Here's one of my mildest: Rangers have no real reason to exist in a game that already includes Rogues and Fighters. Most unique things Rangers currently do could be converted into subclasses for one of those without much difficulty.
Here's one of my mildest: Rangers have no real reason to exist in a game that already includes Rogues and Fighters. Most unique things Rangers currently do could be converted into subclasses for one of those without much difficulty.
While I do agree, I find myself playing rangers more than rogues.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
It used to be that the rogue/thief was necessary for sneaking, picking locks/disarming traps, and picking pockets. Those were the main things they needed to be in the party for. Now, anyone can o the first two and the last one is, well, I honestly can't recall being in a game where someone decided to lift something from an NPC since 3.5 Edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'd say it's really the rogue that has no reason to exist. Bards are better skill monkeys and sneak attack is inferior to Extra Attack.
I agree that Bards are overtuned and Sneak Attack could use improvement, but the Rogue still has a unique class identity in a way that Rangers don't. You can give a Fighter Hunter's Mark without fundamentally creating a new class; you can't really transfer the Rogue's unique features in the same way.
Rogues are a perfectly fine class that fills a role. My biggest 'why does this class exist' issue is the sorcerer.
Yeah sorcerer doesn't make a ton of sense as a distinct class either, but I get why it exists: a lot of nerds resonate very strongly with the fantasy of having phenomenal cosmic power without having to do any work for it.
I think the Sorcerer concept is perfectly valid as a class, the execution leaves much to be desired and is just a weaker Wizard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Rogues are a perfectly fine class that fills a role. My biggest 'why does this class exist' issue is the sorcerer.
I'm fairly certain they are the originators of the spell slot system. But since everybody does it now, their uniqueness is lost.
They were. When sorcerers were first introduced in 3.0 Edition, they (along with bards) had a limited number of spells known per level but unlike other casters they did not have to pick which spell was assigned to each spell slot, giving them some flexibility compared to a wizard who knew more spells. As 5E axed that, sorcerers lost out, though they did get metamagic which had previously been the wizard's big trick (sorcerers could use metamagic feats in 3rd Edition, but they suffered penalties to doing so).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As 5E axed that, sorcerers lost out, though they did get metamagic which had previously been the wizard's big trick (sorcerers could use metamagic feats in 3rd Edition, but they suffered penalties to doing so).
Sorcerer metamagic was actually fairly important, it let you better optimize your limited spell lists since upcasting didn't exist in 3e.
Upcasting didn't need to exist in 3E because spells got more powerful (whether that was adding dice or increasing the duration) just by going up in level. And while sorcerers could use metamagic in 3E, they couldn't use it nearly as well as wizards could because they had delayed access to higher-level spell slots, using metamagic caused the spell's casting time to change to "one full-round action" if it was less than that or added an extra full-round action to the casting time if it was already a full round or more, and sorcerers, unlike wizards, got no bonus feats that they could spend on learning metamagic feats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
For me, I assume the following goes from least hot to most hot in terms of hot takes.
There is no such thing as overpowered PCs, and no matter how powerful they are, they are no more difficult to deal with than if they are weaker. That being said, it could be challenging if one PC is signifcantly stronger than another PC, since it could potentially be difficult to design encounters that make all PCs feel they contribute equally. But if all PCs are relatively equal in power, they are not difficult to deal with no matter what damage numbers they dish out.
D&D should have a core two of DMG and PHB. Core three with the MM is dumb. If magic items do not get a dedicated core book, neither should monsters. To be clear, I am not opposed to MM existing, and I very much want it to exist, but it makes no sense for MM to be treated with the same reverance as the DMG and PHB.
There is not enough variety of elves. I want avarial elves. I want snow elves. I want Christmas elves (different from snow elves; these elves make toys and are more feylike and whimsical). I want mermaid elves (sea elves are not fishy enough). I want cat elves. I want animalistic/beastial elves (a lot of animalistic races feel like a combination of animal and humans, I want combination of animals and elves). I want giant elves (there are tiny elves in the form of faries and sprites, so I think we are good on that front). I want dwarf elves (dwarves are basically short humans who love gold, live underground, smith metal, etc.; dwarf elves are short elves who love gold, live underground, smith metal, etc.). I want celestial and fiend elves. I want fugly orc elves. I want inorganic elves, like robot elves or crystal elven golems. Basically, instead of humans, I want elves to be the baseline template of various species.
Wizards are not overpowered enough.
D&D should do a science fiction setting. In fact, D&D should also do science fantasy setting and have that as the default genre setting, having the best of both fantasy and science fiction. D&D already got a little bit of horror and comedy, which is nice, but D&D should also do more political intrigue and survival stuff, basically do the social interaction and exploration pillars justice. We got dungeon crawl, but we do not really have a murderhobo book, or basically let the players be the villains.
D&D should be classless. I GM, so D&D is technically classless for me since I can design my NPCs however I want. However, I also want players to experience the same joy that I get with lots of creative freedom.
Rogues are a perfectly fine class that fills a role. My biggest 'why does this class exist' issue is the sorcerer.
I'm fairly certain they are the originators of the spell slot system. But since everybody does it now, their uniqueness is lost.
They were. When sorcerers were first introduced in 3.0 Edition, they (along with bards) had a limited number of spells known per level but unlike other casters they did not have to pick which spell was assigned to each spell slot, giving them some flexibility compared to a wizard who knew more spells. As 5E axed that, sorcerers lost out, though they did get metamagic which had previously been the wizard's big trick (sorcerers could use metamagic feats in 3rd Edition, but they suffered penalties to doing so).
This makes so much more sense. My experience with D&D is mostly 5e with a little 4e; I had always been confused why the class to get metamagic was not Wizards, who spend their entire lives studying how magic works, but rather Sorcerers, who are basically just throwing up their hands and seeing what happens. It makes way more sense for metamagic to be a Wizard trick. Seems like a lot of personality was lost switching all casters over to the spell slot system.
Rogues are a perfectly fine class that fills a role. My biggest 'why does this class exist' issue is the sorcerer.
I'm fairly certain they are the originators of the spell slot system. But since everybody does it now, their uniqueness is lost.
They were. When sorcerers were first introduced in 3.0 Edition, they (along with bards) had a limited number of spells known per level but unlike other casters they did not have to pick which spell was assigned to each spell slot, giving them some flexibility compared to a wizard who knew more spells. As 5E axed that, sorcerers lost out, though they did get metamagic which had previously been the wizard's big trick (sorcerers could use metamagic feats in 3rd Edition, but they suffered penalties to doing so).
This makes so much more sense. My experience with D&D is mostly 5e with a little 4e; I had always been confused why the class to get metamagic was not Wizards, who spend their entire lives studying how magic works, but rather Sorcerers, who are basically just throwing up their hands and seeing what happens. It makes way more sense for metamagic to be a Wizard trick. Seems like a lot of personality was lost switching all casters over to the spell slot system.
The idea is that Sorcerers can push the boundaries of magic in ways that others can't because their magic is so much a part of them rather than a technique learned by rote. Really either take is valid depending on how the fluff spins the classes and their features. IMO if it was still feats either class could take it might make more sense to favor Wizards to reflect the accumulation of knowledge, but as features specific to one class I think it works a little better for sorcerers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yo! i wanna hear some new DnD hot takes (besides the ones warlocks on the sandbar dug themselves)
Here's one of my mildest: Rangers have no real reason to exist in a game that already includes Rogues and Fighters. Most unique things Rangers currently do could be converted into subclasses for one of those without much difficulty.
I'd say it's really the rogue that has no reason to exist. Bards are better skill monkeys and sneak attack is inferior to Extra Attack.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
While I do agree, I find myself playing rangers more than rogues.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
It used to be that the rogue/thief was necessary for sneaking, picking locks/disarming traps, and picking pockets. Those were the main things they needed to be in the party for. Now, anyone can o the first two and the last one is, well, I honestly can't recall being in a game where someone decided to lift something from an NPC since 3.5 Edition.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
so you think rogues are the weakest?
Rogues are a perfectly fine class that fills a role. My biggest 'why does this class exist' issue is the sorcerer.
It's pretty far down.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I agree that Bards are overtuned and Sneak Attack could use improvement, but the Rogue still has a unique class identity in a way that Rangers don't. You can give a Fighter Hunter's Mark without fundamentally creating a new class; you can't really transfer the Rogue's unique features in the same way.
Yeah sorcerer doesn't make a ton of sense as a distinct class either, but I get why it exists: a lot of nerds resonate very strongly with the fantasy of having phenomenal cosmic power without having to do any work for it.
I think the Sorcerer concept is perfectly valid as a class, the execution leaves much to be desired and is just a weaker Wizard.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
one of my DMs runs sorcerers with the spellpoint rule and wizards use slots still
my hot take is rangers and monks need an extra feat at level 6 or 10
Speed is pretty meaningless in this game, and constantly overrated.
I'm fairly certain they are the originators of the spell slot system. But since everybody does it now, their uniqueness is lost.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
They were. When sorcerers were first introduced in 3.0 Edition, they (along with bards) had a limited number of spells known per level but unlike other casters they did not have to pick which spell was assigned to each spell slot, giving them some flexibility compared to a wizard who knew more spells. As 5E axed that, sorcerers lost out, though they did get metamagic which had previously been the wizard's big trick (sorcerers could use metamagic feats in 3rd Edition, but they suffered penalties to doing so).
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Sorcerer metamagic was actually fairly important, it let you better optimize your limited spell lists since upcasting didn't exist in 3e.
Upcasting didn't need to exist in 3E because spells got more powerful (whether that was adding dice or increasing the duration) just by going up in level. And while sorcerers could use metamagic in 3E, they couldn't use it nearly as well as wizards could because they had delayed access to higher-level spell slots, using metamagic caused the spell's casting time to change to "one full-round action" if it was less than that or added an extra full-round action to the casting time if it was already a full round or more, and sorcerers, unlike wizards, got no bonus feats that they could spend on learning metamagic feats.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
For me, I assume the following goes from least hot to most hot in terms of hot takes.
There is no such thing as overpowered PCs, and no matter how powerful they are, they are no more difficult to deal with than if they are weaker. That being said, it could be challenging if one PC is signifcantly stronger than another PC, since it could potentially be difficult to design encounters that make all PCs feel they contribute equally. But if all PCs are relatively equal in power, they are not difficult to deal with no matter what damage numbers they dish out.
D&D should have a core two of DMG and PHB. Core three with the MM is dumb. If magic items do not get a dedicated core book, neither should monsters. To be clear, I am not opposed to MM existing, and I very much want it to exist, but it makes no sense for MM to be treated with the same reverance as the DMG and PHB.
There is not enough variety of elves. I want avarial elves. I want snow elves. I want Christmas elves (different from snow elves; these elves make toys and are more feylike and whimsical). I want mermaid elves (sea elves are not fishy enough). I want cat elves. I want animalistic/beastial elves (a lot of animalistic races feel like a combination of animal and humans, I want combination of animals and elves). I want giant elves (there are tiny elves in the form of faries and sprites, so I think we are good on that front). I want dwarf elves (dwarves are basically short humans who love gold, live underground, smith metal, etc.; dwarf elves are short elves who love gold, live underground, smith metal, etc.). I want celestial and fiend elves. I want fugly orc elves. I want inorganic elves, like robot elves or crystal elven golems. Basically, instead of humans, I want elves to be the baseline template of various species.
Wizards are not overpowered enough.
D&D should do a science fiction setting. In fact, D&D should also do science fantasy setting and have that as the default genre setting, having the best of both fantasy and science fiction. D&D already got a little bit of horror and comedy, which is nice, but D&D should also do more political intrigue and survival stuff, basically do the social interaction and exploration pillars justice. We got dungeon crawl, but we do not really have a murderhobo book, or basically let the players be the villains.
D&D should be classless. I GM, so D&D is technically classless for me since I can design my NPCs however I want. However, I also want players to experience the same joy that I get with lots of creative freedom.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
This makes so much more sense. My experience with D&D is mostly 5e with a little 4e; I had always been confused why the class to get metamagic was not Wizards, who spend their entire lives studying how magic works, but rather Sorcerers, who are basically just throwing up their hands and seeing what happens. It makes way more sense for metamagic to be a Wizard trick. Seems like a lot of personality was lost switching all casters over to the spell slot system.
The idea is that Sorcerers can push the boundaries of magic in ways that others can't because their magic is so much a part of them rather than a technique learned by rote. Really either take is valid depending on how the fluff spins the classes and their features. IMO if it was still feats either class could take it might make more sense to favor Wizards to reflect the accumulation of knowledge, but as features specific to one class I think it works a little better for sorcerers.