this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
160 points (100.0% liked)

RPGMemes

250 readers
7 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

meanwhile in legally distinct dragon game: Hmm yes I will dip fighter for access to a lv 4 reaction strike on every single character i make.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also in legally distinct dragon game: Watch in amazement as I use my staff/dagger/rapier as a shield!

[–] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

Dont forget the dip in fighter in 5th that allows you to use action surge on a caster. So good its banned at the table I play at

[–] gerusz@ttrpg.network 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

TBF the only class that gets more than one extra attack is the fighter.

Now of course it would make sense to sum up the levels you have in classes that get multiattack, and if you have >=5, you get an extra attack. But since attack progression is far less regular than spell slot progression, getting something approaching regularity beyond that would be difficult.

Now if OneD&D wanted to boost martials and introduce some sort of a multiattack scaling across multiclassing, here is how that could work:

  1. Introduce features called Special Attack and Signature Attack. (Simply because just stacking extra attacks in a way that gives a bunch of half-casters extra attack at level 5-6 would give full martials a ridiculous number of attacks per turn at higher levels.) Special Attack is an attack that deals double weapon damage (which stacks with crits), but other extra damage sources like smites don't get doubled. Signature Attack is a Special Attack that can also force a save, either a STR save vs. being disarmed, a DEX save vs. being knocked prone, or a CON save vs. being dazed. You pick which one when you get the feature, and you can change it on level up.
  2. Introduce an attack progression table which details how many regular and special attacks you get per warrior level. (IDK if Lemmy's MD syntax allows tables in lists, so see the table below.)
  3. Like for spell slots, some classes (fighter, barbarian, monk) count as whole classes, others (paladin, ranger, artificer) count as half, and some caster subclasses (bladesinger, swords bard, hexblade, etc...) count as third.

The table:

Warrior Level Normal attack Special attack Signature Attack
0 1 - -
3 2 - -
6 1 1 -
9 2 1 -
12 1 1 1
15 2 1 1
18 1 2 1

So:

  • A level 12 single class fighter gets 1 normal, 1 special, and 1 signature attacks.
  • So does a fighter 6 / barbarian 6.
  • A level 12 paladin counts as a level 6 warrior so they get a normal and a special attack. (Also, in OneD&D the divine smite is a bonus action spell like every other smite, so the level 18 paladin can't go too nuclear with 3 smites per turn.)
  • A fighter 6 / paladin 6 counts as a level 9 warrior, 2 normal attacks and 1 special attack.

Of course this could be refined a bit further, e.g., instead of a generic "special attack" they could pick power attack (must be a strength-based attack), precise strike (must be a dexterity-based melee attack), or pinpoint shot (must be a dexterity-based ranged attack) and they could swap this one on level-ups too. But I think this should be a start.

[–] LoamImprovement 1 points 1 year ago

TBF the only class that gets more than one extra attack is the fighter.

That's true, but other martial classes either get or already have features that increase the base damage of their attacks somehow, usually by or around 11th level, in order to roughly keep damage parity (granted, it's a stretch in actual play, but it's possible to see the workings - Barbarian has rage damage/reckless attack/brutal critical, monk has martial arts/fob/damage die increase to d8, Rogue has sneak attack, ranger has Favored Foe, paladin has smites, etc.)

The problem is, extra attack does not stack with itself, so a 5/5 martial has at least one dead level if both classes get it. That's not true of a 5/5 in two full spellcaster classes (excluding pact magic,) who in addition to getting higher circle spell slots from both classes, have access to 3rd level spells from each of those classes.

It bothers me a little because this was solved in 3.0 with BAB - you added the maximum bonus from each class, and you would get a number of attacks according to the multiples of 5.

[–] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] kyle@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you elaborate? I really only have experience with 5e

[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Martial hybrids are fun and good in other systems. In D&D 3e, for example, its the complete opposite situation; martials can pick up cool tricks like dual wielding while progressing their accuracy and health, whereas casters lose a level of spell progression and gain a second track of spell progression thats about as strong as a lv 1 character

[–] Lazerbeams2@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 year ago

Tbf, in 3.5 casters learned the same spells at different levels so they weren't exactly compatible. Martial classes mostly relied on feat picks and BAB (for extra attacks) while their individual features weren't really shared by other classes

[–] Shkshkshk@dice.camp 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

@Golett03 hot take: cantrips ruined spellcasting. Spells should take spell slots unless they are a ritual or granted by a magic item. If I could go back in time and make cantrips not a thing, I would

[–] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Hot take: cantrips are fun and give new players exciting stuff to do and there's absolutely nothing even remotely fun at all about keeping track of how many casts you have.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think some very basic things, like prestidigitation, are fine. Basically magical effects that a child might do by accident but controlled through experience. Damaging spells? Probably not. Essentially, if it adds flavor to knowing how to manipulate magic, fine. If it grants power, it's probably not a good contrip.

[–] Shkshkshk@dice.camp 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Cethin pretty much every centripetal worth taking either deals damage, give combat advantages, or has a very useful effect like Light.

Essentially my hot take is that even Prestidigitation and Light should be a 1st level spell. Especially Light.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

Totally agree light and damage spells should be.

Prestidigitation like effects I think are probably actually good to just let every spell caster (or at least wizards and probably sorcerers and warlocks) have. Things that don't do anything critical, just give flavor that they understand how to control the weave. Just like a fighter probably has better control of their body and can do extra flourishes, a spellcaster can do minor flourishes of the weave. Prestidigitation might still be more powerful than what I have in mind even, but the idea is about right. Basically they're able to create sparks, budge things, create a tiny bit of wind, or other very minor effects without expending much energy. Nothing actually useful to do anything except to say they can do things.

[–] Brutticus@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I usually offer players with multiple instances of extra attack a +1 to their to hit, and Im considering offering +1 crit range as well. This is a real sticking point to me in 5e, the lack of viable build variety.

[–] SwiggitySwole@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Im considering offering +1 crit range as well.

Champion fighters in shambles right now

[–] Brutticus@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I mean, their +1 would stack. Crit range expansion was a big part of the game in 3.x. That game had you crit confirmation, and 5e makes it easy to get advantage, but I literally do not care.

Champion is also a badly designed class, it could have had maneuvers for a teensy bit of complexity, but they needed a "newb" subclass, paving the way for conceptually elemental subclasses with no mechanical complexity at all (note that the wizard didn't get hit with any of this).

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Not going to lie, I'm already taking notes. I like that in general, if you make the right choices, it's easy to make even wizards feel a lot less squishy, which would make me feel a lot more comfortable not pulling punches in my game. One of my favorite changes so far is the wild shape recharge on short rest for druids.

It's gotten me thinking about how to fix some other broken classes again, like making Ranger not fucking suck, and fixing the MADness of Barbarian. Fight me IRL, having the Barb's unarmored defense dependent on dex instead of strength is dumb as hell when the barbarian is clearly a STR/CON class, that would be like having the Monk's unarmored defense being dependent on Constitution. "So, what, Barbarians should just deflect attacks by flexing extra hard?" Yes.

[–] Crozekiel@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ummm... Barbarian Unarmored Defense is based off Con, not Dex. They just didn't take away the default Dex bonus to AC that every class in the game gets. They shrug off damage by having a high Con. Barbarians are pretty good as it is, if you let them completely dump Dex and give AC from Str, they would be broken AF... 18 AC at level 1 with a shield under point buy system, and immediate jump to 20 AC at level 4, with no reduction in damage output at all. Possible to be 20 AC at level 1 literally completely naked (no shield) with rolled stats, and 18 isn't even entirely unlikely...

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The reason that it's broken (in a bad way) as Dex+Con compared to the Monk's Dex+Wis unarmored defense is that monks absolutely CAN get broken as fuck AC from Dex + Wis, especially as the game goes on. Kinda on a related note, in BG3 I re-specified Astarion as a thief/monk, gave him a few mid-tier magic items, and now he's my front-line tank with an AC of 21 at level 7. No sane Barbarian PC is going dex barb, so realistically the barbarian's unarmored defense is going to cap out at AC 15-16 minus shield (which, come on, what barbarian won't be rocking two handed weapons?). So, while the Monk gets unarmored defense based on both of its chief stats, Barbarian gets unarmored defense based on just one of its chief stats.

Having a barbarian with a broken AC to start with doesn't bother me too much, but then I also tend to not run gritty/from dark style games, and that's also bearing in mind that the martial classes don't really scale as well as the casters do after level five. Giving the barbarian a ludicrous AC to aspire to at high levels might help balance that out.

[–] Crozekiel@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are talking about removing Dex bonus to AC, which every class gets, to make Barbarian able to completely dump 4 ability scores and not even need items (at least a fighter needs nearly 1k gold to get into heavy armor that will compete with this barbarian completely naked). Barbarian is not broken in a bad way currently compared to any other martial. A monk might keep up with AC, and maybe even damage output (but I'd argue being locked into monk weapons means they won't) but they'll have at best 60% of the HP a barbarian has (who is also taking half damage from non-magical sources a majority of the time) and still have to put points into 3 stats to stay relevant.

Also, BG3 is not a great source for comparison... I have a bard at level 5 with a 21 AC. The more "tanky" classes I have played were all around 23 AC at level 7. There are a lot of magic items in the game that stack AC and you are absolutely swimming in them by level 8. Every party I've played through by the end game it was 4 characters with 23-26 AC across the board. My wizard was 24 AC (25 if standing in low light) by level 10...

[–] Golett03@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're aware that barbs get resistance to bludgeoning, slashing and piercing irregardless of whether it's magical, right? And that extends further with the bear totem

[–] Crozekiel@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yea, I meant to refer specifically to spell damage but wasn't very clear. But that furthers my original point anyway.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

Monks still require to have Con to be viable.

While a Barb wouldn't require to have Dex in any way.

All classes are designed to have the need of at least 3 stats.

[–] Lazerbeams2@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didn't druid already get wildshape on a short rest? I do agree that barbarian Unarmored Defense is a bit lackluster though.

I get what they were thinking. Monk gets to add Wisdom because their awareness let's them dodge, so it should be roughly equivalent to let a barbarian add Constitution because their natural durability makes them harder to hurt. Dexterity being one of the main Ability Scores for monks throws this out the window though

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IIRC, Druid only gets two wild shapes per long rest, but it's possible I'm misremembering because my druid player basically forgot she could do that and it's been ages since I played one myself.

[–] Lazerbeams2@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Druids get two Wildshapes per short rest. Players just tend to not take short rests because they're not really incentivized. I know this because I read through the druid features more than my druid player did

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Ohhhhhhhhhhh, yeah, okay. Neither myself (when I play) nor my players take short rests. Death before short rests, for some reason.

[–] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

Just saying, the cantrip gets more powerful but you just get one. I would prefer smaller cantrips but more of them like eldritch blast. So more sword swing is decent