Well, looks like there is a lot of good stuff here!
I looked up all of it -- and keep in mind, despite the subscription level, I can't use DnD Beyond's character record system because it doesn't offer me the ability to add Sanity in and I use it, for one example of several -- and yes, if you go for it you can have a high damage dealing kick butt fighter who is, well...
... Compared to a Wizard who can wish, a Cleric who can resurrect, a Thief who can possible walk unseen through a town of thousands, and I won't even get into some of the other possibilities...
... boring.
What if I want my Fighter to be able to search for traps? But not multiclass or change classes or go to a subclass? How can we add that? Feats? in 6e?
So I can only do 5 attacks at 17th level. Fair trade. But if one of those attacks could strike a Goblin Wizard 30 feet away by cutting down the tree he's hiding behind without my having to move away from the three I am fighting at the time through a sword skill, well, now I have a cool thing that matches the ability of the others.
That is, when you have played this for a long time, it is the more "magical" and "impossible" things that make a class "cool" at higher levels to DMGlenntendo and I -- and that isn't saying anything about anyone else. That's really all we are talking about.
Damn, I love this game, lol. You can go so many different directions with it!
As I noted, I am weird. My new campaign and setting are not a published one, and not standard, and as an example there is no way to justify a Druid or Monk (the archetype doesn't have the history and basis to support it), no way to have a Barbarian (there is no barbaric group to come from), and I had to find a way to work in Gunslingers, Magical Girls, and Witches, lol. I figured out Monks (there is a whole segment yanked from Mortal Kombat), and I beefed up Rangers as a result.
That's part of why I said that I am weird. Like DMGlenntendo, I have been playing for a very long time, and I like to take things down to the foundations and build them up -- hence the playtesting cycles. I bend the rules to fit the setting, not bend the setting to fit the rules. And sometimes I break the rules to create new ones, lol.
So I apologize if anything I said made anyone feel as if D&D was failing fighters. It is not. just that for some of us, the fighters feel as if they are getting left behind in the Wow factor after level 15.
The idea of Feats is appealing in a lot of ways -- I am waiting to see what they do with them for 6e, but I wanted players to be able to build a character that doesn't have to fit the strict archetypes. Hell, given the inspirations behind my current effort most of the time that would really weird (none of the listed influences and inspirations from the 1e DMG are allowed).
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 if I want my Fighter to be able to search for traps? But not multiclass or change classes or go to a subclass? How can we add that? Feats? in 6e?
Searching for traps is just a matter of having a good perception or investigate, depending on how your DM rules it, something anyone can do. Disarming them would be a thieves' tool proficiency, which anyone can get with the right background choice. And 1D&D's assumption that backgrounds will be custom will make it even easier to get the skill and tool proficiencies you might want.
And if you want to hit the guy behind the tree without moving yourself, look into echo knight.
Echo knight is a subclass, though, which defeats the point of the exercise. And I can’t be arsed for 2 bucks right now.
and granted, find traps is now perception based check and all, so poor example. The concept remains: unique skill without changing class or subclass. Something that all the kinds of fighters could get.
I mean, it is in the OP title, lol. Think *both* that they need to have something special AND that feats aren’t the answer.
I do. And likely because I played so damn much in the early years, like the OP.
I mean, right now it feels as if everyone must go down a subclass. But I am used to there not being subclasses — or if there were (illusionist, assassin), they weren’t a required direction.
so, to put this in perspective, what can a 15th level Fighter do? Not a subclass of fighter. Just plain fighter. Not battlemaster or arcane archer or other subclass.
that is the kind of thinking here. 5e makes the presumption that such a fighter will go to battlemaster or Samurai, or champion. What about focuses on the development of raw physical power honed to deadly perfection, plus combat is an academic field, sometimes including subjects beyond battle, plus drawing on an implacable fighting spirit to overcome enemies?
no subclass.
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
"Boring" is subjective and if youäve decided that something is boring, there's really nothinga nyone can do unless *you* want to change your mind. Objectively though, fighters havse just as much potential to be not boring as any other class.
What if I want my Fighter to be able to search for traps? But not multiclass or change classes or go to a subclass? How can we add that? Feats? in 6e?
Just, search for traps? What makes you believe that your fighter wouldn't be able to search for traps?
So I can only do 5 attacks at 17th level. Fair trade. But if one of those attacks could strike a Goblin Wizard 30 feet away by cutting down the tree he's hiding behind without my having to move away from the three I am fighting at the time through a sword skill, well, now I have a cool thing that matches the ability of the others.
I think Exlated is the game you're looking for. Or a crossbow or some of the subclasses or, well, hopefully you get the point. Also, why move the goalposts, though? I gave you the answer when you just wanted to cut something 10 feet away (Lunging attack), why does it have to be 30 feet now?
That is, when you have played this for a long time, it is the more "magical" and "impossible" things that make a class "cool" at higher levels to DMGlenntendo and I -- and that isn't saying anything about anyone else. That's really all we are talking about.
And as has been mentioned and exemplified, Fighters have a bunch of abilities that can and should be classified as "Magical" or "impossible". Why aren't those enough?
Damn, I love this game, lol. You can go so many different directions with it!
As I noted, I am weird. My new campaign and setting are not a published one, and not standard, and as an example there is no way to justify a Druid or Monk (the archetype doesn't have the history and basis to support it), no way to have a Barbarian (there is no barbaric group to come from), and I had to find a way to work in Gunslingers, Magical Girls, and Witches, lol. I figured out Monks (there is a whole segment yanked from Mortal Kombat), and I beefed up Rangers as a result.
You do realize that the classes are only an out of game way to justify in-game mechanics? You don't need a "barbaric group" to have a charatcer that is, mechanically, a barbarian. It can just be someone who focuses their fury in such a way that they can withstand large amounts of punishment and still fight on.
That's part of why I said that I am weird. Like DMGlenntendo, I have been playing for a very long time, and I like to take things down to the foundations and build them up -- hence the playtesting cycles. I bend the rules to fit the setting, not bend the setting to fit the rules. And sometimes I break the rules to create new ones, lol.
Didn't you just tell us you didn't bend the rules for the barbarians, druids and monks?
So I apologize if anything I said made anyone feel as if D&D was failing fighters. It is not. just that for some of us, the fighters feel as if they are getting left behind in the Wow factor after level 15.
Again, that is purely subjective. Perhaps using some of that experience you say you have to try to visualize the cool stuff that fighters can do rather than sticking to the old myth that fighters suck after a certain level?
The idea of Feats is appealing in a lot of ways -- I am waiting to see what they do with them for 6e, but I wanted players to be able to build a character that doesn't have to fit the strict archetypes. Hell, given the inspirations behind my current effort most of the time that would really weird (none of the listed influences and inspirations from the 1e DMG are allowed).
Wait, you *don't* want character that are strict archetypes yet you have disallowed a whole bunch of classes simply because they don't follow outdated archetypes? I'm not following.
Echo knight is a subclass, though, which defeats the point of the exercise. And I can’t be arsed for 2 bucks right now.
Uhm, what? All classes have subclasses? Or are you disallowing subclasses in your game as well?
and granted, find traps is now perception based check and all, so poor example. The concept remains: unique skill without changing class or subclass. Something that all the kinds of fighters could get.
Much of the flavour of fighters, just as with clerics and rangers, comes from their subclasses. That's a feature, not a bug. Basically the designers did exactly what you're asking for, they found a way to make it so that all fighters aren't the same old boring stereotypes and said "The Fighter is going to be a pretty bare-bone chassis that will allow for all kinds of cool customizing but to make sure that all fighters can be different some of the major differences will be in their subclasses."
I mean, it is in the OP title, lol. Think *both* that they need to have something special AND that feats aren’t the answer.
They already do. Action sugre, a tonne of attacks and more ASIs than anyone can shake a stick at.
I do. And likely because I played so damn much in the early years, like the OP.
I mean, right now it feels as if everyone must go down a subclass.
Well, yes, that is literally how the game is designed. You also must increase your hit points and your proficiency bonus at certin points of the game.
But I am used to there not being subclasses — or if there were (illusionist, assassin), they weren’t a required direction.
You don't have to have subclasses, just stop playing at level 2 (if you're a fighter). But complaining (and frankly, that is what you are doing) about the existance of subclasses in D&D 5E is like complaining that there are zombies in left 4 dead or that Minecraft is too pixelated. 5E is a game were every class have subclasses. Which is a good thing because it helps move away from "strict archetypes".
so, to put this in perspective, what can a 15th level Fighter do? Not a subclass of fighter. Just plain fighter. Not battlemaster or arcane archer or other subclass.
They can do a bunch of other stuff, as has been mentioned. But why would you want to artificially and arbitrarily strip away some of the the things that make fighters special? Would you also strip warlock's patrons, cleric domains and wizard specializations? Why this bias when it comes to fighters in particular? It doesn't really make any sense. You say you want fighters to be cool, versatile and special yet you don't want the very thing that helps make fighters cool, versatile and special.
that is the kind of thinking here. 5e makes the presumption that such a fighter will go to battlemaster or Samurai, or champion.
You mean that the game presumes that you will actually play the game? Well, yes? It also presumes that fighters will roll a D10 for hit points whereas the wizard only rolls a D6. The games also presumes that you will be using dice, that spellcasters spend spell slots and that you take long rests to recharge hitpoints and class abilities. You've failed to tell us why that is bad thing.
What about focuses on the development of raw physical power honed to deadly perfection, plus combat is an academic field, sometimes including subjects beyond battle, plus drawing on an implacable fighting spirit to overcome enemies?
That actually desribes the Battle Master pretty much to a T. So congratulations, you've found your solution. :)
no subclass.
Again, why this arbitrary, almost nonsensical limitation on subclasses?
Echo knight is a subclass, though, which defeats the point of the exercise. And I can’t be arsed for 2 bucks right now
And your restrictions makes the exercise mainly pointless. You are choosing to exclude a big part of what makes a class by excluding sub-classes, if you think that what's left is uninspiring you only have yourself to blame for that tbh.
But feel free to make whatever changes you like. Take your conceptual ideas and translate them into mechanical rule and see what comes out, playtest it a for a bit (as you already seem to do) to see what works/doesn't. I would have suggested to have a look in the homebrew forum as they create/discuss new stuff all the time but they will expect sub-classes just as much as in here so that might not be for you.
So here is an idea. What if whether they are called feats or whatever, instead of building them as your character progresses, what if all feats were categorized like spells. That is, by feat level, and separated by style like schools of magic. Then as a fighter progresses in level, they gain access to a new portfolio of feats, and instead of gaining a number of spell slots, they gain a number of feat styles. Obviously, this is just the beginning of a brainstorm here, and it would need to be fleshed out to really see if it could work well or not, but I do think it is an intriguing idea myself. Thoughts?
You just described one of the plans for 1D&D. Some feats will be restricted to different class groups. And some feats will be level-gated. So far, we know of level 1 feats and level 4+ feats. No word on if there will be more than that.
The idea after level 20 is to stack on epic boons. The big thing if you do add more levels is you can’t really start doing things that add to proficiency bonus, because with bounded accuracy, the math will break pretty quickly if you do.
Lol, well that is interesting!
Ok, so I finally figured out that 1D&D and 6e are the same thing. You'll have to forgive me, I'm on my way towards becoming an old man here, lol.
It sounds like there are some good changes taking place both to simplify and to make fighters better at higher levels so I am excited to see how things pan out. I am bummed to here that levels beyond 20 are not very flexible with prof. bonus though.
I think another concern I have with 1D&D is that it may not be as flexible as I would like it to be in order to homebrew rules as desired. For example, there are some things that I really like from older editions. My hope is that I can implement these adaptations to PC sheets on D&D Beyond. I have minimal experience on D&D Beyond currently and It seems fairly malleable, but maybe not as much as I would like, or maybe I don't know enough yet. Anyways, point is with 1D&D I hope they keep this homebrew aspect in mind and allow for people to make changes to their character sheets, etc... in the event that they want to adjust mechanics and/or rule systems. That said, this is probably best as a topic for an entirely different thread, but feel free to respond here if you like.
So, as a note, I wasn’t complaining about these things.
I was trying to raise the point of why the OP and I tend to see things differently.
It was suggested that I try a different game — no. There isn’t a need to do so. I was asked why the nonsensical restriction: because if you played 1e or 2e it isn’t nonsensical. Which is the point. I was informed that described the battle master. Which is incorrect, because I described three different subclasses, using the exact wording from all three. Showing that apparently BM, Champion, and Samurai are all the same thing, maybe, to some?
I was asked if I hadn’t just explained that I didn’t bend the rules for druids, barbarians, and monks. I have. Druids became blended with rangers, Barbarians became a kind of gladiator, and monks are still there and I even added in a whole basis for them to have a mortal Kombat type deal where they seek to overcome a dimensional enemy. The archetypes are structured differently, but the simplest description is still present.
Nor did I say exclude subclasses from the game. I said that previously they were not required, and now they are. I note that no one has said a level 15 fighter can do x, simply mocked the set up *because the point I acknowledged* about it being a requirement that all characters move to a subclass is still there.
because there is only level 15 subclasses of fighter in core 5e. Which is fine. It is different from how things used to be. That’s all. Adjusting to 5e after coming from 1e through 3e can be a bit of a challenge, lol.
now, yes, I have completely redone all the classes for my campaign. Those are tested and ready. They do not work in the home brew system here. Which is a freaking amazing thing. No stress. I did it not because I disagree with what was done in 5e, but because what is available doesn’t work for the setting. That is the cool thing: it is still D&D, just different. As different in its way as 5e is from previous editions. Just like 6e/1DnD will be different.
I do have a “normal” game, lol. I play weekly with different groups, entirely online. Can’t use DDB because I use published options from DMG and the system doesn’t include them, but we have playtesters who help figure out this peculiar world I have built. So a lot of this is my giving an example of how things feel, look, seem, when you played old versions and come to this one.
like OP.
I am a cranky old lady now, lol. I remember when we had to play D&D in the snow. Uphill. In the summer. Outdoors! With dice that disintegrated after each game! Dang nabbit! 🤪
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
So, as a note, I wasn’t complaining about these things.
It very much came of as such.
It was suggested that I try a different game — no. There isn’t a need to do so.
Then why the complaining about this game? Sure, you don't really *need* to do anything but the things you asked for can, since you refuse to use the tools provided to you by 5E, be more easily found in other games.
I was asked why the nonsensical restriction: because if you played 1e or 2e it isn’t nonsensical.
That's not really an answer to the question. D&D 5E isn't 1E or 2E any more than it Vampire the Masquerade or Warhammer.
Which is the point.
What isn't the point? You haven't really made one yet.
I was informed that described the battle master. Which is incorrect, because I described three different subclasses, using the exact wording from all three.
Except that those three cherry picked descriptors could quite easily describe a Battle Master, depending on how you build it. But again, it shows the versatility of the Fighter class that you can make the same thing in many different ways. It's a design choice.
Showing that apparently BM, Champion, and Samurai are all the same thing, maybe, to some?
Not really, that's how you choose to interpret the answer rather than listening to it.
I was asked if I hadn’t just explained that I didn’t bend the rules for druids, barbarians, and monks. I have. Druids became blended with rangers, Barbarians became a kind of gladiator, and monks are still there and I even added in a whole basis for them to have a mortal Kombat type deal where they seek to overcome a dimensional enemy. The archetypes are structured differently, but the simplest description is still present.
So the question remains, why complain about the fighter subclasses but not the other subclasses? The opbjections you have towards the fighter makes no sense.
Nor did I say exclude subclasses from the game. I said that previously they were not required, and now they are. I note that no one has said a level 15 fighter can do x, simply mocked the set up *because the point I acknowledged* about it being a requirement that all characters move to a subclass is still there.
Again, is there a point to any of this besides the fact that you arbitrarily choose to dislike the fighter?
incorrect. It was perceived as such -- this is different from coming off as such. As an example, you say that I haven't made a point. yet I have, three times. You simply chose not to perceive it. Another example: you decided that all of this means I arbitraitly dislike the fighter -- which is incorrect.
However, it is rather apparent you like to decide for others what they mean without asking clarifying questions -- as evidenced by your multiple times of doing so.
Note that I wasn't complaining -- I was explaining why many of the responses were not specifically germane to the ask.
Also, if 5e is as different from 1e as those other games (and having played them, it in no way is), then perhaps you don't know the game and its history. Starting with "why is there a 5e". because it is apparent that a significant part of the issue involved is not understanding the differences between the two -- or how we got to this point int he first place.
Note that the specific descriptors are all pulled from the precise explanation of the character. and given your point about being able to make such: if so, then what is the point of having the Samurai or the Champion when you can make a Battlemaster exactly like them? I'll wait.
I specifically made those notes (not complaints, notes and observations within the context provided) because many of the responses were not answering what was asked.
You seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that I have an issue with Fighters. I could make the same arguments about any class -- and not because I have a problem with any of the classes, but because I don't have a problem, and so can see the issues that were being asked about.
Hell, if the clarifying point of "and feats aren't the answer" didn't exist, I would have just said " make some sword skills feats". meanwhile, others hopped in and explained things that did not meet the needs of the OP's original ask. I felt that perhaps a bit more attention should be paid, and chose to explain some of the differences. That you see it as complaining is more about your perception -- your subjective appraisal -- than the reality.
I get that folks are a little on edge because of recent drama and probably a bit protective -- meh. Coming in and deciding for me that I somehow have a hate on for the Fighter is rather absurd and asinine to me.
Then again, my being willing to entertain your feelings here is likely just as much such a thing.
Now, if you would like to have a discussion on the nature of social constructs within a role playing game (which is a really obscure way of saying "talk about mechanics choices") we can do that, as well. Although at this point I worry that if I said the are other ways to do class structures systems (including subclasses) you would simply presume that I hate the entire class system of D&D.
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
Actually, if you *did* want to talk about a class I keep running into theoretical issues with, we absolutely can, lol.
The class in question is the one I usually end up playing: a Cleric -- but it is tied in with the same issue that surrounds the Paladin. And the basis is the problem: both are derived from the exact same archetype.
Now that's a discourse -- but you would probably say I hate clerics or paladins as well and OMG that would be hilarious.
And I am supposed to tell you that if I hate Fighters so much, how come they are the most often played class in my campaigns? That is not something to stress, just I said that I would share it. Personally I would argue that if there was a class I hated, it would be assassins, but I would be ignoring illusionists, which were a huge pain to deal with -- so much that I did ban them, in the mid 80's, from the games i ran in my new unit.
And in both cases, neither of them exist the way they did back then today. Indeed, the current subclass of assassin is very much removed from the original archetypes (yes, plural). The illusionist is pretty much the same kind of annoying, but the rules around them have gotten better.
There, gave you ammunition. Now you know what I do dislike.
Perhaps you can stop with the making stuff up about me?
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
incorrect. It was perceived as such -- this is different from coming off as such. As an example, you say that I haven't made a point. yet I have, three times. You simply chose not to perceive it. Another example: you decided that all of this means I arbitraitly dislike the fighter -- which is incorrect.
That is just blatanly wrong. You can percieve it in a way if it doesn't come of that way. Don't blame me for your being unclear in what your point is.
However, it is rather apparent you like to decide for others what they mean without asking clarifying questions -- as evidenced by your multiple times of doing so.
That is not only completely wrong but also a very rude thing to say. I've asked numerous questions, perhaps you didn't bother to read the whole post?
Note that I wasn't complaining -- I was explaining why many of the responses were not specifically germane to the ask.
They were, though. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that the answer is wrong.
Also, if 5e is as different from 1e as those other games (and having played them, it in no way is), then perhaps you don't know the game and its history. Starting with "why is there a 5e". because it is apparent that a significant part of the issue involved is not understanding the differences between the two -- or how we got to this point int he first place.
Lol. The old "I've been around since first edition so only my opinion on what the game should be like is valid!". Haven't seen that one in a while. Nice gatekeeping.
Note that the specific descriptors are all pulled from the precise explanation of the character. and given your point about being able to make such: if so, then what is the point of having the Samurai or the Champion when you can make a Battlemaster exactly like them? I'll wait.
I already answered this. Didn't you read my reply to this the first time? Or was it too complicated and I need to explain it in simpler terms? Just so that I know why I need to repeat myself.
I specifically made those notes (not complaints, notes and observations within the context provided) because many of the responses were not answering what was asked.
Again, just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that the answers are wrong.
You seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that I have an issue with Fighters. I could make the same arguments about any class -- and not because I have a problem with any of the classes, but because I don't have a problem, and so can see the issues that were being asked about.
And again, there really are no issues except those that you bring to the table becuase *checks notes* "this wasn't how things were back in 1E". The reason why things aren't as they were in 1E has already been explained numerous times, you not being able to accept this is why you come of as complaining.
Hell, if the clarifying point of "and feats aren't the answer" didn't exist, I would have just said " make some sword skills feats". meanwhile, others hopped in and explained things that did not meet the needs of the OP's original ask. I felt that perhaps a bit more attention should be paid, and chose to explain some of the differences. That you see it as complaining is more about your perception -- your subjective appraisal -- than the reality.
See above.
I get that folks are a little on edge because of recent drama and probably a bit protective -- meh. Coming in and deciding for me that I somehow have a hate on for the Fighter is rather absurd and asinine to me.
Why do you use the word hate? It's quite intellectually dishonest to try to pin that word on me. Is there any aprticular reason you feel the need to do that?
Then again, my being willing to entertain your feelings here is likely just as much such a thing.
Why do you think this has anything to do with feelings? Did I hurt yours? Is that it?
Now, if you would like to have a discussion on the nature of social constructs within a role playing game (which is a really obscure way of saying "talk about mechanics choices") we can do that, as well. Although at this point I worry that if I said the are other ways to do class structures systems (including subclasses) you would simply presume that I hate the entire class system of D&D.
Again, why do you feel the need to project opinions on me that I've clearly never expressed? If you have difficulties expressing yourself in a way that doesn't cause confusion, just say so instead of willfully put words in other people's mouths.
As a side note, if you want to adress a particular person, it's customary to quote at least part of that person's post. Otherwise it kind of looks like you're screaming into the void.
As for paladins and clerics, no, it's simply not true that they are derived from the exact same archetype in 5E. Clerics are warriors of the gods and paladins are oathsworn to fulfil a certain goal and doesn't have to have anything to do with gods unless you want to. It's similar to how both barbarians and fighters hit things but they aren't necessarily the same. And again, the reason for this in that 5E there has been quite the move away from previous stereotypes and restrictions (all lineages can be paladins for example and they don't all have to be lawful good). That's just part of the game since a lot of people including the developers think it's more fun when you have more freedom to create the story you want rather than being forced into the same old boring stereotypes all the time.
All of this is of course quite off topic for this thread so perhaps you could start a new thread so that we can keep this one on topic?
I don't think feats are the answer, making weapons interesting again is the answer.
I think that this is a very good point and on topic so kudos to you good sir!
I do agree with you here, at least in part anyhow, as I think this is part of the answer. I have tried looking up magic items online in several different ways, and when it comes to the most powerful artifacts in existence according to 5e (Ring of Winter aside) I am generally underwhelmed. Now with the lore of the Spellplague, I at least understand that it kind of makes sense that there would not be a whole lot out there right now, but I do think they should make more and better items/weapons going forward.
(Does anyone else remember the 2nd edition Encyclopedia Magica Set? They were sooooo cool!)
More specifically to CharlesThePlant's point, I think magic weapons should be cooler! Again though, I may not know enough about 5e on this, so let me state my thoughts based on my current working knowledge, and then please let me know if I am mistaken here.
Last I knew (probably 3.x here) weapons typically topped out with a +5 enhancement bonus (excepting Bane weapons, which do +10 against a specific enemy type). Then, if a weapon has a special property, those special properties used up a variable amount of the enhancement bonus. The better the property, the more bonus it used up. This system made sense, but I personally remember the good old days when a +5 Vorpal sword was actually possible. Yes, a +5 Vorpal sword is super ridiculously powerful and should not be simply handed out like marsh mellows around a campfire, but for those PC's that have really earned it, I think this kind of weapon/item should exist. Maybe they will have to pry it out of the cold dead hands of a super nasty Githyanki first, or whatever, but it should be possible within the game mechanics is my point. Sure, I can always homebrew something, and I do, but I prefer it when the game mechanics allow for it already.
Echo knight is a subclass, though, which defeats the point of the exercise. And I can’t be arsed for 2 bucks right now
And your restrictions makes the exercise mainly pointless. You are choosing to exclude a big part of what makes a class by excluding sub-classes, if you think that what's left is uninspiring you only have yourself to blame for that tbh.
They aren't even subclasses.
EVERY fighter has to choose a Martial Archetype at 3rd level - and Echo Knight is one possible path for fighters to follow. There are 11 listed on the Fighter class page to choose from, each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
I don't think feats are the answer, making weapons interesting again is the answer.
I think that this is a very good point and on topic so kudos to you good sir!
I do agree with you here, at least in part anyhow, as I think this is part of the answer. I have tried looking up magic items online in several different ways, and when it comes to the most powerful artifacts in existence according to 5e (Ring of Winter aside) I am generally underwhelmed. Now with the lore of the Spellplague, I at least understand that it kind of makes sense that there would not be a whole lot out there right now, but I do think they should make more and better items/weapons going forward.
(Does anyone else remember the 2nd edition Encyclopedia Magica Set? They were sooooo cool!)
More specifically to CharlesThePlant's point, I think magic weapons should be cooler! Again though, I may not know enough about 5e on this, so let me state my thoughts based on my current working knowledge, and then please let me know if I am mistaken here.
Last I knew (probably 3.x here) weapons typically topped out with a +5 enhancement bonus (excepting Bane weapons, which do +10 against a specific enemy type). Then, if a weapon has a special property, those special properties used up a variable amount of the enhancement bonus. The better the property, the more bonus it used up. This system made sense, but I personally remember the good old days when a +5 Vorpal sword was actually possible. Yes, a +5 Vorpal sword is super ridiculously powerful and should not be simply handed out like marsh mellows around a campfire, but for those PC's that have really earned it, I think this kind of weapon/item should exist. Maybe they will have to pry it out of the cold dead hands of a super nasty Githyanki first, or whatever, but it should be possible within the game mechanics is my point. Sure, I can always homebrew something, and I do, but I prefer it when the game mechanics allow for it already.
Thank you,
Yeah, 3e went to +5. Now it caps out at +3. It’s really just a mind set adjustment you need to make coming from older editions. Now, +3 is as impressive as +5 was then. It all comes down to the underlying math changing. 3e was, as far as I can tell, the first time they really started to look at the math of the game. They realized they can apply probability and figure out that at x level, with y bonus, you can hit z AC a certain percent of the time. But they also had lots more bonuses scaling by level, ability score, items, etc.
Now, they toned it down with bounded accuracy so the math is tighter. In 3e, they used a much higher AC, cancelled out by a higher to hit bonus. But both try to get you to roughly the same place of hitting about 55% of the time, I think is the general goal. Now you just do it with a +7 instead of a +17.
I agree with more interesting weapons, just saying they’re not going to do it by adding a couple extra pluses. Personally, I preferred having a wider variety of damage die and crit ranges. But then that ends up making the hit point math less predictable.
But some kind of change is coming. Crawford said weapons will do things we’ve not seen before. We should get another round of playtest soon. Could be we’ll see it then.
Your explanation makes perfect sense to me. I figured that math was involved in the making of the system somehow, and I appreciate that b/c it does all need to have a balance to it that works. I guess I just kinda get a happier feeling when the numbers are bigger, but I know that when the math is more difficult it can slow gameplay down (although less so now online). I get that at the end of the day it doesn't really matter though as long as the math all checks out.
I am glad to hear that some new effects will likely be coming out. This gives us something to look forward to.
Hmmm, Ring of Summer maybe?
How about summoning weapons? I'm thinking of an old Final Fantasy game here where your weapon would summon huge monsters to come attack your enemies and then vanish. They could be named after the weapon type and the monster they summon. For ex: Great sword of Red Dragon's Breath. Then I could see it either being a # of times / day and PC decides when to use it, or as a part of an attack and it happens upon a roll of 20 or 19-20, or whatever.
Also stemming from video games (Diablo II), I like the idea of weapons having rune or gem slots. Then the players can find or purchase different runes/gems and swap them in and out of there weapons for different effects. The better the weapon, the more slots it has. Then, the same gems/runes may produce different effects depending on the weapon/item too. For ex: a fire rune in the dragon summoning weapon may cause it to summon a red dragon, but in a different weapon maybe it causes it to become like a flame tongue weapon. Personally, I already like this for homebrew, but I think it is such a great idea that it should be utilized in 1D&D in some manner or another.
I'm not understanding the base issue. Feats are no different in difficulty to implement than subclass abilities. The only difference us that they allow you to customize your characters. Without feats every character within a class/subclass would essentially wind up almost exactly the same.
I will try to sum up the discussion thus far. I created this thread even though I knew that my knowledge of 5e was highly limited b/c I knew that 1D&D was in the works and I did not want to miss the boat on expressing my concerns. In other words, my concerns really stemmed primarily from 3.x and earlier editions. However, I had gleaned enough about 5e to know that feats were still a thing, and I did not like feats in 3.x.
After discussing the issue with folks, it seems like feats have been improved both to make them a simpler system and to make them more impactful. So right there a lot of my concerns have been alleviated. Really what remains is the general discussion is: should fighters be made more powerful in later levels or not? I personally do support this in order to make epic characters really feel epic. I think feats can still be utilized in this way, but I think they should all be listed in one book, rather than scattered around a little in each book like in 3.x, and I think feats should be more impactful with less prerequisite feats than were in 3.x (people in this thread have said that these were both improved in 5e).
As for the subclass discussion, I think the main point is not that subclasses are not a viable answer to a lot of these concerns, but that there should also be a viable path for someone to put all there levels in any one base class, whether fighter, wizard, cleric, etc... and have that be just as powerful.
Early on in this thread I compared a 20th level wizard to a 20th level fighter, and argued that in 3.x the wizard would mop the floor with the fighter every time unless perfect conditions allowed the fighter to have a chance. Our discussion here has shed light that 5e has narrowed that playing field a bit. My question remains is it enough? I don't think they should be equal, as I get that fighters are generally stronger earlier and wizards are stronger later, but narrowing the gap a little further might be in order.
Bottom line, a wizard can literally wish for anything they want, or stop time. A cleric can ask their deity for a miracle, or resurrect someone. Rogues were traditionally underpowered in 3.x also, but it seems that they have been greatly improved in 5e. So does a pure fighter have enough, or should they be improved further relative to the other core classes.
As for the subclass discussion, I think the main point is not that subclasses are not a viable answer to a lot of these concerns, but that there should also be a viable path for someone to put all there levels in any one base class, whether fighter, wizard, cleric, etc... and have that be just as powerful.
I will repeat what I said earlier. There is no "subclass" going on here - EVERY fighter has to pick an archetype at 3rd level. It isn't multiclassing, they continue to gain levels in only fighter.
The choice of archetype gives the fighter different abilities at various levels as they progress through the Fighter class; and some of these have choices, so that even two fighters with the same archetype can be quite different by the time they reach higher levels.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, looks like there is a lot of good stuff here!
I looked up all of it -- and keep in mind, despite the subscription level, I can't use DnD Beyond's character record system because it doesn't offer me the ability to add Sanity in and I use it, for one example of several -- and yes, if you go for it you can have a high damage dealing kick butt fighter who is, well...
... Compared to a Wizard who can wish, a Cleric who can resurrect, a Thief who can possible walk unseen through a town of thousands, and I won't even get into some of the other possibilities...
... boring.
What if I want my Fighter to be able to search for traps? But not multiclass or change classes or go to a subclass? How can we add that? Feats? in 6e?
So I can only do 5 attacks at 17th level. Fair trade. But if one of those attacks could strike a Goblin Wizard 30 feet away by cutting down the tree he's hiding behind without my having to move away from the three I am fighting at the time through a sword skill, well, now I have a cool thing that matches the ability of the others.
That is, when you have played this for a long time, it is the more "magical" and "impossible" things that make a class "cool" at higher levels to DMGlenntendo and I -- and that isn't saying anything about anyone else. That's really all we are talking about.
Damn, I love this game, lol. You can go so many different directions with it!
As I noted, I am weird. My new campaign and setting are not a published one, and not standard, and as an example there is no way to justify a Druid or Monk (the archetype doesn't have the history and basis to support it), no way to have a Barbarian (there is no barbaric group to come from), and I had to find a way to work in Gunslingers, Magical Girls, and Witches, lol. I figured out Monks (there is a whole segment yanked from Mortal Kombat), and I beefed up Rangers as a result.
That's part of why I said that I am weird. Like DMGlenntendo, I have been playing for a very long time, and I like to take things down to the foundations and build them up -- hence the playtesting cycles. I bend the rules to fit the setting, not bend the setting to fit the rules. And sometimes I break the rules to create new ones, lol.
So I apologize if anything I said made anyone feel as if D&D was failing fighters. It is not. just that for some of us, the fighters feel as if they are getting left behind in the Wow factor after level 15.
The idea of Feats is appealing in a lot of ways -- I am waiting to see what they do with them for 6e, but I wanted players to be able to build a character that doesn't have to fit the strict archetypes. Hell, given the inspirations behind my current effort most of the time that would really weird (none of the listed influences and inspirations from the 1e DMG are allowed).
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
Searching for traps is just a matter of having a good perception or investigate, depending on how your DM rules it, something anyone can do. Disarming them would be a thieves' tool proficiency, which anyone can get with the right background choice. And 1D&D's assumption that backgrounds will be custom will make it even easier to get the skill and tool proficiencies you might want.
And if you want to hit the guy behind the tree without moving yourself, look into echo knight.
Echo knight is a subclass, though, which defeats the point of the exercise. And I can’t be arsed for 2 bucks right now.
and granted, find traps is now perception based check and all, so poor example. The concept remains: unique skill without changing class or subclass. Something that all the kinds of fighters could get.
I mean, it is in the OP title, lol. Think *both* that they need to have something special AND that feats aren’t the answer.
I do. And likely because I played so damn much in the early years, like the OP.
I mean, right now it feels as if everyone must go down a subclass. But I am used to there not being subclasses — or if there were (illusionist, assassin), they weren’t a required direction.
so, to put this in perspective, what can a 15th level Fighter do? Not a subclass of fighter. Just plain fighter. Not battlemaster or arcane archer or other subclass.
that is the kind of thinking here. 5e makes the presumption that such a fighter will go to battlemaster or Samurai, or champion. What about focuses on the development of raw physical power honed to deadly perfection, plus combat is an academic field, sometimes including subjects beyond battle, plus drawing on an implacable fighting spirit to overcome enemies?
no subclass.
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
"Boring" is subjective and if youäve decided that something is boring, there's really nothinga nyone can do unless *you* want to change your mind. Objectively though, fighters havse just as much potential to be not boring as any other class.
Just, search for traps? What makes you believe that your fighter wouldn't be able to search for traps?
I think Exlated is the game you're looking for. Or a crossbow or some of the subclasses or, well, hopefully you get the point. Also, why move the goalposts, though? I gave you the answer when you just wanted to cut something 10 feet away (Lunging attack), why does it have to be 30 feet now?
And as has been mentioned and exemplified, Fighters have a bunch of abilities that can and should be classified as "Magical" or "impossible". Why aren't those enough?
You do realize that the classes are only an out of game way to justify in-game mechanics? You don't need a "barbaric group" to have a charatcer that is, mechanically, a barbarian. It can just be someone who focuses their fury in such a way that they can withstand large amounts of punishment and still fight on.
Didn't you just tell us you didn't bend the rules for the barbarians, druids and monks?
Again, that is purely subjective. Perhaps using some of that experience you say you have to try to visualize the cool stuff that fighters can do rather than sticking to the old myth that fighters suck after a certain level?
Wait, you *don't* want character that are strict archetypes yet you have disallowed a whole bunch of classes simply because they don't follow outdated archetypes? I'm not following.
Uhm, what? All classes have subclasses? Or are you disallowing subclasses in your game as well?
Much of the flavour of fighters, just as with clerics and rangers, comes from their subclasses. That's a feature, not a bug. Basically the designers did exactly what you're asking for, they found a way to make it so that all fighters aren't the same old boring stereotypes and said "The Fighter is going to be a pretty bare-bone chassis that will allow for all kinds of cool customizing but to make sure that all fighters can be different some of the major differences will be in their subclasses."
They already do. Action sugre, a tonne of attacks and more ASIs than anyone can shake a stick at.
Well, yes, that is literally how the game is designed. You also must increase your hit points and your proficiency bonus at certin points of the game.
You don't have to have subclasses, just stop playing at level 2 (if you're a fighter). But complaining (and frankly, that is what you are doing) about the existance of subclasses in D&D 5E is like complaining that there are zombies in left 4 dead or that Minecraft is too pixelated. 5E is a game were every class have subclasses. Which is a good thing because it helps move away from "strict archetypes".
They can do a bunch of other stuff, as has been mentioned. But why would you want to artificially and arbitrarily strip away some of the the things that make fighters special? Would you also strip warlock's patrons, cleric domains and wizard specializations? Why this bias when it comes to fighters in particular? It doesn't really make any sense. You say you want fighters to be cool, versatile and special yet you don't want the very thing that helps make fighters cool, versatile and special.
You mean that the game presumes that you will actually play the game? Well, yes? It also presumes that fighters will roll a D10 for hit points whereas the wizard only rolls a D6. The games also presumes that you will be using dice, that spellcasters spend spell slots and that you take long rests to recharge hitpoints and class abilities. You've failed to tell us why that is bad thing.
That actually desribes the Battle Master pretty much to a T. So congratulations, you've found your solution. :)
Again, why this arbitrary, almost nonsensical limitation on subclasses?
I don't think feats are the answer, making weapons interesting again is the answer.
And your restrictions makes the exercise mainly pointless. You are choosing to exclude a big part of what makes a class by excluding sub-classes, if you think that what's left is uninspiring you only have yourself to blame for that tbh.
But feel free to make whatever changes you like. Take your conceptual ideas and translate them into mechanical rule and see what comes out, playtest it a for a bit (as you already seem to do) to see what works/doesn't. I would have suggested to have a look in the homebrew forum as they create/discuss new stuff all the time but they will expect sub-classes just as much as in here so that might not be for you.
Lol, well that is interesting!
Ok, so I finally figured out that 1D&D and 6e are the same thing. You'll have to forgive me, I'm on my way towards becoming an old man here, lol.
It sounds like there are some good changes taking place both to simplify and to make fighters better at higher levels so I am excited to see how things pan out. I am bummed to here that levels beyond 20 are not very flexible with prof. bonus though.
I think another concern I have with 1D&D is that it may not be as flexible as I would like it to be in order to homebrew rules as desired. For example, there are some things that I really like from older editions. My hope is that I can implement these adaptations to PC sheets on D&D Beyond. I have minimal experience on D&D Beyond currently and It seems fairly malleable, but maybe not as much as I would like, or maybe I don't know enough yet. Anyways, point is with 1D&D I hope they keep this homebrew aspect in mind and allow for people to make changes to their character sheets, etc... in the event that they want to adjust mechanics and/or rule systems. That said, this is probably best as a topic for an entirely different thread, but feel free to respond here if you like.
Thanks again to everyone for the feedback.
So, as a note, I wasn’t complaining about these things.
I was trying to raise the point of why the OP and I tend to see things differently.
It was suggested that I try a different game — no. There isn’t a need to do so. I was asked why the nonsensical restriction: because if you played 1e or 2e it isn’t nonsensical. Which is the point. I was informed that described the battle master. Which is incorrect, because I described three different subclasses, using the exact wording from all three. Showing that apparently BM, Champion, and Samurai are all the same thing, maybe, to some?
I was asked if I hadn’t just explained that I didn’t bend the rules for druids, barbarians, and monks. I have. Druids became blended with rangers, Barbarians became a kind of gladiator, and monks are still there and I even added in a whole basis for them to have a mortal Kombat type deal where they seek to overcome a dimensional enemy. The archetypes are structured differently, but the simplest description is still present.
Nor did I say exclude subclasses from the game. I said that previously they were not required, and now they are. I note that no one has said a level 15 fighter can do x, simply mocked the set up *because the point I acknowledged* about it being a requirement that all characters move to a subclass is still there.
because there is only level 15 subclasses of fighter in core 5e. Which is fine. It is different from how things used to be. That’s all. Adjusting to 5e after coming from 1e through 3e can be a bit of a challenge, lol.
now, yes, I have completely redone all the classes for my campaign. Those are tested and ready. They do not work in the home brew system here. Which is a freaking amazing thing. No stress. I did it not because I disagree with what was done in 5e, but because what is available doesn’t work for the setting. That is the cool thing: it is still D&D, just different. As different in its way as 5e is from previous editions. Just like 6e/1DnD will be different.
I do have a “normal” game, lol. I play weekly with different groups, entirely online. Can’t use DDB because I use published options from DMG and the system doesn’t include them, but we have playtesters who help figure out this peculiar world I have built. So a lot of this is my giving an example of how things feel, look, seem, when you played old versions and come to this one.
like OP.
I am a cranky old lady now, lol. I remember when we had to play D&D in the snow. Uphill. In the summer. Outdoors! With dice that disintegrated after each game! Dang nabbit! 🤪
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
It very much came of as such.
Then why the complaining about this game? Sure, you don't really *need* to do anything but the things you asked for can, since you refuse to use the tools provided to you by 5E, be more easily found in other games.
That's not really an answer to the question. D&D 5E isn't 1E or 2E any more than it Vampire the Masquerade or Warhammer.
What isn't the point? You haven't really made one yet.
Except that those three cherry picked descriptors could quite easily describe a Battle Master, depending on how you build it. But again, it shows the versatility of the Fighter class that you can make the same thing in many different ways. It's a design choice.
Not really, that's how you choose to interpret the answer rather than listening to it.
So the question remains, why complain about the fighter subclasses but not the other subclasses? The opbjections you have towards the fighter makes no sense.
Again, is there a point to any of this besides the fact that you arbitrarily choose to dislike the fighter?
incorrect. It was perceived as such -- this is different from coming off as such. As an example, you say that I haven't made a point. yet I have, three times. You simply chose not to perceive it. Another example: you decided that all of this means I arbitraitly dislike the fighter -- which is incorrect.
However, it is rather apparent you like to decide for others what they mean without asking clarifying questions -- as evidenced by your multiple times of doing so.
Note that I wasn't complaining -- I was explaining why many of the responses were not specifically germane to the ask.
Also, if 5e is as different from 1e as those other games (and having played them, it in no way is), then perhaps you don't know the game and its history. Starting with "why is there a 5e". because it is apparent that a significant part of the issue involved is not understanding the differences between the two -- or how we got to this point int he first place.
Note that the specific descriptors are all pulled from the precise explanation of the character. and given your point about being able to make such: if so, then what is the point of having the Samurai or the Champion when you can make a Battlemaster exactly like them? I'll wait.
I specifically made those notes (not complaints, notes and observations within the context provided) because many of the responses were not answering what was asked.
You seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that I have an issue with Fighters. I could make the same arguments about any class -- and not because I have a problem with any of the classes, but because I don't have a problem, and so can see the issues that were being asked about.
Hell, if the clarifying point of "and feats aren't the answer" didn't exist, I would have just said " make some sword skills feats". meanwhile, others hopped in and explained things that did not meet the needs of the OP's original ask. I felt that perhaps a bit more attention should be paid, and chose to explain some of the differences. That you see it as complaining is more about your perception -- your subjective appraisal -- than the reality.
I get that folks are a little on edge because of recent drama and probably a bit protective -- meh. Coming in and deciding for me that I somehow have a hate on for the Fighter is rather absurd and asinine to me.
Then again, my being willing to entertain your feelings here is likely just as much such a thing.
Now, if you would like to have a discussion on the nature of social constructs within a role playing game (which is a really obscure way of saying "talk about mechanics choices") we can do that, as well. Although at this point I worry that if I said the are other ways to do class structures systems (including subclasses) you would simply presume that I hate the entire class system of D&D.
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
Actually, if you *did* want to talk about a class I keep running into theoretical issues with, we absolutely can, lol.
The class in question is the one I usually end up playing: a Cleric -- but it is tied in with the same issue that surrounds the Paladin. And the basis is the problem: both are derived from the exact same archetype.
Now that's a discourse -- but you would probably say I hate clerics or paladins as well and OMG that would be hilarious.
And I am supposed to tell you that if I hate Fighters so much, how come they are the most often played class in my campaigns? That is not something to stress, just I said that I would share it. Personally I would argue that if there was a class I hated, it would be assassins, but I would be ignoring illusionists, which were a huge pain to deal with -- so much that I did ban them, in the mid 80's, from the games i ran in my new unit.
And in both cases, neither of them exist the way they did back then today. Indeed, the current subclass of assassin is very much removed from the original archetypes (yes, plural). The illusionist is pretty much the same kind of annoying, but the rules around them have gotten better.
There, gave you ammunition. Now you know what I do dislike.
Perhaps you can stop with the making stuff up about me?
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 is just blatanly wrong. You can percieve it in a way if it doesn't come of that way. Don't blame me for your being unclear in what your point is.
That is not only completely wrong but also a very rude thing to say. I've asked numerous questions, perhaps you didn't bother to read the whole post?
They were, though. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that the answer is wrong.
I already answered this. Didn't you read my reply to this the first time? Or was it too complicated and I need to explain it in simpler terms? Just so that I know why I need to repeat myself.
Again, just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that the answers are wrong.
And again, there really are no issues except those that you bring to the table becuase *checks notes* "this wasn't how things were back in 1E". The reason why things aren't as they were in 1E has already been explained numerous times, you not being able to accept this is why you come of as complaining.
See above.
Why do you use the word hate? It's quite intellectually dishonest to try to pin that word on me. Is there any aprticular reason you feel the need to do that?
Why do you think this has anything to do with feelings? Did I hurt yours? Is that it?
Again, why do you feel the need to project opinions on me that I've clearly never expressed? If you have difficulties expressing yourself in a way that doesn't cause confusion, just say so instead of willfully put words in other people's mouths.
As a side note, if you want to adress a particular person, it's customary to quote at least part of that person's post. Otherwise it kind of looks like you're screaming into the void.
As for paladins and clerics, no, it's simply not true that they are derived from the exact same archetype in 5E. Clerics are warriors of the gods and paladins are oathsworn to fulfil a certain goal and doesn't have to have anything to do with gods unless you want to. It's similar to how both barbarians and fighters hit things but they aren't necessarily the same. And again, the reason for this in that 5E there has been quite the move away from previous stereotypes and restrictions (all lineages can be paladins for example and they don't all have to be lawful good). That's just part of the game since a lot of people including the developers think it's more fun when you have more freedom to create the story you want rather than being forced into the same old boring stereotypes all the time.
All of this is of course quite off topic for this thread so perhaps you could start a new thread so that we can keep this one on topic?
I think that this is a very good point and on topic so kudos to you good sir!
I do agree with you here, at least in part anyhow, as I think this is part of the answer. I have tried looking up magic items online in several different ways, and when it comes to the most powerful artifacts in existence according to 5e (Ring of Winter aside) I am generally underwhelmed. Now with the lore of the Spellplague, I at least understand that it kind of makes sense that there would not be a whole lot out there right now, but I do think they should make more and better items/weapons going forward.
(Does anyone else remember the 2nd edition Encyclopedia Magica Set? They were sooooo cool!)
More specifically to CharlesThePlant's point, I think magic weapons should be cooler! Again though, I may not know enough about 5e on this, so let me state my thoughts based on my current working knowledge, and then please let me know if I am mistaken here.
Last I knew (probably 3.x here) weapons typically topped out with a +5 enhancement bonus (excepting Bane weapons, which do +10 against a specific enemy type). Then, if a weapon has a special property, those special properties used up a variable amount of the enhancement bonus. The better the property, the more bonus it used up. This system made sense, but I personally remember the good old days when a +5 Vorpal sword was actually possible. Yes, a +5 Vorpal sword is super ridiculously powerful and should not be simply handed out like marsh mellows around a campfire, but for those PC's that have really earned it, I think this kind of weapon/item should exist. Maybe they will have to pry it out of the cold dead hands of a super nasty Githyanki first, or whatever, but it should be possible within the game mechanics is my point. Sure, I can always homebrew something, and I do, but I prefer it when the game mechanics allow for it already.
Thank you,
They aren't even subclasses.
EVERY fighter has to choose a Martial Archetype at 3rd level - and Echo Knight is one possible path for fighters to follow. There are 11 listed on the Fighter class page to choose from, each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Yeah, 3e went to +5. Now it caps out at +3. It’s really just a mind set adjustment you need to make coming from older editions. Now, +3 is as impressive as +5 was then. It all comes down to the underlying math changing.
3e was, as far as I can tell, the first time they really started to look at the math of the game. They realized they can apply probability and figure out that at x level, with y bonus, you can hit z AC a certain percent of the time. But they also had lots more bonuses scaling by level, ability score, items, etc.
Now, they toned it down with bounded accuracy so the math is tighter. In 3e, they used a much higher AC, cancelled out by a higher to hit bonus. But both try to get you to roughly the same place of hitting about 55% of the time, I think is the general goal. Now you just do it with a +7 instead of a +17.
I agree with more interesting weapons, just saying they’re not going to do it by adding a couple extra pluses. Personally, I preferred having a wider variety of damage die and crit ranges. But then that ends up making the hit point math less predictable.
But some kind of change is coming. Crawford said weapons will do things we’ve not seen before. We should get another round of playtest soon. Could be we’ll see it then.
Thanks Xalthu,
Your explanation makes perfect sense to me. I figured that math was involved in the making of the system somehow, and I appreciate that b/c it does all need to have a balance to it that works. I guess I just kinda get a happier feeling when the numbers are bigger, but I know that when the math is more difficult it can slow gameplay down (although less so now online). I get that at the end of the day it doesn't really matter though as long as the math all checks out.
I am glad to hear that some new effects will likely be coming out. This gives us something to look forward to.
Hmmm, Ring of Summer maybe?
How about summoning weapons? I'm thinking of an old Final Fantasy game here where your weapon would summon huge monsters to come attack your enemies and then vanish. They could be named after the weapon type and the monster they summon. For ex: Great sword of Red Dragon's Breath. Then I could see it either being a # of times / day and PC decides when to use it, or as a part of an attack and it happens upon a roll of 20 or 19-20, or whatever.
Also stemming from video games (Diablo II), I like the idea of weapons having rune or gem slots. Then the players can find or purchase different runes/gems and swap them in and out of there weapons for different effects. The better the weapon, the more slots it has. Then, the same gems/runes may produce different effects depending on the weapon/item too. For ex: a fire rune in the dragon summoning weapon may cause it to summon a red dragon, but in a different weapon maybe it causes it to become like a flame tongue weapon. Personally, I already like this for homebrew, but I think it is such a great idea that it should be utilized in 1D&D in some manner or another.
Thanks again,
I'm not understanding the base issue. Feats are no different in difficulty to implement than subclass abilities. The only difference us that they allow you to customize your characters. Without feats every character within a class/subclass would essentially wind up almost exactly the same.
Ok, no prob.
I will try to sum up the discussion thus far. I created this thread even though I knew that my knowledge of 5e was highly limited b/c I knew that 1D&D was in the works and I did not want to miss the boat on expressing my concerns. In other words, my concerns really stemmed primarily from 3.x and earlier editions. However, I had gleaned enough about 5e to know that feats were still a thing, and I did not like feats in 3.x.
After discussing the issue with folks, it seems like feats have been improved both to make them a simpler system and to make them more impactful. So right there a lot of my concerns have been alleviated. Really what remains is the general discussion is: should fighters be made more powerful in later levels or not? I personally do support this in order to make epic characters really feel epic. I think feats can still be utilized in this way, but I think they should all be listed in one book, rather than scattered around a little in each book like in 3.x, and I think feats should be more impactful with less prerequisite feats than were in 3.x (people in this thread have said that these were both improved in 5e).
As for the subclass discussion, I think the main point is not that subclasses are not a viable answer to a lot of these concerns, but that there should also be a viable path for someone to put all there levels in any one base class, whether fighter, wizard, cleric, etc... and have that be just as powerful.
Early on in this thread I compared a 20th level wizard to a 20th level fighter, and argued that in 3.x the wizard would mop the floor with the fighter every time unless perfect conditions allowed the fighter to have a chance. Our discussion here has shed light that 5e has narrowed that playing field a bit. My question remains is it enough? I don't think they should be equal, as I get that fighters are generally stronger earlier and wizards are stronger later, but narrowing the gap a little further might be in order.
Bottom line, a wizard can literally wish for anything they want, or stop time. A cleric can ask their deity for a miracle, or resurrect someone. Rogues were traditionally underpowered in 3.x also, but it seems that they have been greatly improved in 5e. So does a pure fighter have enough, or should they be improved further relative to the other core classes.
Thank you,
The solution was the 4e fighter.
I will repeat what I said earlier. There is no "subclass" going on here - EVERY fighter has to pick an archetype at 3rd level. It isn't multiclassing, they continue to gain levels in only fighter.
The choice of archetype gives the fighter different abilities at various levels as they progress through the Fighter class; and some of these have choices, so that even two fighters with the same archetype can be quite different by the time they reach higher levels.