I like pretty much all of them. I'm of two minds about the scaling damage -- I would kinda prefer if damage scaled less in the game overall, because I like the idea of seeing a shortsword and knowing it's 1d6 -- but that's fighting the tide, because we already have stuff like Improved Divine Smite and monster weapons just randomly dealing bonus necrotic damage and stuff. On the other hand, the dice chain is a little wonky. Only a little, and the Monk already uses it, but idk.
I like crazier scaling on Action Surge, and having it come online at 5 makes multiclassing less cheesy/easy. Possibly too much, but I'd have to see it in action.
I think the temporary HP option isn't likely to see play. You can use your additional action to drink a potion, if you have one. And this doesn't play well with the "cash in all my unspent resources before resting" habit, though maybe that's a good thing actually.
I like pretty much all of them. I'm of two minds about the scaling damage -- I would kinda prefer if damage scaled less in the game overall, because I like the idea of seeing a shortsword and knowing it's 1d6 -- but that's fighting the tide, because we already have stuff like Improved Divine Smite and monster weapons just randomly dealing bonus necrotic damage and stuff. On the other hand, the dice chain is a little wonky. Only a little, and the Monk already uses it, but idk.
I like crazier scaling on Action Surge, and having it come online at 5 makes multiclassing less cheesy/easy. Possibly too much, but I'd have to see it in action.
I think the temporary HP option isn't likely to see play. You can use your additional action to drink a potion, if you have one. And this doesn't play well with the "cash in all my unspent resources before resting" habit, though maybe that's a good thing actually.
I confess to being a mechanics wonk, but yeah, the dice chain can be a bit of a bear.
The action surge changes really make them come alive at higher levels. Feedback on it from players was that suddenly they felt like they could chop through anything. The healing option was there as a way to account for "oops, got in a bit over my head", lol. Won't see much use, but if you throw a dozen critters at someone, they might make the trade off once in a while.
I don't worry about resources as much -- but I'm not a player, so I put that on them. On the other hand, I also don't remind them to take breaks or rests and I do track days and such and will drop them where they stand from hunger or fatigue, lol. My group forgets to rest a lot, lol. And since I don't do unlimited ammunition and all that stuff, it can be a bit of a challenge for them.
Speaking of -- I am looking at a rough build of the above using an archery basis, and I am terrified about the ability of this kind of class to never have to close...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
What do the casters have left at the same time? As in spells and hit points. They should be close to the same.
OK I agree but if that's the case why does everyone keep telling me the martials shine in these long adventuring days? It sounds like their resources are at about the same place and that "resourceless martials" is a myth.
First, I applaud your work. Really good job. I think you have some excellent character plotting here.
My comments; 1) Limit giving features to 1st level. This is mainly to prevent players form just "dipping" into the character slot. It is Level 1 so there is plenty of room to grow. Starting some of these features at Level 2 won't hurt the overall class build and requires more of a commitment to the class. 2) I see the potential of a lot of dice rolls. Now, I am not saying to not give the Fighter more damage, but I am thinking of the rest of the table. Combat can be long enough and if the other players dread one class' turn because they can spend close to 2 minutes just rolling (this excludes conversation with DM and other players), I can see how this will be negative to the table. There is a difference between making a player powerful enough to wipe out the Monster by themselves and causing the game to focus on them for an extended period of time to do that. So I would cut out the third feature and try to figure out another way to get more damage added in (you have some great ideas already for this). 3) Stagger some of these features out so they don't equate to just a +1 increase at the suggested levels. Similar to comment 1, if you make larger increases over gaps, I think it will make players commit to the class more. So instead of getting every feature in each tier, make so you have to go two tiers to receive the benefit but the increase is a 2x or 3x. But different features take effect in different tiers. 4) The first feature you have. I think it may not be well received only because in theory it meets an expectation but, from a game implementation, people will see as something they won't get the full benefit out of. The quantity is just too high.
I didn't want to go into to much detail because you have the spoiler there. That is the only reason I was vague. And I want to say, the build to the end state is really good and you did a great job in thinking how to get the class up there.
1) I love your 5th feature. That is excellent feat development. 2) The second feature is your creation; great job thinking outside the box. I think this should be incorporated with the class. 3) The roadmap for this character class is well thought out, and I think gets it to a more powerful and productive stage at each tier level. My comment above was for pacing it; but you have a good grasp where the class should be.
Overall, I think you are developing a roadmap to get to the objective that the OP proposed. There is a lot of fun things to work with here. Great job.
First, I applaud your work. Really good job. I think you have some excellent character plotting here.
My comments; 1) Limit giving features to 1st level. This is mainly to prevent players form just "dipping" into the character slot. It is Level 1 so there is plenty of room to grow. Starting some of these features at Level 2 won't hurt the overall class build and requires more of a commitment to the class. 2) I see the potential of a lot of dice rolls. Now, I am not saying to not give the Fighter more damage, but I am thinking of the rest of the table. Combat can be long enough and if the other players dread one class' turn because they can spend close to 2 minutes just rolling (this excludes conversation with DM and other players), I can see how this will be negative to the table. There is a difference between making a player powerful enough to wipe out the Monster by themselves and causing the game to focus on them for an extended period of time to do that. So I would cut out the third feature and try to figure out another way to get more damage added in (you have some great ideas already for this). 3) Stagger some of these features out so they don't equate to just a +1 increase at the suggested levels. Similar to comment 1, if you make larger increases over gaps, I think it will make players commit to the class more. So instead of getting every feature in each tier, make so you have to go two tiers to receive the benefit but the increase is a 2x or 3x. But different features take effect in different tiers. 4) The first feature you have. I think it may not be well received only because in theory it meets an expectation but, from a game implementation, people will see as something they won't get the full benefit out of. The quantity is just too high.
I didn't want to go into to much detail because you have the spoiler there. That is the only reason I was vague. And I want to say, the build to the end state is really good and you did a great job in thinking how to get the class up there.
1) I love your 5th feature. That is excellent feat development. 2) The second feature is your creation; great job thinking outside the box. I think this should be incorporated with the class. 3) The roadmap for this character class is well thought out, and I think gets it to a more powerful and productive stage at each tier level. My comment above was for pacing it; but you have a good grasp where the class should be.
Overall, I think you are developing a roadmap to get to the objective that the OP proposed. There is a lot of fun things to work with here. Great job.
I give them features at first level because in general I disallow multiclassing -- though it is more accurate to say that I allow it, but it has to be played through, and I apply major problems to the process -- Cleric and warlock patrons do NOT like to lose their people, and will take their gifts away. as just one example. BUt also, I give 1st level features because that's when the scaling process starts -- if you don't reach 5th level as a fighter, you don't get the improvement.
Scaling represents learning, improving, growth, development -- and I value those things, and I think that mechanically it has more effective appeal and power.
You are correct that it would conflict with existing approach across all the classes -- but also note that if you were to just drop this into the existing set up, no one else would really scale alongside it.
Limits on dice rolls were not part of the Op's requests, lol. It is true, though -- a higher level character can roll like two dozen times in some cases if they add in a bunch of extra crap. I often forget most tables don't have the speed thing we do.
I scaled in this case at fixed levels because take a look at Tiers of Play. Now blink and look at the scaling. Tiers of play is super overlooked, and should probably have a bigger impact, but most especially on Martials. It all scales to tiers of play. Now, you add in a subclass feature set and you have a whole new set of capabilities (remember, this is a base class) that scale or arrive separately.
My prior response reflects that I have playtested this in a slightly different format, so I know the impact of it, but I also had the benefit of all the other classes having similar scaling (and even more variety in possible features in between the scaling events). However, my goal was to reach and meet the needs of the Op.
Put this class alongside other classes that have the same scaling structure and you get a much more powerful class set than is present in 5e -- so encounters need to be tougher and harder and all that. The Key is still Five core abilities for each that all scale -- and no other class has those abilities. So, like I noted in my thoughts, there's a major need to do some rewrites because it is very much stronger than a standard 5e class and it does continue the power creep -- but it also mitigates it in the original material through other systems that I didn't include.
One could trim that down to three core abilities, and still have a tougher fighter base, for example.
The fighting style is a trip, lol. In part because it allows (no, it forces, the development of more stuff. And sure, folks won't always go for all of it or find value in each one -- but it also allows them to adjust as needed, and in my experience minmaxers love that kind of flexibility -- I will use two handed early, switch to dual wield, then shift to whatever and now they can maximize their benefits as needed.
I don't deserve credit for the honored weapon. I cheated: I snagged Cook's old system and tweaked it for 5e out of 2e. Way back when, I was huge on Proficiencies, and the concept has stuck with me, so really I just used a variant of it.
I still have my dragon submissions on it from when Moore was editor, lol. Been doing this kind of design work off and on since 82/83 at least.
good feedback. Thanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That has been my experience as well. Players unleash their big hitters in the first couple rounds of combat during the first fight of the day, then go to extreme measures to take a long rest. But beware because constantly throwing 5-12 fights per long rest at your characters can bring back to old fashioned pressure for "healers" to only use their spell slots to help the martial classes recover so they can dive headlong into another fight.
I wonder how long until BG3 ranged tactics make it into D&D?
One of my biggest gripes about professionally made D&D maps is the lack of terrain to work to the advantage of archers, small sized creatures, and other situationally tactical terrain.
I really like this idea. I'm going to create some magical weapons that allow the wielder to empower their attacks with HD. I already have Healing Salves that cost much less than a potion of healing and restore HP by allowing the recipient to expend HD of healing. The maximum healing is based upon a medicine check with 1 HD maximum spend per 5 on the medicine check. A ten WIS without medicine skill proficiency means you need to roll a natural 5 or better or you applied the healing salve incorrectly.
While every table is different, what I typically see after taking over a game for a DM that wants a break.
Encounter #
1. You see two guards standing outside a cave smoking - Wizard - Fireball
2. You go around a curve in the cave and see four monsters sleeping on the floor - Wizard - Fireball
3. You see three guards walking past an open archway leading to a room beyond - Wizard - Fireball
3b. You find the burned remains of a spell book along with several bookcases of ash in the now torched room - Wizard - NOOO
4. You see.. Fireball
5. Fireball...
10. The scouting party comes back and reports the big bad evil thing sitting on the throne, surrounded by a couple dozen guards. All of them have been identified by the ranger as being vulnerable to fire damage. That favored enemy from first level finally was useful! Party - This would be a great time for a fireball
Wizard - I used my last level 3+ spell a couple rooms ago.
Eight rounds of brutal combat later, with half the party suffering from at least one failed death saving throw - YESSSSSSS WE WON!!!!
Next Dungeon a couple weeks later
1. You see two guards standing outside the side entrance to the enemy's fortress. Wizard - I bet our scouting party can take them out before they make a sound...
The Wizard is still overpowered, because this is high level 5e, but suddenly every class has a chance to shine.
I've been playing a fighter and even though I am fairly optimized and playing a strong subclass (Echo Knight) it just starts sucking as the levels pile up. The cleric does way more damage than me most of the time and that's without even considering the really good spells.
I think the basic problem is that fighters should be really good at fighting but they aren't. They should have techniques and ways of fighting that others can't even comprehend. Their skill should be unapproachable. I don't think the answer is "nerf casters", but rather how can we have fun fighters (and other martials) who FEEL powerful and have more options.
My thinking right now is:
1 - At first level, give fighters/rogues/barbs/monks access to actions and reactions that other classes don't have. I'd probably disallow these from showing up in multiclass but I'm not sure. I'd start with the full list of optional combat actions in the DMG (Shove aside, Overrun, disarm, and mark) but would also add some reactions (parry, duck, counter-attack) and maybe even some bonus actions (shield bash, maybe elevate shove to bonus action). This would give martials access to more options in combat and choices to make.
2 - A "heroic action" system. If you've read MCDM's Flee Mortals rules you have seen villian actions which are a lot like legendary actions. Martials should be the masters of the battlefield and allowing them some extra flexibility and action economy would go a long way. I'm thinking something that scales like sorcery points and allows the martial to take an action OR bonus action of their choice at the end of another combatant's turn. Depending on the action taken it might consume more than one point from the pool (e.g., if the martial has multiple attacks it would probably consume 1 point per attack made). Points recharge at long rests.
3 - Give every martial the equivalent of GWM/SS at first level. Don't put arbitrary restrictions on the weapon - they are masters of weapons - they can use this with longswords just as well as greatswords.
Obviously not fully fleshed out, but this to me would go a long way to making martial more fun. Would they be more powerful than they currently are? Undoubtedly, and yet a competent caster would still be far better at many things than they are in any case.
your problem is not in mathematics...its been proven time and time again that fighters rivals other classes in damage outputs. your problem lies in role playing abilities. most other classes are versatile in role play and damage dealing. fighters, monks rogues aren't ! the problem lies in spells being too versatiles. hence why we simply want to nerf down casters. the fact is simple to grasp, there is too much casters, thats literally a sign that spells are too strong to begin with.
now if your cleric does more damage then you, then you are not as optimised as you think you are, or your dice were too unlucky that day. lets say the cleric does flame strike... averages of this is 28 average damage from bludgeoning and fire damage. at that level you have 2 attacks with greatswords (2d6+5) (2x3.5)+5 thats 12 damage per attacks, you have 3 of them... and you have GWM which makes this go higher by 2 or 3 points. just two attacks landing is the equivalent of your cleric in one round. but here what you gain compared to him... you get to roll twice, more chances at dealing critical strikes, doubling the damage far higher then him. he can't crit on flame strike... even more, even if he hits numerous targets, there is still a chance that he does only half the damage.
overall, you do as much damage as your cleric friend. even if he goes two handed like you, he'd lose to you in damage per round, the only thing making him equal would be the third attack with either war cleric domain or the spiritual weapon he summons... mathematically, you do the same damage he does, much like every classes in the game. this was prooven since the inception of 5th edition. the only two classes going over the top are Paladins and Rogues which both can dish out damage way higher then any other classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Your system has many nice features. If you have never seen D&D 4e you should join a one shot or mini campaign. I have never seen a class based RPG with more balanced combat mechanics. While the role playing of different classes is extremely different and there are variations in their powers, if you change the flavor text it is difficult to know if a player is running a fighter or a wizard.
what they can do better then caster Expertise in acrobatics and/or athletics and proficiency in 2 “role play skills”
Control
Idk but I came up with something good for everything else
better for swarms +1 armor class when surrounded by X or more enemies
And/or opportunity attacks equal to proficiency modifier
Support Within 10 feet use They can jump in front of ally as a reaction and have the attack go against their AC instead of the squishy they jumped in front of
More Damage
martials get crunchy crits (critical attacks give max damage) EX: great sword crit would be max 3d6(18+modifier) or greataxe max 2d12(24+modifier)
People [...] throw out the basis upon which the entire game is balanced (6-8 Encounters per day) and then want to have a conversation about how the game or classes are not balanced.
The 'X encounters per day' logic [...] was never reflected in actual play.
I've got to say that many people keep bring up the encounters per day thing. My groups use it. It simply does not matter. In a day that long the martials run out of hit points and hit dice (and the barbarian is out of rages, the echo knight is out of incarnations, etc). Martials are not resourceless they just have fewer resources to manage. Not all resources for martials come back on short rest.
This "encounters per day" argument simple does not hold water in my experience.
If we're coming back to this thread, I'd like to highlight this comment. Speaking for myself, I sort of agree? The hit points thing especially. People like to pretend like martials are the only ones who ought to take hits.
A friend of mine was recently talking about one of the MechWarrior games, and how players will sometimes bring a mech loaded up with long range missiles. But in order to carry those weapons, they have to play a gigantic, slow, heavily armored machine. So the team has this massive tank of HP that never gets shot because they stay at long range. It's a waste of HP!
If that mech was on the front line, it would soak damage that's otherwise going to other mechs and destroying them. Effectively, the whole team is more fragile because of the long-range missile boat.
The issue is more pronounced in that game, because the missile boat has to have lots of HP, but it's still present when it's a Sorcerer with a d8+2 per level.
Aside from HP, the only resource I've really felt pressed on when playing a martial is ki. Low level Monks just get so few ki points. This isn't a new observation.
Your idea of a Mech in Mech Warrior is wrong as far as I know.
All Mechs of the same weight used to have the same base structure points(HP) and more was added by adding armor(HP). If you put more weapons on you would have less room for armor. And long range weapons weighted a lot.
All I know is, the only mechs that can carry the amount of LRMs needed for this play style are the big ones which can take more damage than the small ones. Assault, I believe. They could probably take even MORE damage if they spec'd out for tanking, yes. They don't though.
To be fair, this has less to do with casters than it has to do with ranged vs melee. The best way to not spend hit dice is to ... not be attackable. Given that a lot of monsters don't have any ranged options, that probably means ranged attacks (it's way too easy to kite in 5e).
To be fair, this has less to do with casters than it has to do with ranged vs melee. The best way to not spend hit dice is to ... not be attackable. Given that a lot of monsters don't have any ranged options, that probably means ranged attacks (it's way too easy to kite in 5e).
As an aside, if you go through the original Monster Manual, this is very much the case. For the monsters who do have ranged options, they're usually weaker than their melee options -- either dealing less average damage, having lower to-hit modifiers, requiring a recharge, or some combination thereof. However! Looking at more modern material, this is no longer a trend! In fact some of them are reversed, having stronger ranged options and weaker melee options!
In theory, you'd want to have both in your game, and you'd want to clearly signal which is which. The decision to basically only have weak ranged options was an interesting one, perhaps a puzzling one, and it led to a pretty consistent philosophy of combat: Keep your distance when you can. There is no simple, universal advice on this anymore. One wonders if it will reverse with the new core books, such that the common wisdom will be: Close the distance when you can.
I only count ranged combat as ranges longer than the normal character can cross in one round. Distances of over 60ft.
If the bad guy can close that distance inside one round then its just hand to hand combat. And any caster who stays inside that range and doesn't protect themselves first is just squishy and dead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I like pretty much all of them. I'm of two minds about the scaling damage -- I would kinda prefer if damage scaled less in the game overall, because I like the idea of seeing a shortsword and knowing it's 1d6 -- but that's fighting the tide, because we already have stuff like Improved Divine Smite and monster weapons just randomly dealing bonus necrotic damage and stuff. On the other hand, the dice chain is a little wonky. Only a little, and the Monk already uses it, but idk.
I like crazier scaling on Action Surge, and having it come online at 5 makes multiclassing less cheesy/easy. Possibly too much, but I'd have to see it in action.
I think the temporary HP option isn't likely to see play. You can use your additional action to drink a potion, if you have one. And this doesn't play well with the "cash in all my unspent resources before resting" habit, though maybe that's a good thing actually.
I confess to being a mechanics wonk, but yeah, the dice chain can be a bit of a bear.
The action surge changes really make them come alive at higher levels. Feedback on it from players was that suddenly they felt like they could chop through anything. The healing option was there as a way to account for "oops, got in a bit over my head", lol. Won't see much use, but if you throw a dozen critters at someone, they might make the trade off once in a while.
I don't worry about resources as much -- but I'm not a player, so I put that on them. On the other hand, I also don't remind them to take breaks or rests and I do track days and such and will drop them where they stand from hunger or fatigue, lol. My group forgets to rest a lot, lol. And since I don't do unlimited ammunition and all that stuff, it can be a bit of a challenge for them.
Speaking of -- I am looking at a rough build of the above using an archery basis, and I am terrified about the ability of this kind of class to never have to close...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
OK I agree but if that's the case why does everyone keep telling me the martials shine in these long adventuring days? It sounds like their resources are at about the same place and that "resourceless martials" is a myth.
First, I applaud your work. Really good job. I think you have some excellent character plotting here.
My comments;
1) Limit giving features to 1st level. This is mainly to prevent players form just "dipping" into the character slot. It is Level 1 so there is plenty of room to grow. Starting some of these features at Level 2 won't hurt the overall class build and requires more of a commitment to the class.
2) I see the potential of a lot of dice rolls. Now, I am not saying to not give the Fighter more damage, but I am thinking of the rest of the table. Combat can be long enough and if the other players dread one class' turn because they can spend close to 2 minutes just rolling (this excludes conversation with DM and other players), I can see how this will be negative to the table. There is a difference between making a player powerful enough to wipe out the Monster by themselves and causing the game to focus on them for an extended period of time to do that. So I would cut out the third feature and try to figure out another way to get more damage added in (you have some great ideas already for this).
3) Stagger some of these features out so they don't equate to just a +1 increase at the suggested levels. Similar to comment 1, if you make larger increases over gaps, I think it will make players commit to the class more. So instead of getting every feature in each tier, make so you have to go two tiers to receive the benefit but the increase is a 2x or 3x. But different features take effect in different tiers.
4) The first feature you have. I think it may not be well received only because in theory it meets an expectation but, from a game implementation, people will see as something they won't get the full benefit out of. The quantity is just too high.
I didn't want to go into to much detail because you have the spoiler there. That is the only reason I was vague. And I want to say, the build to the end state is really good and you did a great job in thinking how to get the class up there.
1) I love your 5th feature. That is excellent feat development.
2) The second feature is your creation; great job thinking outside the box. I think this should be incorporated with the class.
3) The roadmap for this character class is well thought out, and I think gets it to a more powerful and productive stage at each tier level. My comment above was for pacing it; but you have a good grasp where the class should be.
Overall, I think you are developing a roadmap to get to the objective that the OP proposed. There is a lot of fun things to work with here. Great job.
I give them features at first level because in general I disallow multiclassing -- though it is more accurate to say that I allow it, but it has to be played through, and I apply major problems to the process -- Cleric and warlock patrons do NOT like to lose their people, and will take their gifts away. as just one example. BUt also, I give 1st level features because that's when the scaling process starts -- if you don't reach 5th level as a fighter, you don't get the improvement.
Scaling represents learning, improving, growth, development -- and I value those things, and I think that mechanically it has more effective appeal and power.
You are correct that it would conflict with existing approach across all the classes -- but also note that if you were to just drop this into the existing set up, no one else would really scale alongside it.
Limits on dice rolls were not part of the Op's requests, lol. It is true, though -- a higher level character can roll like two dozen times in some cases if they add in a bunch of extra crap. I often forget most tables don't have the speed thing we do.
I scaled in this case at fixed levels because take a look at Tiers of Play. Now blink and look at the scaling. Tiers of play is super overlooked, and should probably have a bigger impact, but most especially on Martials. It all scales to tiers of play. Now, you add in a subclass feature set and you have a whole new set of capabilities (remember, this is a base class) that scale or arrive separately.
My prior response reflects that I have playtested this in a slightly different format, so I know the impact of it, but I also had the benefit of all the other classes having similar scaling (and even more variety in possible features in between the scaling events). However, my goal was to reach and meet the needs of the Op.
Put this class alongside other classes that have the same scaling structure and you get a much more powerful class set than is present in 5e -- so encounters need to be tougher and harder and all that. The Key is still Five core abilities for each that all scale -- and no other class has those abilities. So, like I noted in my thoughts, there's a major need to do some rewrites because it is very much stronger than a standard 5e class and it does continue the power creep -- but it also mitigates it in the original material through other systems that I didn't include.
One could trim that down to three core abilities, and still have a tougher fighter base, for example.
The fighting style is a trip, lol. In part because it allows (no, it forces, the development of more stuff. And sure, folks won't always go for all of it or find value in each one -- but it also allows them to adjust as needed, and in my experience minmaxers love that kind of flexibility -- I will use two handed early, switch to dual wield, then shift to whatever and now they can maximize their benefits as needed.
I don't deserve credit for the honored weapon. I cheated: I snagged Cook's old system and tweaked it for 5e out of 2e. Way back when, I was huge on Proficiencies, and the concept has stuck with me, so really I just used a variant of it.
I still have my dragon submissions on it from when Moore was editor, lol. Been doing this kind of design work off and on since 82/83 at least.
good feedback. Thanks.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The other big reason not to give features at first level is that first level isn't where martials have a problem.
That has been my experience as well. Players unleash their big hitters in the first couple rounds of combat during the first fight of the day, then go to extreme measures to take a long rest. But beware because constantly throwing 5-12 fights per long rest at your characters can bring back to old fashioned pressure for "healers" to only use their spell slots to help the martial classes recover so they can dive headlong into another fight.
I wonder how long until BG3 ranged tactics make it into D&D?
One of my biggest gripes about professionally made D&D maps is the lack of terrain to work to the advantage of archers, small sized creatures, and other situationally tactical terrain.
I really like this idea. I'm going to create some magical weapons that allow the wielder to empower their attacks with HD. I already have Healing Salves that cost much less than a potion of healing and restore HP by allowing the recipient to expend HD of healing. The maximum healing is based upon a medicine check with 1 HD maximum spend per 5 on the medicine check. A ten WIS without medicine skill proficiency means you need to roll a natural 5 or better or you applied the healing salve incorrectly.
While every table is different, what I typically see after taking over a game for a DM that wants a break.
Encounter #
1. You see two guards standing outside a cave smoking - Wizard - Fireball
2. You go around a curve in the cave and see four monsters sleeping on the floor - Wizard - Fireball
3. You see three guards walking past an open archway leading to a room beyond - Wizard - Fireball
3b. You find the burned remains of a spell book along with several bookcases of ash in the now torched room - Wizard - NOOO
4. You see.. Fireball
5. Fireball...
10. The scouting party comes back and reports the big bad evil thing sitting on the throne, surrounded by a couple dozen guards. All of them have been identified by the ranger as being vulnerable to fire damage. That favored enemy from first level finally was useful! Party - This would be a great time for a fireball
Wizard - I used my last level 3+ spell a couple rooms ago.
Eight rounds of brutal combat later, with half the party suffering from at least one failed death saving throw - YESSSSSSS WE WON!!!!
Next Dungeon a couple weeks later
1. You see two guards standing outside the side entrance to the enemy's fortress. Wizard - I bet our scouting party can take them out before they make a sound...
The Wizard is still overpowered, because this is high level 5e, but suddenly every class has a chance to shine.
your problem is not in mathematics...its been proven time and time again that fighters rivals other classes in damage outputs.
your problem lies in role playing abilities. most other classes are versatile in role play and damage dealing. fighters, monks rogues aren't !
the problem lies in spells being too versatiles. hence why we simply want to nerf down casters.
the fact is simple to grasp, there is too much casters, thats literally a sign that spells are too strong to begin with.
now if your cleric does more damage then you, then you are not as optimised as you think you are, or your dice were too unlucky that day.
lets say the cleric does flame strike... averages of this is 28 average damage from bludgeoning and fire damage. at that level you have 2 attacks with greatswords (2d6+5) (2x3.5)+5 thats 12 damage per attacks, you have 3 of them... and you have GWM which makes this go higher by 2 or 3 points. just two attacks landing is the equivalent of your cleric in one round. but here what you gain compared to him... you get to roll twice, more chances at dealing critical strikes, doubling the damage far higher then him. he can't crit on flame strike... even more, even if he hits numerous targets, there is still a chance that he does only half the damage.
overall, you do as much damage as your cleric friend. even if he goes two handed like you, he'd lose to you in damage per round, the only thing making him equal would be the third attack with either war cleric domain or the spiritual weapon he summons... mathematically, you do the same damage he does, much like every classes in the game. this was prooven since the inception of 5th edition. the only two classes going over the top are Paladins and Rogues which both can dish out damage way higher then any other classes.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Your system has many nice features. If you have never seen D&D 4e you should join a one shot or mini campaign. I have never seen a class based RPG with more balanced combat mechanics. While the role playing of different classes is extremely different and there are variations in their powers, if you change the flavor text it is difficult to know if a player is running a fighter or a wizard.
what they can do better then caster
Expertise in acrobatics and/or athletics and proficiency in 2 “role play skills”
Control
Idk but I came up with something good for everything else
better for swarms
+1 armor class when surrounded by X or more enemies
And/or
opportunity attacks equal to proficiency modifier
Support
Within 10 feet use They can jump in front of ally as a reaction and have the attack go against their AC instead of the squishy they jumped in front of
More Damage
martials get crunchy crits (critical attacks give max damage) EX: great sword crit would be max 3d6(18+modifier) or greataxe max 2d12(24+modifier)
If we're coming back to this thread, I'd like to highlight this comment. Speaking for myself, I sort of agree? The hit points thing especially. People like to pretend like martials are the only ones who ought to take hits.
A friend of mine was recently talking about one of the MechWarrior games, and how players will sometimes bring a mech loaded up with long range missiles. But in order to carry those weapons, they have to play a gigantic, slow, heavily armored machine. So the team has this massive tank of HP that never gets shot because they stay at long range. It's a waste of HP!
If that mech was on the front line, it would soak damage that's otherwise going to other mechs and destroying them. Effectively, the whole team is more fragile because of the long-range missile boat.
The issue is more pronounced in that game, because the missile boat has to have lots of HP, but it's still present when it's a Sorcerer with a d8+2 per level.
Aside from HP, the only resource I've really felt pressed on when playing a martial is ki. Low level Monks just get so few ki points. This isn't a new observation.
Your idea of a Mech in Mech Warrior is wrong as far as I know.
All Mechs of the same weight used to have the same base structure points(HP) and more was added by adding armor(HP). If you put more weapons on you would have less room for armor. And long range weapons weighted a lot.
This is not how D&D does things.
All I know is, the only mechs that can carry the amount of LRMs needed for this play style are the big ones which can take more damage than the small ones. Assault, I believe. They could probably take even MORE damage if they spec'd out for tanking, yes. They don't though.
But anyway a caster who doesn't spend their hit dice is a caster who's abusing their martials.
To be fair, this has less to do with casters than it has to do with ranged vs melee. The best way to not spend hit dice is to ... not be attackable. Given that a lot of monsters don't have any ranged options, that probably means ranged attacks (it's way too easy to kite in 5e).
As an aside, if you go through the original Monster Manual, this is very much the case. For the monsters who do have ranged options, they're usually weaker than their melee options -- either dealing less average damage, having lower to-hit modifiers, requiring a recharge, or some combination thereof. However! Looking at more modern material, this is no longer a trend! In fact some of them are reversed, having stronger ranged options and weaker melee options!
In theory, you'd want to have both in your game, and you'd want to clearly signal which is which. The decision to basically only have weak ranged options was an interesting one, perhaps a puzzling one, and it led to a pretty consistent philosophy of combat: Keep your distance when you can. There is no simple, universal advice on this anymore. One wonders if it will reverse with the new core books, such that the common wisdom will be: Close the distance when you can.
play styles.
The best way to survive combat is to not get into combat.
The second best way to survive combat is to be in it as little as possible.
Oh!
I only count ranged combat as ranges longer than the normal character can cross in one round.
Distances of over 60ft.
If the bad guy can close that distance inside one round then its just hand to hand combat. And any caster who stays inside that range and doesn't protect themselves first is just squishy and dead.