Druid definitely, while they have boosted up Land to be playable now, there still isn't anything "Wow" about Druid, and in fact their one thing that was special about them - conjuring - has been taken away.
I'm in favor of the conjuring changes, those spells needed nerfs/reworks. But I disagree that those were what was special about them.
Ranged already took a hit natively by having fewer weapon mastery choices than melee (especially archery.)
Note that I'm not saying they should bring old Sharpshooter back - I'm saying the new one could get a more modest 1/round damage increase like GWM did. The UA2 Sharpshooter is just gutted. Note also that a 1/round damage boost would also make XBE weaker since the bonus action attack is far less likely to benefit.
Maybe but it should do a decent bit less damage than melee. I guess time will tell but I think its about in the right spot now.
One of my groups has started playing Pathfinder 2e where ranged does significantly less damage than melee, and basically... nobody plays a ranged weapon user. Either they play a melee-martial or they play a spellcaster. Ranged weapons simply don't have a niche, so there is no reason to use them, they don't do high damage like melee characters nor do they have the utility of spellcasters, so why would you build a character that uses them? - as an explicit example: Why would anyone play a range weapon using Ranger or Fighter rather than a Warlock? Ranger does 1d8+DEX+1d6(Hunter's Mark), Fighter does 1d8+DEX vs Warlock does 1d10+CH+1d6(Hex), but Warlock gets better spellcasting, and loads of Invocations, vs....???
Druid definitely, while they have boosted up Land to be playable now, there still isn't anything "Wow" about Druid, and in fact their one thing that was special about them - conjuring - has been taken away.
I'm in favor of the conjuring changes, those spells needed nerfs/reworks. But I disagree that those were what was special about them.
Then what is special about them? What about the UA druid makes it stand out above all the other classes?
Ranged already took a hit natively by having fewer weapon mastery choices than melee (especially archery.)
Note that I'm not saying they should bring old Sharpshooter back - I'm saying the new one could get a more modest 1/round damage increase like GWM did. The UA2 Sharpshooter is just gutted. Note also that a 1/round damage boost would also make XBE weaker since the bonus action attack is far less likely to benefit.
Maybe but it should do a decent bit less damage than melee. I guess time will tell but I think its about in the right spot now.
Quite frankly, I feel that the ability to take a -PB penalty to attack to gain a 2×PB bonus to damage on any given attack once on each of your turns should just be baked into the mechanics of the game for everyone to use as a “called shot” or something.
I'm in favor of the conjuring changes, those spells needed nerfs/reworks. But I disagree that those were what was special about them.
Then what is special about them? What about the UA druid makes it stand out above all the other classes?
The entire rest of their spell list? Elemental Fury? Being the only caster in the game who can create an extra 8th-level spell slot?
And they're still great summoners even without the absolute mess that is Conjure Animals. Beasts, Fey, Elementals, Dragons...
I'm not saying they're perfect as-is; in addition to Moon Druid's ongoing issues I think Wild Resurgence could use some work too. And I'm hoping some of the spell list changes they had earlier in the playtest stick, like giving them Enlarge/Reduce, Silence, Revivify etc. But they're still one of the more powerful classes in the game even with the CA nerf.
The entire rest of their spell list? Elemental Fury?
The vast majority of their spell list is available to other casters and most of their class-specific spells pale in comparison to the spells they don't have access to. Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks all get better and more summoning options than Druid does. Elemental Fury is a weaker version of the cleric's Divine Strike.
Being the only caster in the game who can create an extra 8th-level spell slot?
Ok 1 feature at 20th level that you can use 1/day is what makes them special to you? Something that will never be used in a majority of campaigns.
They are just a cleric with some leaves glued on them in the UA.
Ranged already took a hit natively by having fewer weapon mastery choices than melee (especially archery.)
Note that I'm not saying they should bring old Sharpshooter back - I'm saying the new one could get a more modest 1/round damage increase like GWM did. The UA2 Sharpshooter is just gutted. Note also that a 1/round damage boost would also make XBE weaker since the bonus action attack is far less likely to benefit.
Maybe but it should do a decent bit less damage than melee. I guess time will tell but I think its about in the right spot now.
One of my groups has started playing Pathfinder 2e where ranged does significantly less damage than melee, and basically... nobody plays a ranged weapon user. Either they play a melee-martial or they play a spellcaster. Ranged weapons simply don't have a niche, so there is no reason to use them, they don't do high damage like melee characters nor do they have the utility of spellcasters, so why would you build a character that uses them? - as an explicit example: Why would anyone play a range weapon using Ranger or Fighter rather than a Warlock? Ranger does 1d8+DEX+1d6(Hunter's Mark), Fighter does 1d8+DEX vs Warlock does 1d10+CH+1d6(Hex), but Warlock gets better spellcasting, and loads of Invocations, vs....???
Ranged already took a hit natively by having fewer weapon mastery choices than melee (especially archery.)
Note that I'm not saying they should bring old Sharpshooter back - I'm saying the new one could get a more modest 1/round damage increase like GWM did. The UA2 Sharpshooter is just gutted. Note also that a 1/round damage boost would also make XBE weaker since the bonus action attack is far less likely to benefit.
Maybe but it should do a decent bit less damage than melee. I guess time will tell but I think its about in the right spot now.
Quite frankly, I feel that the ability to take a -PB penalty to attack to gain a 2×PB bonus to damage on any given attack once on each of your turns should just be baked into the mechanics of the game for everyone to use as a “called shot” or something.
I don't mind if there is a core called shot mechanic. At the end of the day though ranged should do less damage than melee otherwise there is no reason to use melee.
Ranged already took a hit natively by having fewer weapon mastery choices than melee (especially archery.)
Note that I'm not saying they should bring old Sharpshooter back - I'm saying the new one could get a more modest 1/round damage increase like GWM did. The UA2 Sharpshooter is just gutted. Note also that a 1/round damage boost would also make XBE weaker since the bonus action attack is far less likely to benefit.
Maybe but it should do a decent bit less damage than melee. I guess time will tell but I think its about in the right spot now.
Quite frankly, I feel that the ability to take a -PB penalty to attack to gain a 2×PB bonus to damage on any given attack once on each of your turns should just be baked into the mechanics of the game for everyone to use as a “called shot” or something.
they got rid of power attack because they said it was too easy to mitigate lower accuracy, and that feature was warping the game design. I agree
Ranged already took a hit natively by having fewer weapon mastery choices than melee (especially archery.)
Note that I'm not saying they should bring old Sharpshooter back - I'm saying the new one could get a more modest 1/round damage increase like GWM did. The UA2 Sharpshooter is just gutted. Note also that a 1/round damage boost would also make XBE weaker since the bonus action attack is far less likely to benefit.
Maybe but it should do a decent bit less damage than melee. I guess time will tell but I think its about in the right spot now.
Quite frankly, I feel that the ability to take a -PB penalty to attack to gain a 2×PB bonus to damage on any given attack once on each of your turns should just be baked into the mechanics of the game for everyone to use as a “called shot” or something.
they got rid of power attack because they said it was too easy to mitigate lower accuracy, and that feature was warping the game design. I agree
Given that martials are generally worse off than casters even if true in 5es(ones) bounded accuracy system I think its a good thing. Personally I'd prefer making martials more superhuman but tons of people want them super mundane so at least a damage boost they can easily tap into and benefit the most from would help.
Ranged already took a hit natively by having fewer weapon mastery choices than melee (especially archery.)
Note that I'm not saying they should bring old Sharpshooter back - I'm saying the new one could get a more modest 1/round damage increase like GWM did. The UA2 Sharpshooter is just gutted. Note also that a 1/round damage boost would also make XBE weaker since the bonus action attack is far less likely to benefit.
Maybe but it should do a decent bit less damage than melee. I guess time will tell but I think its about in the right spot now.
Quite frankly, I feel that the ability to take a -PB penalty to attack to gain a 2×PB bonus to damage on any given attack once on each of your turns should just be baked into the mechanics of the game for everyone to use as a “called shot” or something.
I don't mind if there is a core called shot mechanic. At the end of the day though ranged should do less damage than melee otherwise there is no reason to use melee.
Correct. Ranged DPR is safer, so it should do less damage to make up for it. Melee has to work harder and take more risks. Those should pay off.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Sorcerer Summoning Spells: [OK I forgot they didn't give Sorcerer any of the summon spells.]
Warlock Summoning Spells: Summon Fey, Summon Shadowspawn, Summon Undead, Summon Aberration, Summon Fiend Total: 5 With Ranged Attacks: 1/3 undead, 1/3 aberration, 1/3 fiend With non-BSP damage: all shadowspawn, 2/3 undead, 2/3 aberration, 1/3 fiend With Flight: 1/3 undead, 1/3 aberration, 1/3 fiend Impose conditions: all shadowspawn, 2/3 undead
Warlock also gets armour, shield, and d8 hit die, Wizard can get armour and shield proficiency with their 1st level background feat. Wizard also gets Shield, Counterspell, Fireball, and a ton of other spells that are just better than anything Druid gets.
Ranged already took a hit natively by having fewer weapon mastery choices than melee (especially archery.)
Note that I'm not saying they should bring old Sharpshooter back - I'm saying the new one could get a more modest 1/round damage increase like GWM did. The UA2 Sharpshooter is just gutted. Note also that a 1/round damage boost would also make XBE weaker since the bonus action attack is far less likely to benefit.
Maybe but it should do a decent bit less damage than melee. I guess time will tell but I think its about in the right spot now.
One of my groups has started playing Pathfinder 2e where ranged does significantly less damage than melee, and basically... nobody plays a ranged weapon user. Either they play a melee-martial or they play a spellcaster. Ranged weapons simply don't have a niche, so there is no reason to use them, they don't do high damage like melee characters nor do they have the utility of spellcasters, so why would you build a character that uses them? - as an explicit example: Why would anyone play a range weapon using Ranger or Fighter rather than a Warlock? Ranger does 1d8+DEX+1d6(Hunter's Mark), Fighter does 1d8+DEX vs Warlock does 1d10+CH+1d6(Hex), but Warlock gets better spellcasting, and loads of Invocations, vs....???
And there is no reason to use melee in 5e.
Sure there is. Because the enemies will get into melee regardless of what you choose, and being in melee imposes DA on ranged attack rolls (except that XbowXpert negates that which is another reason I hate that feat).
One could easily make just a couple of tweaks to 5e to make both ranged & melee viable:
1) Eliminate the "being in melee doesn't impose DA on your attack rolls" from XbowXpert.
2) Make the "your friends provide cover to the enemy vs ranged attacks" much more prominent, and make the default that you can hit your allies with ranged weapon attacks if they are between you and the enemy rather than as an optional rule.
3) Given enemies better movement abilities - e.g. give all enemies a BA dash or a reaction/legendary action movement option.
4) Give ranged & melee the same expected DPR by modifying the Archery FS so it affects damage not chance to hit and / or power attack rules.
5) Make ranged have lower AC/HP than Melee.
This creates a dynamic dance of ranged trying to get out of melee and melees trying to get into melee, and gives enemies more reason to take that AoO to move past a melee martial to get to a ranged martial.
Ranged already took a hit natively by having fewer weapon mastery choices than melee (especially archery.)
Note that I'm not saying they should bring old Sharpshooter back - I'm saying the new one could get a more modest 1/round damage increase like GWM did. The UA2 Sharpshooter is just gutted. Note also that a 1/round damage boost would also make XBE weaker since the bonus action attack is far less likely to benefit.
Maybe but it should do a decent bit less damage than melee. I guess time will tell but I think its about in the right spot now.
One of my groups has started playing Pathfinder 2e where ranged does significantly less damage than melee, and basically... nobody plays a ranged weapon user. Either they play a melee-martial or they play a spellcaster. Ranged weapons simply don't have a niche, so there is no reason to use them, they don't do high damage like melee characters nor do they have the utility of spellcasters, so why would you build a character that uses them? - as an explicit example: Why would anyone play a range weapon using Ranger or Fighter rather than a Warlock? Ranger does 1d8+DEX+1d6(Hunter's Mark), Fighter does 1d8+DEX vs Warlock does 1d10+CH+1d6(Hex), but Warlock gets better spellcasting, and loads of Invocations, vs....???
And there is no reason to use melee in 5e.
Sure there is. Because the enemies will get into melee regardless of what you choose, and being in melee imposes DA on ranged attack rolls (except that XbowXpert negates that which is another reason I hate that feat).
The ability to remove all penalties to melee exists(and seems to remain in one) and it comes with additional perks depending on the feat used. Feats exist and if you are going ranged you will take the small number of feats that assist you there.
I'll note paladin is a reason to melee given how smite works. But that is pretty much it, while barbarians would want to melee barbarians aren't exactly a top choice anyways in 5e so its not like you are fully optimizing. Maybe they went to hard against ranged in pathfinder 2e, I don't know i am not part of that community nor do I play the game. But in 5e they gave ranged too many benefits with not enough flaws which made it the better choice over melee. Ranged could use some pulling back, or more accurately melee should get stronger and outpace the damage of ranged to account for loss of rounds of damage due to range, the increased damage melee will normally take etc. Ranged could even be buffed in a martial sense, but it should be smaller than the perks given to melee so melee catches up overall.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm in favor of the conjuring changes, those spells needed nerfs/reworks. But I disagree that those were what was special about them.
One of my groups has started playing Pathfinder 2e where ranged does significantly less damage than melee, and basically... nobody plays a ranged weapon user. Either they play a melee-martial or they play a spellcaster. Ranged weapons simply don't have a niche, so there is no reason to use them, they don't do high damage like melee characters nor do they have the utility of spellcasters, so why would you build a character that uses them? - as an explicit example: Why would anyone play a range weapon using Ranger or Fighter rather than a Warlock? Ranger does 1d8+DEX+1d6(Hunter's Mark), Fighter does 1d8+DEX vs Warlock does 1d10+CH+1d6(Hex), but Warlock gets better spellcasting, and loads of Invocations, vs....???
Then what is special about them? What about the UA druid makes it stand out above all the other classes?
Quite frankly, I feel that the ability to take a -PB penalty to attack to gain a 2×PB bonus to damage on any given attack once on each of your turns should just be baked into the mechanics of the game for everyone to use as a “called shot” or something.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
The entire rest of their spell list? Elemental Fury? Being the only caster in the game who can create an extra 8th-level spell slot?
And they're still great summoners even without the absolute mess that is Conjure Animals. Beasts, Fey, Elementals, Dragons...
I'm not saying they're perfect as-is; in addition to Moon Druid's ongoing issues I think Wild Resurgence could use some work too. And I'm hoping some of the spell list changes they had earlier in the playtest stick, like giving them Enlarge/Reduce, Silence, Revivify etc. But they're still one of the more powerful classes in the game even with the CA nerf.
The vast majority of their spell list is available to other casters and most of their class-specific spells pale in comparison to the spells they don't have access to. Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks all get better and more summoning options than Druid does.
Elemental Fury is a weaker version of the cleric's Divine Strike.
Ok 1 feature at 20th level that you can use 1/day is what makes them special to you? Something that will never be used in a majority of campaigns.
They are just a cleric with some leaves glued on them in the UA.
And there is no reason to use melee in 5e.
I don't mind if there is a core called shot mechanic. At the end of the day though ranged should do less damage than melee otherwise there is no reason to use melee.
Debatable, and they get worse healing. And armor/shields/HP. Classes have tradeoffs.
The three classes you listed don't get that either.
All the things I listed are what make them special to me. That's why I listed them.
they got rid of power attack because they said it was too easy to mitigate lower accuracy, and that feature was warping the game design. I agree
Given that martials are generally worse off than casters even if true in 5es(ones) bounded accuracy system I think its a good thing. Personally I'd prefer making martials more superhuman but tons of people want them super mundane so at least a damage boost they can easily tap into and benefit the most from would help.
Correct. Ranged DPR is safer, so it should do less damage to make up for it. Melee has to work harder and take more risks. Those should pay off.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Not really :
Druid Summoning Spells : Summon Beast, Summon Fey, Summon Elemental
Total: 3
With Ranged Attacks: 0
With non-BSP damage: 1/4 elemental, 0.33 of Fey's damage
With Flight: 1/4 elemental, 1/3 beast
Impose conditions: 1/3 Fey
Wizard Summoning Spells: Summon Fey, Summon Shadowspawn, Summon Undead, Summon Aberration, Summon Construct, Summon Elemental, Summon Fiend
Total: 7
With Ranged Attacks: 1/3 undead, 1/3 aberration, 1/3 fiend
With non-BSP damage: all shadowspawn, 2/3 undead, 2/3 aberration, 1/3 construct, 1/3 fiend
With Flight: 1/3 undead, 1/3 aberration, 1/3 fiend
Impose conditions: all shadowspawn, 2/3 undead, 1/3 construct
Sorcerer Summoning Spells: [OK I forgot they didn't give Sorcerer any of the summon spells.]
Warlock Summoning Spells: Summon Fey, Summon Shadowspawn, Summon Undead, Summon Aberration, Summon Fiend
Total: 5
With Ranged Attacks: 1/3 undead, 1/3 aberration, 1/3 fiend
With non-BSP damage: all shadowspawn, 2/3 undead, 2/3 aberration, 1/3 fiend
With Flight: 1/3 undead, 1/3 aberration, 1/3 fiend
Impose conditions: all shadowspawn, 2/3 undead
Warlock also gets armour, shield, and d8 hit die, Wizard can get armour and shield proficiency with their 1st level background feat. Wizard also gets Shield, Counterspell, Fireball, and a ton of other spells that are just better than anything Druid gets.
You forgot Draconic Spirit and ignored my other points.
Sure there is. Because the enemies will get into melee regardless of what you choose, and being in melee imposes DA on ranged attack rolls (except that XbowXpert negates that which is another reason I hate that feat).
One could easily make just a couple of tweaks to 5e to make both ranged & melee viable:
1) Eliminate the "being in melee doesn't impose DA on your attack rolls" from XbowXpert.
2) Make the "your friends provide cover to the enemy vs ranged attacks" much more prominent, and make the default that you can hit your allies with ranged weapon attacks if they are between you and the enemy rather than as an optional rule.
3) Given enemies better movement abilities - e.g. give all enemies a BA dash or a reaction/legendary action movement option.
4) Give ranged & melee the same expected DPR by modifying the Archery FS so it affects damage not chance to hit and / or power attack rules.
5) Make ranged have lower AC/HP than Melee.
This creates a dynamic dance of ranged trying to get out of melee and melees trying to get into melee, and gives enemies more reason to take that AoO to move past a melee martial to get to a ranged martial.
The ability to remove all penalties to melee exists(and seems to remain in one) and it comes with additional perks depending on the feat used. Feats exist and if you are going ranged you will take the small number of feats that assist you there.
I'll note paladin is a reason to melee given how smite works. But that is pretty much it, while barbarians would want to melee barbarians aren't exactly a top choice anyways in 5e so its not like you are fully optimizing. Maybe they went to hard against ranged in pathfinder 2e, I don't know i am not part of that community nor do I play the game. But in 5e they gave ranged too many benefits with not enough flaws which made it the better choice over melee. Ranged could use some pulling back, or more accurately melee should get stronger and outpace the damage of ranged to account for loss of rounds of damage due to range, the increased damage melee will normally take etc. Ranged could even be buffed in a martial sense, but it should be smaller than the perks given to melee so melee catches up overall.