeling.
    Check page 25 of for the comparison across the gish classes. Magus is not unique in the quality of features it gets at 2nd level. But I think you're overvaluing them so let me analyze them here:
    • Weapon Bond is a fluff feature that has minor mechanical prowess. The only time this kind of feature would make an impact in game is producing a weapon after being disarmed (via jail, meeting the king, etc). It's largely inconsequential.
    • Fighting Stance is on every martial and every gish. It's a small damage boost (~11%). This is one of the factors that sets martials and gishes apart from casters and allows them to excel in martial combat. Every Gish in RAW 5e has it.
    • Arcane Strike This is comparable to Paladin smites. It allows use of mana for special effects on attacks. That said I think you've overvalued the mana pool of gishes. At level 5 for example a Magus has 5 mana. That's effectively 2 uses of Arcane Strike per short rest, and they cannot be on the same turn. The Wizard has 10 mana, allowing him to use fireball twice or spread the mana around in other ways. Fireball twice is likely far more effective than 2 Arcane Strikes. Additionally the Wizard's cantrip damage is significantly higher than RAW. By RAW a caster is doing ~25% of the damage of a GWM Fighter. With Quickened Cantrips it's ~51% and with a talent investment it's ~70%.
    • Arcane Channeling is effectively similar to Hex or Hunter's Mark in that it adds a small amount of damage. In the case of Hex and Hunter's Mark those classes get other boosts at 11th level allowing them to keep up in damage (Warlock has +int to damage, Ranger has Multiattack, Paladin has Divine Strike). The Magus keeps up in damage by cantrip's natural scaling.

    Gishes are comparable to one another, achieving quite similar damage thresholds in very different ways. I believe you have quite overvalued gishes versus casters with the boost that casters received. If anything the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue needs a tiny bit of love (through some kind of martial utility, but that's always super hard to achieve in D&D).

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Lets examine all the lines:
    • You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding. This line allows you to hide more easily - in and out of combat. Both would be used.
    • When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn’t reveal your position. This line is 100% ranged combat oriented. It has value in common with the first line as the first line allows you to hide more easily and this line allows you to sniper from ranged.
    • (Houserules) Attacking at long range doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls. The second line is purely ranged combat oriented. The first line enables the second line, both in and out of combat. This line expands on the combat aspect of ranged weapons - focusing on the flavor of sharpshooting.
    • (RAW, removed) Dim light doesn’t impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight. This line has absolutely no place with the other 2 RAW lines. It is about sight. Ignoring the penalties of dim light is what many use as a 5e homebrew for low light vision.

    The theme isn't pure stealth. It is stealth, primarily, for ranged attack purposes. Without a ranged weapon the talent is incredibly weak. The first line could belong in another talent that doesn't focus on ranged attacks, but the 2nd line cements the ranged stealth role of this talent. The replaced line adds on to that theme where the RAW version did not.
    "Skulker: You are expert at slinking through shadows" - PHB. My halfling rogue had it, as he didn't have darkvision(we don't use whatever homebrew solution you were referring to). Hide in lightly obscured was the primary feature him, the Dim Light no disadvantage was second(for him), and the ranged part was just gravy(he was melee oriented primarily, but it was useful if throwing his daggers). If you remove the sight part, add in the long range part, it's definitely more Sharpshooter than Skulker.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Changing to the actual animal is the purview of the Naturalist, not the Shapechanger.
    The Shapeshifter I see what your saying, the Origin Form isn't actually a "form" like the Naturalist. You look like a human/dragon hybrid, just with non-functional wings and no breath weapon or resistances. Or a Lich that isn't a Lich(eg. Undead, immunities) in any regard other than visual, and some generic combat abilities. If there is too much variation, many will gravitate to the strongest option as you said.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    The Naturalist is not an aspect either. The Naturalist takes the form of the creature, though the mechanical approach is different than RAW. The 5e approach is quite flawed in that only a few forms are good while the rest are quite bad due to each creature having wildly different damage. I have long wanted to remove that approach as it stifles player choice of forms. Pathfinder took the same approach in standardizing the damage from Wild Shape. It is the more balanced approach and the approach that allows the players the freedom to think in flavor instead of the best mechanics for damage.
    Something like Alter Self is more aspect, and it uses unarmed strike. I think when I read Wildshape altered your unarmed strike instead of changing it to a claw/bite attack, I saw potential issue with multi-classing into something like Monk, with its Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows. Could get some cool synergy, like an Iron Mountain Monk 3/Wildshape Brown Bear combo. Not sure its an issue though, was just a thought.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Check page 25 of for the comparison across the gish classes. Magus is not unique in the quality of features it gets at 2nd level. But I think you're overvaluing them so let me analyze them here:
    • Weapon Bond is a fluff feature that has minor mechanical prowess. The only time this kind of feature would make an impact in game is producing a weapon after being disarmed (via jail, meeting the king, etc). It's largely inconsequential.
    • Fighting Stance is on every martial and every gish. It's a small damage boost (~11%). This is one of the factors that sets martials and gishes apart from casters and allows them to excel in martial combat. Every Gish in RAW 5e has it.
    • Arcane Strike This is comparable to Paladin smites. It allows use of mana for special effects on attacks. That said I think you've overvalued the mana pool of gishes. At level 5 for example a Magus has 5 mana. That's effectively 2 uses of Arcane Strike per short rest, and they cannot be on the same turn. The Wizard has 10 mana, allowing him to use fireball twice or spread the mana around in other ways. Fireball twice is likely far more effective than 2 Arcane Strikes. Additionally the Wizard's cantrip damage is significantly higher than RAW. By RAW a caster is doing ~25% of the damage of a GWM Fighter. With Quickened Cantrips it's ~51% and with a talent investment it's ~70%.
    • Arcane Channeling is effectively similar to Hex or Hunter's Mark in that it adds a small amount of damage. In the case of Hex and Hunter's Mark those classes get other boosts at 11th level allowing them to keep up in damage (Warlock has +int to damage, Ranger has Multiattack, Paladin has Divine Strike). The Magus keeps up in damage by cantrip's natural scaling.

    Gishes are comparable to one another, achieving quite similar damage thresholds in very different ways. I believe you have quite overvalued gishes versus casters with the boost that casters received. If anything the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue needs a tiny bit of love (through some kind of martial utility, but that's always super hard to achieve in D&D).
    Probably just a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I don't understand the numbers properly.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    I have renamed Skulker to Sniper with the following description: "You are expert at slinking through shadows and your quick ranged attacks make you difficult to locate."
    Seeing in dim light would be like giving darkvision as a talent. IMO it doesn't belong as a talent other than a racial talent or some other method.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    The Shapeshifter I see what your saying, the Origin Form isn't actually a "form" like the Naturalist.
    Shapeshifters transform. Transform:
    a : to change in composition or structure
    b : to change the outward form or appearance of
    A shapeshifter definitely fulfills that definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    I think when I read Wildshape altered your unarmed strike instead of changing it to a claw/bite attack
    Natural weapons on PCs in 5e are generally unarmed strikes. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...narmed-attacks discussed this. Crawford says that all natural weapons are not unarmored strikes, but all PC options that I know of besides wildshape are (a few shown in that post).

    I think this is the cause for the confusion. I'm treating the natural weapons as unarmed strikes the same as those other features do.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    I have renamed Skulker to Sniper with the following description: "You are expert at slinking through shadows and your quick ranged attacks make you difficult to locate."
    Seeing in dim light would be like giving darkvision as a talent. IMO it doesn't belong as a talent other than a racial talent or some other method.
    Sniper suits well.
    I've done my first draft of Races for my home campaign I'm making. It uses traits, so non-darkvision races can choose to take it, but its at the cost of choosing something they'd normally get. Always found those without darkvision are at a nasty disadvantage in a lot of our campaigns, hence the use of the Skulker feat for the halfling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    I think this is the cause for the confusion. I'm treating the natural weapons as unarmed strikes the same as those other features do.
    As long as it can't be exploited by things that apply to unarmed strikes, but not natural weapons, it shouldn't be an issue mechanically.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    One of our group is a climber(small guy), and doesn't agree that Athletics should be strictly strength based.
    In your new version of Skills, you've seperated it into Brawn and Athletics. Was wondering what you thought about adding "Strength or Dexterity" to the entries on Climbing, Jumping, Swimming?
    Don't see many Str20 looking long jumpers in the Olympics, but it does make sense that strength plays some part, so thought "Strength or Dexterity" was the half-way point.
    Wasn't sure about the last entry in Athletics, Control Vehicle. Maybe "Strength or Dexterity" for the lot might be appropriate?

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    One of our group is a climber(small guy), and doesn't agree that Athletics should be strictly strength based.
    In your new version of Skills, you've seperated it into Brawn and Athletics. Was wondering what you thought about adding "Strength or Dexterity" to the entries on Climbing, Jumping, Swimming?
    Don't see many Str20 looking long jumpers in the Olympics, but it does make sense that strength plays some part, so thought "Strength or Dexterity" was the half-way point.
    Wasn't sure about the last entry in Athletics, Control Vehicle. Maybe "Strength or Dexterity" for the lot might be appropriate?
    I would refer to the many forum posts on this topic. For example (first google result): https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php...-be-DEX-or-STR. Specifically:
    In real life, of course, most athletic tasks require a certain level of strength and a certain level of agility: climbing, tackling, throwing fastballs, taking a wrist shot, whatever--it's a combination that varies with the action.

    For the level of abstraction 4e presents, at least, I'm thoroughly comfortable with STR-based Athletics for climbing (perhaps with an Endurance check for a long climb) and DEX-based Acrobatics for falling.
    I think allowing Dexterity erodes Strength's value in the game. I'm not one to claim that Dex > Str as the comparison simply isn't there, but Strength has limited uses in 5e and also in my rules. Removing Athletics from those uses, in terms of balance, is a poor choice imo.

    That said the 5e developers recognize that the rogue (thief) for example is known to be a climber and they included a feature under their thief subclass:
    Quote Originally Posted by PHB 97
    When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain the ability to climb faster than normal; climbing no longer costs you extra movement.

    In addition, when you make a running jump, the distance you cover increases by a number of feet equal to your Dexterity modifier.
    The climbing without losing extra movement already exists as a talent in Athlete. It's effectively climbing speed:
    Quote Originally Posted by MM 8
    A monster that has a climbing speed can use all or part of its movement to move on vertical surfaces. The monster doesn't need to spend extra movement to climb
    I previously removed the static numbers for jumping distances and heights so the second line wouldn't matter in my games, though looking at it again that may have been a grognard decision. I'll think on it.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    One thing that comes up in our adventures, is grappling, in particular from larger monsters(like constrict or swallow type creatures). The check for that is Athletics or Acrobatics, so gives both Str and Dex an option. In your system, that now goes to Brawn, which when I converted characters, realized I didn't have a spare skill for it, because they were good climbers. You've actually given an extra bit to Str with separating it into Athletics and Brawn. That's one reason I thought it might work, and not upset balance.

    Another thing, is you've changed it to "Almost always roll for climbing, swimming, etc". So the halfling rogue(I swear they used to be good at climbing), who usually has low strength in my experience, will more often fail. The thief can climb faster, but that doesn't help if you fail the roll, which in your system you almost always roll[Edit].

    I guess I don't like the idea of the rogue, who's primary stat is dex, is not good at climbing up buildings to steal things. In 5e, Athletics skill encompassed a lot, so we just accepted it and had one party member get spiderclimb to help the rogue do the job he should already be able to do. In your system, most of the pure str aspect was moved to Brawn, so it looked like their might be more room for Athletics to have the dual stat(Str or Dex), without favoring Dex(as Str gained the Brawn skill).
    Last edited by Ugganaut; 2017-12-30 at 04:46 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    One thing that comes up in our adventures, is grappling, in particular from larger monsters(like constrict or swallow type creatures). The check for that is Athletics or Acrobatics, so gives both Str and Dex an option. In your system, that now goes to Brawn, which when I converted characters, realized I didn't have a spare skill for it, because they were good climbers. You've actually given an extra bit to Str with separating it into Athletics and Brawn. That's one reason I thought it might work, and not upset balance.
    Brawn isn't as valuable as you may think to a Dex character:
    • Grapple - little value as it's only useful for grapplers, otherwise easily ignored
    • Escape a Grapple - not valuable as Acrobatics can do the same
    • Escaping Restraints - not valuable as Acrobatics can do the same
    • Overrun - not valuable as Acrobatics can do the same (Tumble)
    • Shove - minor value, easily ignored
    • Break down doors - Finesse can handle locks

    The other cases are niche.
    Overall Brawn does nothing to offset the balance between Strength and Dexterity - it just moved some items that were in Athletics over to Brawn. The amount of items is still the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Another thing, is you've changed it to "Almost always roll for climbing, swimming, etc". So the halfling rogue(I swear they used to be good at climbing), who usually has low strength in my experience, will more often fail.
    Without rolling there is little value in Climb, Jump, or Swimming (Athletics). I'm not sure what the best path here is, but the default 5e rules neuter Athletics so that doesn't seem like the best option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    I guess I don't like the idea of the rogue, who's primary stat is dex, is not good at climbing up buildings to steal things. In 5e, Athletics skill encompassed a lot, so we just accepted it and had one party member get spiderclimb to help the rogue do the job he should already be able to do. In your system, most of the pure str aspect was moved to Brawn, so it looked like their might be more room for Athletics to have the dual stat(Str or Dex), without favoring Dex(as Str gained the Brawn skill).
    In regards to a low Strength character failing at Strength based skills: Well, that's by design. I would also expect low intelligence characters to not do well at Arcana, or low Wisdom characters to not do well with Perception. That's D&D with an ability score system. D&D ability scores are an abstraction. Players will continually push and push for ways to avoid their dump stats if allowed. I believe allowing that would be a mistake - those players chose those dump stats and ability score choices should matter.
    If you want players to succeed more regularly I'd recommend increasing point buy - I raised mine to 35 from 27 for example. This allows for more freedom for gish characters and allows players to avoid dump stats should they so choose.

    By choosing to allow a character to use Dexterity for Athletics you've left Strength with so little value that everyone should dump it besides Strength based martials imo.

    I would highly recommend not allowing Dexterity for Athletics in the vast majority of cases for balance reasons. If you choose to pursue it for flavor reasons then I'd suggest using the average of Strength and Dexterity as the modifier. I'm afraid by offering this you'll latch on to the average idea - I wouldn't recommend it without doing it across the board.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Without rolling there is little value in Climb, Jump, or Swimming (Athletics). I'm not sure what the best path here is, but the default 5e rules neuter Athletics so that doesn't seem like the best option.

    In regards to a low Strength character failing at Strength based skills: Well, that's by design. I would also expect low intelligence characters to not do well at Arcana, or low Wisdom characters to not do well with Perception.
    My issue is a class not being able to do its intended job, with the primary stats it is assumed to have.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    I would highly recommend not allowing Dexterity for Athletics in the vast majority of cases for balance reasons.
    I agree with your assessment. Then maybe the solution is to allow those specific cases to use Dexterity or Strength for Athletics. The Rogue class for starters(Thief can then climb faster as normal, so they are better than the average rogue). Something like the Fighter's Remarkable Athlete/Acrobat feature. I think its general enough to apply to all rogues, and gained at level 1-2.

    I'd love to increase our point buy for the reasons you listed, unfortunately I'm outvoted on that one, so my halfling has Str 8, because I also needed him to find traps(in 5e thats Int), talk his way out if he gets caught(Cha). Need to make sure the coast is clear(Wis). It gets very M.A.D within a single class, something had to give(Str and Con).

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    I think this line of discussion is a can of worms. Balance for example requires Sstrength as well as Dexterity, so we should make that an average of Str/Dex as well.
    Ability score usage is an abstraction and shouldn't be argued over or the can of worms starts and ability scores stop mattering.

    On that topic: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...oved-Abilities and http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...Ability-Scores both remove ability scores which I think are super interesting projects, but my players have never gone for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Then maybe the solution is to allow those specific cases to use Dexterity or Strength for Athletics.
    The last post is full of me recommending to not do this. It makes Strength worthless as an ability score to anything other than a Strength based martial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    The Rogue class for starters(Thief can then climb faster as normal, so they are better than the average rogue). Something like the Fighter's Remarkable Athlete/Acrobat feature. I think its general enough to apply to all rogues, and gained at level 1-2.
    Why can't the monk climb, or jump, or swim just as well as the rogue? Attaching it to the Rogue isn't a solid "fix" if one is desired.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    I also needed him to find traps(in 5e thats Int)
    Finding traps is not Int. Investigation is used for understanding traps or uncovering clues. Perception is used for finding them. You can see the same message reflected by other threads on this topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    talk his way out if he gets caught(Cha). Need to make sure the coast is clear(Wis). It gets very M.A.D within a single class, something had to give(Str and Con).
    Sounds like you're trying to do too much. Your character can't be good at everything. That's the point of ability scores. You have to choose the strengths that you want your character to have. If you choose more Charisma then you have less Strength for example. This is how D&D works.

    We're far off topic from my rules here. I'd suggest opening a new thread about Athletics if you feel so inclined.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    December 30th, 2017
    Monk
    • Added Drunken Master

    Naturalist
    • Circle of the Claw turned into Shifter archetype

    Sorcerer
    • Slight adjustments to Shapeshifter

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    Zezzy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Wow, don't know how I missed that mana update, as I have still been using that older document until now. I'm really liking these changes.

    I have one question however. In the old document a sorcerer's eidolon could take the "Large" evolution to increase its size. In the new document, there is no evolution that can make an eidolon larger than medium from what I see.

    I know you said that changing size to large would usually be a disadvantage. Was that why it was removed? I was wanting to transfer over a sorcerer that used a large eidolon as a mount, and don't how I could best bring back that evolution.
    Last edited by Zezzy; 2018-01-01 at 05:43 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Large was removed because in 5e monster hp and damage are determined by size. So a large eidolon should have d10 hd for being large and do extra damage on its attacks. If those are given then that evolution would be an OP option. If those are not given then the eidolon does not align with 5e monsters.

    In PF, where the Summoner originates, all the Eidolons are Medium size by default, but there is a large evolution, though it costs 4 points in their system. If it cost 2 evolutions in my system then it'd be more fairly priced, but I don't have such a point system for simplicity. Even then I think allowing it would make it the go to option because it is so strong. It would likely present balance problems.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Evasive Footwork: Is that like a free dodge each round(using your Combat Superiority for that round)? The PHB was only against opportunity attacks.

    Edit: Ignore that. Thought it was till end of your next turn, not end of turn.
    Last edited by Ugganaut; 2018-01-02 at 06:18 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    "Called Shot
    Once on your turn before you make a weapon attack that you
    are proficient with, you can choose to have disadvantage on
    the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add twice your proficiency
    bonus to the attack’s damage."

    Is that assuming you don't already have one or more disadvantages on the roll?

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    I'll modify that to:

    Once on your turn before you make a weapon attack that you are proficient with and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll, you can choose to have disadvantage on the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add twice your proficiency bonus to the attack’s damage.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    January 3rd, 2018
    Spells
    • Steel Wind Strike moved to Mage / Ranger / Soulknife

    Psionic Spells
    • Attraction / Aversion removed for Antipathy / Sympathy
    • All Psionic Augmentation scaling adjusted to match spell slot values


    January 2nd, 2018
    All Classes
    • Talent progressions changed to progress in a more even pattern instead of slowing down at later levels. This also has the benefit of limiting the value of a multiclass dip.
    • Caster old-: 0, 0, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8
    • Caster new: 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9
    • Martial old-: 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6
    • Martial new: 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7

    Acolyte (Paladin) / Psionicist (Soulknife)

    Psionics
    • Disrupt Pattern increased to 1d6 from 1d4.


    January 1st, 2018
    Sorcerer/ Naturalist
    • Shapeshifter and Shifter no longer use unarmed strikes. They now use natural weapons.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Moving a PM discussion to here. Based on the ability to multiclass a fighter: https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehome...periority-dice

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut
    In my case(B5/F3), I'll have Riposte and Pushing Attack. I have AC13, and attack Reckless almost constantly. You don't always want to push people, and with advantage to attack me, Riposte will rarely go off.
    I believe your case is actually a prime example of the abuse that exists in a resource-less fighter.

    For example if you are missed (rare) you can attack back. More commonly though you are hit at which point 20 damage becomes 10 and then 10 is reduced by proficiency bonus + Dexterity modifier via parry. This reaction makes a Barbarian significantly more tanky than expected. I'd definitely consider it an abuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut
    Precision attack, in particular, can be used every attack to get +prof to every attack,". No it can't. It can be used ONCE every round, not on every attack. +double Prof once per round I don't see as OP for a dip.
    Lets assume each attack is ~65% chance to hit as that is the norm. With 2 attacks each round you're more likely to hit both, but with this reaction your chance to hit both attacks would likely go up by a significant amount (~20%). It's an incredibly strong dip for a barbarian who has big damage on few hits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut
    I strongly urge against returning to SD, because that has far more potential for abuse.
    SD have room for burst abuse, but they'd burn quickly. Either way I'd add a once per turn limit to whatever resource system like I do for mana attacks.


    The fighter is a prime candidate for dipping. I should surely implement some kind of stamina or dice based resource system.
    I'm leaning toward a stamina system (similar to ki) currently.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    I've got Pushing Attack and Riposte, but was considering getting Parry if I took another level in Fighter. I see your point though. Didn't seem like much to me, because my Dex is 10, but I guess if you had some Dex, it would make a Barbarian stronger than intended.

    I think I'd prefer short rest Stamina over dice, to avoid the burst issues mentioned earlier. It'd probably work nicely, with the stronger ones costing more perhaps?

    When talking it over with my DM for this game, we both liked the idea of Fighters having a meaningful decision to make each round from their suite of CM's. But I'd rather a Stamina system than no multi-classing. See how it plays this weekend as it is. I just won't take Parry

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    On your third Short Rest in a day(before a long rest), you don't gain the benefits of the rest. Can you still spend hit dice to regain hit points(but not regain one quarter of your hit dice), or is spending hit dice considered a benefit?

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    At the end of a short rest a character regains Hit Dice equal to one forth its level (minimum of one die) and can spend one or more Hit Dice. The player can decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll.
    Spending Hit Dice is part of a short rest.

    Keep in mind I also use Healing Surge:
    As an action, a character can use a healing surge and spend up to half his or her Hit Dice. A character who uses a healing surge can’t do so again until he or she finishes a short or long rest.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    January 6th, 2018
    Houserules
    • Stacking Advantage. Each advantage/disadvantage pair cancels out. After resolving, if you have multiple advantage or multiple disadvantage you roll one additional dice. For example two advantage and no disadvantage on an attack would roll 3d20 and keep the highest 1 or 4d10 and keep the highest 2.

    Mana Attacks (Smite, Arcane Strike, etc)
    • Paladin, Magus, Skald, Ranger, Shifter, Hexblade, Soulknife, and Shapeshifter start with 2 mana attacks and learn a new one every other level.
    • Mana attacks have the following included to avoid multiclass: You can use only one X per turn that you have not expended ki, mana, or stamina to deal extra damage with an attack.

    Fighter
    • Stamina added so the fighter is no longer resource-less. Resource based is too important for balance.
    • Parry changed to +2 AC
    • Precision Attack changed to +2 to hit.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Spending Hit Dice is part of a short rest.

    Keep in mind I also use Healing Surge:
    Ah yes. This is the issue with only using part of a larger system. Also had to revert Two-Weapon Fighting Stance to "off-hand damage", because he has the 5e Dual Wielder feat for AC and Draw two weapons. I realize now, because he uses scimitars, the TWF Stance in yours wouldn't actually give him any benefit, as drawing two light weapons is a free in the "part of a move" list.
    I thought it was kind of odd, that TWF stance was about using and draw one-handed weapons, and the Dual Wielder talent had the off-hand damage and +1 AC. What was the reasoning for that?
    Feels like TWF stance would have the off-hand damage, and using two longswords should require the extra training in the form of a Talent.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    TWF in 5e, is absolutely terrible. It was bad in older editions, but in 5e it's really really bad by RAW.

    TWF stance is for larger weapons as the stance is used by classes like Fighter, Paladin, Magus, Barbarian, etc.
    The talent is for offhand damage.
    RAW the two are reversed which makes no sense for a rogue taking the feat as rogues use smaller weapons.

    Drawing two light weapons as an object interaction should've been part of RAW. Every depiction of TWF is both weapons are drawn at once, not one and then another 6 seconds later.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    TWF in 5e, is absolutely terrible. It was bad in older editions, but in 5e it's really really bad by RAW.
    Absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    TWF stance is for larger weapons as the stance is used by classes like Fighter, Paladin, Magus, Barbarian, etc.
    I agree larger weapons are for those classes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    RAW the two are reversed which makes no sense for a rogue taking the feat as rogues use smaller weapons.
    Why should a rogue be encouraged to take the feat? The only rogues I've seen dual wielding, was purely for the purpose for the off-hand attack to try get their Sneak Attack off. Never saw one take Dual Wielder(RAW) feat for the AC bonus, and not sure why they should need extra encouragement to dual wield with offhand +stat damage, when they already get the benefit of a second attack to trigger SA. With your TWF fighting rules making the off-hand attack free(which I totally agree with), Rogues having access to the off-hand +stat damage through a talent, seems a bit strong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Drawing two light weapons as an object interaction should've been part of RAW. Every depiction of TWF is both weapons are drawn at once, not one and then another 6 seconds later.
    Couldn't agree more.

    Our fighter is originally from a region where scimitars where the common fighter weapon, and he dual wields them. It just feels odd that this fighter in the TWF Stance, gains no benefit, and both he and a rogue are equally good at fighting in this way if both have(or don't have) the DW talent(until Extra Attack).

    Edit: Stances are general training that all Fighters get(and others of course). The standard feels like you'd train with lighter weapons, or a longsword and shield etc. Training to fight with two longswords feels more specialist, they are quite unwieldy, and that sounds more like a feat/talent. Could be just me of course.
    Last edited by Ugganaut; 2018-01-07 at 05:06 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    Why should a rogue be encouraged to take the feat?
    Why should a rogue not be encouraged to take the feat? TWF is the best possibly fighting technique that a rogue can use and the appropriate feat/talent not working for them makes no sense.

    +AC is definitely valuable to a rogue as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    With your TWF fighting rules making the off-hand attack free(which I totally agree with), Rogues having access to the off-hand +stat damage through a talent, seems a bit strong.
    Every martial can increase their damage with a feat/talent. Why not rogues?

    Rogues are at the appropriate damage level with +dex on offhand. 1 handed weapons (with no shield) could be improved for every martial. They are a bad choice for all classes, but that doesn't mean we should nerf TWF as a result.

    One option for a rogue is to allow a d8 on sneak attack if only wielding 1 weapon and no shield. It's still below TWF, but more comparable:

    5th level:
    TWF Rogue: 21 DPR
    Rapier Rogue: 16 DPR

    11th level:
    TWF Rogue: 32 DPR
    Rapier Rogue: 27 DPR

    17th level:
    TWF Rogue: 41 DPR
    Rapier Rogue: 36 DPR

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    It just feels odd that this fighter in the TWF Stance, gains no benefit, and both he and a rogue are equally good at fighting in this way if both have(or don't have) the DW talent(until Extra Attack).
    Equally odd that the same fighter would gain no benefit from the feat by RAW. I'd suggest such a fighter learn to use long scimitars (longsword stats).

Posting Permissions

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